Gun magazines testing for accuracy. Larger round counts.

I print the best group with each load from that session.

There are several ways you can lay out accuracy results, and this again is a part of the imperfect nature of the system.

What I get as a best group with each load reflects ONLY what I was able to pull off with that load in that gun in my hands with my eyes, my shooting conditions, and my skills (or lack there-of :) ).

It does not in any way mean an identical gun will do exactly the same thing for anybody else, with those or any other loads, in their hands & their shooting conditions.

I've been able to stick to "best group" results in print so far.
I personally think they're a better indicator than averaging out, or tossing out the farthest hole, and so on, as some do.

I think averages can be misleading.
Denis
 
And apparently my memory can be misleading also. I went and shot the 40 gr BT and the 64 gr BSB alternately, and I didn't stop at a total of 2 shots. The 64 grainer shot about 1/2 inch above the 40 grainer, and my notes (when I checked) said exactly that. So my memory is faulty, but there is an interesting data point here that I'll share. If you had tested my loads in my rifle, and if you shot them just like I just did, you'd be inclined to say that the 40 grainers shot a nice 3/4 inch group and right on the target dot. If you had shot the 64 grainer, you'd be inclined to say that they shot into the same darn hole (slightly elongated horizontally). So is the rifle a 3/4 inch gun or a 1/8 inch shooter (center to center)? Well, it's neither I suppose. But that 64 grainer sure did shoot good with that one hole, which wasn't even a ragged looking hole, about 1/2 inch above the point of aim. Man...all I need now is a pig for testing purposes.

The rifle used is a Ruger Hawkeye with a 6-18 Leupold VX2. Stainless with the synthetic stock. Only rifle I have that I hunt with that has not been at all tweaked by a gunsmith, though it does have a Timney trigger that I put in it.
 
Publishing only the smallest hunting rifle or ammo group shot is akin to only publishing the smallest benchrest match groups. Rarely, if ever, are they equalled or bettered. And all the rest are (much, much) larger. Qualifies as another example of misleading advertising.
 
No, it shows the BEST that gun did.
It is, in no sense of the term, false advertising.

You think only showing the WORST group a gun did would appeal to readers?

If I'm having a bad day & throw the occasional flyer till I & the gun settle in, that flyer skews the averages in the wrong direction & it may or may not be the gun's fault.

That's why I shoot three groups each load & show the best one.
Not rare to have something like 2 inches with two of those & maybe 1 inch with the third.

That best group doesn't mean the gun or shooter can or will shoot that tight all day long, it merely shows THAT sample & THAT shooter was capable of three shots into an inch with THAT load on THAT occasion, when everything came together just right.

Nothing misleading at all.
Denis
 
Well then, shoot a hundred 3-shot groups and publish the one with all shots overlapping; a sub-caliber group. It also shows what can be done.

If everything comes together just right, all the variables will cancel each other out and the group will be a single hole measuring zero MOA.

This whole issue reeks of EPA fuel economy stuff that few, if any, vehicle owners got. The EPA even messed up stating "fuel economy" without a monetary unit in the expression. Fuel economy is distance per monetary unit or monetary units per distance unit. Miles per gallon is fuel efficiency.
 
Last edited:
Bart, as I've repeatedly said- a gunmag review is no in-depth scientific lab analysis written up for supremely technical journals.

It's an introduction & an overview.

No time, no money for what far too many of you seem to want.

I read gunmags for many years before I ever wrote a word for one.
Still do.

I find seeing the best a gun could do in a review was far more useful & far more interesting than seeing a compilation of averages.

Show me the best a given product is capable of, and I can plug that into my own decision-making process far better than its "average" performance.

Any reader with "average" ( :) ) intelligence should be capable of understanding a gun review is just a look at features, impressions, and limited performance evaluations.

It is designed to tell you about the gun, not to conduct in-depth lab work that'd raise the subsequent cost of the mag it ran in far above what the mass market would be willing to spend.

