Gun magazines testing for accuracy. Larger round counts.
- Thread starter bricz75
- Start date
Good to have thick skin there DPris. Groups are groups. I was ready to stop today after my first group as it was as good as I have ever shot with the rifle. But I continued and things did go well, just not as good as that first group. Very strange as I had done a full bore cleaning earlier this week and this was the first time to fire afterwards. Usually it takes about 10 or 15 shots before things come together. Are the rifles you test typically factory fresh?
I wonder what gun magazine readers would say about ammo tests showing muzzle velocity spreads in low 2-digit numbers and standard deviations in low single-digit numbers. 99.99% of them would never see those numbers shooting the same ammo in anything. They're not aware that the writer putting those numbers in print tested the ammo in fixed or free recoiling rifles so the wide spread caused by humans holding the rifles wouldn't be seen.
Ever wonder why average muzzle velocity can vary as much as 100 fps across several people shooting the same stuff?
One of this forum's members, Metal God, did some tests and was quite surprised at the differences between free recoiling compared to hand-held shoulder-mounted rifles.
Ever wonder why average muzzle velocity can vary as much as 100 fps across several people shooting the same stuff?
One of this forum's members, Metal God, did some tests and was quite surprised at the differences between free recoiling compared to hand-held shoulder-mounted rifles.
Bart,
Again, you're just riding this whole thing right down to the point of driving it over the cliff.
You view it from the competition angle, where you know from the git-go you're going to lose money in pursuing your data, for your own specialized angle.
Gunwriters approach a product from a totally different perspective.
I keep saying the gunmags are a BUSINESS.
They exist to make money.
We write to pay bills.
With the exception of a few who pursue writing as a hobby, the rest of us derive some or part of our incomes from writing.
There HAS to be a profit to continue.
Putting the time & resources you keep on demanding simply kills that profit.
Your competition exists to satisfy your own desires, and when you want a piece of equipment to do that, you're willing to blow large chunks of money in getting there.
The gunmag articles are introductions, overviews, and "Here's what it did for me & what I thought about it."
They are starting points, not ending points.
They show a gun, its features, what it did in necessarily limited testing.
That's all so a reader who may not have access to a given model directly can see what the gun is & what it has, without tracking one down to handle it himself.
Of course there are variables that affect ANY gun's performance.
There are DOZENS of variables, which include everything from tolerance variations between individual guns, all sorts of ammo variables (internal SDs, external elevation, humidity, air density, external temperatures, wind, clouds, sun), all sorts of shooting variables (shooter stance, bench, rest, freestanding, prone, lead sled, sandbag), all sorts of sight & scope variables, and a wide variety of shooter variables (skill levels, experience, vision acuity, age), and so on.
All that's on top of a statistically inadequate sampling of ONE, with the test gun reviewed.
To do a genuine detailed test and reach a statistically valid conclusion on accuracy would take time & money that'd be a major investment in both, which could be satisfying to a target shooter on his own gun, in pursuing that last decimal point of truly repeatable accuracy applicable to his own niche uses in competition under repeatable conditions at the same distances & shooting at the same targets in the same manner time after time after time.
And then- that entire process would ONLY apply to that gun, which may or may not transfer to any other "identical" gun, in your hands, or anybody else's.
As any statistician knows, the larger the sampling, the more reliable the numbers & the better the extrapolations that can be made by them.
To be able to make a truly supportable "This gun is a half-inch shooter" conclusion relative to the entire model line on any gun, you'd need an intensive testing program involving at least a hundred off-the-rack samples, fired with thousands of rounds of ammunition under varying shooting conditions by dozens of people of all ages, vision capabilities, experience levels, and shooting abilities.
So, as I say again- what?
Your point is pointless.
The write-up, laid out one more time for you, is a story about what ONE gun did with THOSE loads on THAT day in the hands of ONE writer, and what he thought about the whole thing.
A starting point, regard it as Alpha, not Omega, in your quest for info on the gun.
Or, more simply, a conversation about a gun with a buddy, but in much more detail.
You want more, you're asking for more than the mainstream publishing system can provide, and you just need to get that "more" on your own.
We can say "Here's the gun, here's what the gun has, here's what the gun did for us at a standard yardage with four or five loads under standardized shooting conditions (bench, 100 yards, sandbag, etc.), and here's what we think about it from whatever our own experience & qualifications enable us to judge it by."
The rest is up to you.
We can't do it all for you.
Denis
Again, you're just riding this whole thing right down to the point of driving it over the cliff.
You view it from the competition angle, where you know from the git-go you're going to lose money in pursuing your data, for your own specialized angle.
Gunwriters approach a product from a totally different perspective.
I keep saying the gunmags are a BUSINESS.
They exist to make money.
We write to pay bills.
With the exception of a few who pursue writing as a hobby, the rest of us derive some or part of our incomes from writing.
There HAS to be a profit to continue.
Putting the time & resources you keep on demanding simply kills that profit.
Your competition exists to satisfy your own desires, and when you want a piece of equipment to do that, you're willing to blow large chunks of money in getting there.
The gunmag articles are introductions, overviews, and "Here's what it did for me & what I thought about it."
They are starting points, not ending points.
They show a gun, its features, what it did in necessarily limited testing.
That's all so a reader who may not have access to a given model directly can see what the gun is & what it has, without tracking one down to handle it himself.
Of course there are variables that affect ANY gun's performance.
There are DOZENS of variables, which include everything from tolerance variations between individual guns, all sorts of ammo variables (internal SDs, external elevation, humidity, air density, external temperatures, wind, clouds, sun), all sorts of shooting variables (shooter stance, bench, rest, freestanding, prone, lead sled, sandbag), all sorts of sight & scope variables, and a wide variety of shooter variables (skill levels, experience, vision acuity, age), and so on.
All that's on top of a statistically inadequate sampling of ONE, with the test gun reviewed.
To do a genuine detailed test and reach a statistically valid conclusion on accuracy would take time & money that'd be a major investment in both, which could be satisfying to a target shooter on his own gun, in pursuing that last decimal point of truly repeatable accuracy applicable to his own niche uses in competition under repeatable conditions at the same distances & shooting at the same targets in the same manner time after time after time.
And then- that entire process would ONLY apply to that gun, which may or may not transfer to any other "identical" gun, in your hands, or anybody else's.
As any statistician knows, the larger the sampling, the more reliable the numbers & the better the extrapolations that can be made by them.
To be able to make a truly supportable "This gun is a half-inch shooter" conclusion relative to the entire model line on any gun, you'd need an intensive testing program involving at least a hundred off-the-rack samples, fired with thousands of rounds of ammunition under varying shooting conditions by dozens of people of all ages, vision capabilities, experience levels, and shooting abilities.
So, as I say again- what?
Your point is pointless.
The write-up, laid out one more time for you, is a story about what ONE gun did with THOSE loads on THAT day in the hands of ONE writer, and what he thought about the whole thing.
A starting point, regard it as Alpha, not Omega, in your quest for info on the gun.
Or, more simply, a conversation about a gun with a buddy, but in much more detail.
You want more, you're asking for more than the mainstream publishing system can provide, and you just need to get that "more" on your own.
We can say "Here's the gun, here's what the gun has, here's what the gun did for us at a standard yardage with four or five loads under standardized shooting conditions (bench, 100 yards, sandbag, etc.), and here's what we think about it from whatever our own experience & qualifications enable us to judge it by."
The rest is up to you.
We can't do it all for you.
Denis
Mosin-Marauder
New member
This thread confuses me.
Did you get my PM Denis?
Did you get my PM Denis?
reynolds357
New member
Bart, I have to agree. I am a very good shooter shooting free recoiling bench rest rifles. To be perfectly honest, I sometimes embarrass myself when shooting a rifle in a traditional manner. The human error factor is amazing. One of the guys I shoot with switched from .284 Winchester to 7 WSM when he rebarreled his bench gun. His groups went to crud. He was just fussing about teh 7 WSM. I told him "John, its not the rifle. It is you. You shot the .284 free recoiling and you are holding the 7 WSM." After thinking about it a few minutes he said "You are right, I tried to shoot the WSM free recoil, but it was beating the .... out of me."