It is what it is.
I've answered the original question & discussed other issues.

As I say every time the gunmag bashing comes up- If it ain't good enough for you & you feel you get NOTHING useful for your money, DON'T buy the mags.

Otherwise, take what you can get from them, buy the gun, buy your own lab equipment, live with the gun, sleep with the gun, take it to Africa, take it to Siberia, take it to Camp Perry, spend thousands on ammunition, shoot it till your shoulder drops off, run it with 30 different scopes, and then YOU write it all up for US.
Denis
 
Well then, shoot a hundred 3-shot groups and publish the one with all shots overlapping; a sub-caliber group. It also shows what can be done.
Click to expand...
You supply the ammo and I'll be happy to shoot lots of groups, although you keep trying to make unrealistic points that have nothing to do with the actual topic
 
Bart, who is undoubtedly a very knowledgable fellow, is just hung up on that 10 shot group thing. Do I really think that I could put another 6 shots into that tiny little group I shot with the 64 gr BSB? No. But 3 is a good number into one hole, and I'm quite happy about it. What do I know from this? Well...I suspect that this is a good load and should work just fine on pigs. I didn't say that this is 'an eighth inch shooter'. I wish it was.
 
DPris, I have a .45-70 that will consistently shoot 4" 10 shot groups at 100 yards. One time, I shot a 5/8", 3 shot 100 yard group. If you were writing it up, would it be a 4 minute or a 5/8 minute rifle?
 
If I was writing it up...it would be written up as whatever it shot for me...based on a few 3 shoot groups...same as everybody else.

Dpris,
You're living up to that "hide of a rhinoceros" that is often quoted as being a job requirement for a gun writer...nicely done.
 
I put the results I get out there, any reader can call the gun in question anything he or she wants. :)

I don't refer to anything as any form of minute-of-angle gun.

Thanks Mo,
If I had the time, I'd write that book. :)
Denis
 
I put the results I get out there, any reader can call the gun in question anything he or she wants.

I don't refer to anything as any form of minute-of-angle gun.

Thanks Mo,
If I had the time, I'd write that book.
Denis
Click to expand...
I would definitely read it! :)

You write gun articles? Where can I find these?
 
Rey,
I'm not a gun manufacturer.

Mo,
Here & there.

Bric,
How did you do that? :)
Zero rounds, actually.
I arrived at my gunsmith to pick it up, checked it over, noted the loose lockup, got a second opinion from my gunsmith after running a rod, gun came home with me & was returned unfired after arrangements were made for shipping.

I will emphasize LOUDLY here that this was the first Taurus handgun I have ever had a problem with, so do NOT take it as me condemning the brand.

Denis
 
At least you are not biased. A person I have shot with on occasion is a writer. He is regularly publicized in several big magazines. He had a rifle mechanically fail and do him significant bodily harm. He still gave it a rave review and did not mention the failure or the major injury in his article. At that point, I pretty much quit reading the magazines because it became obvious to me that many, maybe not all, but many writers are bought and paid for by the manufacturers.
I guess the expenses paid safari he got to test the replacement changed his mind about the rifle.
 
Two important words there- "not all".

I don't need the money bad enough to lie to you about a gun.
If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. End of article.

I like to believe most of us run a clean game.

And in my case, I turn down paid-for hunting trips.
I don't travel well. :)
Denis
 
I am indeed glad you are honest. I was not questioning your integrity. I believe gun writing business is about like used car sales business. There are some good ones in both professions, but they get eclipsed by the ones who are monetarily influenced. I agree with Bart, 3 shot groups are not really a good indication of accuracy. The industry today is heralding a sub moa 3 shot group to be a tack driver. The writers as a whole seem to have fallen into the hype and agreed with them. I would like to see writers shooting 20 shot groups from the "sub moa" rifles and posting those results in the magazines along side the paid ads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top