Denis, I haven't spent a lot of money on shooting stuff. Used, cheap scopes and metallic sights, wood stocks, old commercial actions with minor truing up (except one new 4-lug one to use with arsenal ammo; they shoot more accurate with such things). Used standard full length dies bought at gun shows then lapped their necks out a bit, no case prep tools except a case trimmer and some cheap but accurate gauges. Tried turning case necks to uniform them but it didn't help my cases shoot straighter.
I don't work up loads for existing bullets for existing cartridges as it's a waste of my time and money for the most part; used the same recipie as the match winners and record setters do. Barrels; I buy the best as that's the part that counts more than any other in the system. It all shoots just as accurate as those spending 5 to 6 times as much as I have layed out. I don't think I've lost any money at all.
I don't work up loads for existing bullets for existing cartridges as it's a waste of my time and money for the most part; used the same recipie as the match winners and record setters do. Barrels; I buy the best as that's the part that counts more than any other in the system. It all shoots just as accurate as those spending 5 to 6 times as much as I have layed out. I don't think I've lost any money at all.
Mosin-Marauder
New member
"Wise is the teacher who repeats the lesson for those who refuse to learn."
How exactly is this Denis' fault? He's just answering Bart's question which has been asked more times than answered.
603Country
New member
I think DPris stated things extremely well in post #85. If there's still a point or opinion that hasn't yet been stated, I don't know what it might be. If some among us aren't happy with 3 shot groups, so be it. If you need to shoot 10 shot groups, that's fine with us 3 and 5 shot guys. And if any of you can shoot 10 rounds into half an inch, I will truly be impressed. If I can do it with 3 or 5 shots, I'll impress me, and I might feel the need to brag about it. And if you do it too, go on and brag. I won't say "well, ya know, statistically, blah blah...".
reynolds357
New member
603, when you go buy a "sub minute" rifle that the gun writers rave about, get it home and its accuracy is disappointing, then remember the dis-service the gun writers did you by raving about the statistically irrelevant test groups.
603Country
New member
Reynolds, you just can't let this go, can you? I can't speak for all, but I haven't yet bought a rifle that wasn't MOA or better, even the most recent bone-stock Ruger Hawkeye. Well...the old Marlin 336T was worse than MOA, but Dad bought it for me. And the BAR I had in 270, back in the 70's, was right around an inch in grouping, but probably wasn't MOA or better except every now and then. But it was a great rifle. Just kinda heavy. Sold it to my weight lifter brother. He didn't think it was heavy.
If I want another rifle, which at this time I don't, I'll do some research to see what'll fit my needs. Seems like in the gun mags I buy, mostly it's 5 shot groups. It is my standard assumption, right or wrong, that I can wring more accuracy out of the rifle than the gun writer did. I've got time and persistence. So if he gets 1 inch groups, I expect that I can get better. If I really like the rifle, but it just won't shoot like I want, I'll either sell it or have it tweaked by a smith. If I like it, it WILL eventually be subMOA.
The gun writers do the best they can with limited time. I understand that, and I'm wondering why you don't understand that too. I like shooting, but if it became a job, I'd like it less. Therefore, I'll cut those guys some slack and not hold them to some unreal standard of testing. I enjoy the articles. Read every one I can find.
Just today I was reading an article about a Cooper single shot bolt action. Heavy barrel. Synthetic stock. The gun writer had it shooting 1/4 inch groups (some of them anyway). I have to believe that's a darn fine rifle. Looked great too. Something like that might interest me. Actually, my most recent rifle isn't the Ruger. It's a Tikka. I heard good things about it and decided I wanted it in 260. Well, I couldn't find one in 260 and in stainless. Finally I had one in 308 bought and had the barrel swapped out for a Brux #4. It really shoots. Oh, man. And I didn't need a gun writer telling me what it would do. I'd have read the article, and enjoyed getting the info, but I wanted that rifle.
Now I'll tell you what I'm not going to buy. I don't like the look of Savage actions, so that won't happen. Great shooters I hear, but kinda ugly. I won't buy a Remington 700 of any type. I just don't want one. Had one for years. Sold it and upgraded to a Sako. Had it tweaked. Shoots great.
So just let the gun writers test the rifles and you read the articles and take from them what you want. No point in ragging on DPris or me. What's that gain ya?
If I want another rifle, which at this time I don't, I'll do some research to see what'll fit my needs. Seems like in the gun mags I buy, mostly it's 5 shot groups. It is my standard assumption, right or wrong, that I can wring more accuracy out of the rifle than the gun writer did. I've got time and persistence. So if he gets 1 inch groups, I expect that I can get better. If I really like the rifle, but it just won't shoot like I want, I'll either sell it or have it tweaked by a smith. If I like it, it WILL eventually be subMOA.
The gun writers do the best they can with limited time. I understand that, and I'm wondering why you don't understand that too. I like shooting, but if it became a job, I'd like it less. Therefore, I'll cut those guys some slack and not hold them to some unreal standard of testing. I enjoy the articles. Read every one I can find.
Just today I was reading an article about a Cooper single shot bolt action. Heavy barrel. Synthetic stock. The gun writer had it shooting 1/4 inch groups (some of them anyway). I have to believe that's a darn fine rifle. Looked great too. Something like that might interest me. Actually, my most recent rifle isn't the Ruger. It's a Tikka. I heard good things about it and decided I wanted it in 260. Well, I couldn't find one in 260 and in stainless. Finally I had one in 308 bought and had the barrel swapped out for a Brux #4. It really shoots. Oh, man. And I didn't need a gun writer telling me what it would do. I'd have read the article, and enjoyed getting the info, but I wanted that rifle.
Now I'll tell you what I'm not going to buy. I don't like the look of Savage actions, so that won't happen. Great shooters I hear, but kinda ugly. I won't buy a Remington 700 of any type. I just don't want one. Had one for years. Sold it and upgraded to a Sako. Had it tweaked. Shoots great.
So just let the gun writers test the rifles and you read the articles and take from them what you want. No point in ragging on DPris or me. What's that gain ya?
reynolds357
New member
I am not ragging on anyone. I am addressing the orig. question in the thread. Gun writers do not thoroughly test the equipment because making the manufacturers equipment look bad will not sell add space. It also will not get the writers invited on expensive hunting trips. To read some of the writers of the day, it would seem you could take a $300 rifle to a bench rest match and win.
OK, back for one final parting shot here.
Reynolds, you're flat dead wrong.
You make idiotic sweeping generalizations based more on what you want to believe than on the truth.
Easy to sit outside the room & make up stories about what goes on inside the room, and obviously making up stories is more fun than listening to the mundane facts from somebody who actually does sit inside that room.
I've been polite so far, but you don't have a clue, bud.
Last word's yours, enjoy yourself.
Denis
Reynolds, you're flat dead wrong.
You make idiotic sweeping generalizations based more on what you want to believe than on the truth.
Easy to sit outside the room & make up stories about what goes on inside the room, and obviously making up stories is more fun than listening to the mundane facts from somebody who actually does sit inside that room.
I've been polite so far, but you don't have a clue, bud.
Last word's yours, enjoy yourself.
Denis
Denis, while I understand what you are saying, the above perception is what many readers think. Sometimes perception is stronger than actual facts, but Presidents are elected on perception and that proves how wrong we are, often.
The issue is that I have never seen a BAD review on any gun or powder or piece of equipment in ANY of the gun magazines. It is statistically impossible for every one of them to be perfect. When a problem is sent to you, I am sure the mfg is notified and given the opportunity to replace it with a factory tested one that they know will be above their standard sales models.
So, I know it is your lively hood to provide a review, but we can not accept that it is totally unbiased. And from all appearances it is NOT unbiased.
And that is our perception.
Jim
Last edited: