Thread: 3 shot groups are useless!

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

Two and half squares height difference....something else changed,range,position,wind,calmness,amount of sparrows farting next paddock over.

Nope the variation in mean point of impact is also normal. Go collect some data and look at it.

I'm 53... Been " collecting data" from shooting for 46 years.... I've never seen a change that drastic between two sequential groups with everything the same. I mean let's be honest...the six shots shown are not even in same part of target. If I'm looking at it correctly the dark ring is 10cm ?? Across..... So your saying your rifle cannot,will not shoot better than 10cm group/4" and then in same breath it "sometimes" will poke three in early clover leaf group.same rifle,scope ammunition and shooter....just randomly..... If so the world is coming to an end as the opposite MUST also apply. If that clover leaf can be randomly turned to 4" best no one shoot out past 150 yards anymore....

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

I'm 53... Been " collecting data" from shooting for 46 years.... I've never seen a change that drastic between two sequential groups with everything the same. I mean let's be honest...the six shots shown are not even in same part of target. If I'm looking at it correctly the dark ring is 10cm ?? Across..... So your saying your rifle cannot,will not shoot better than 10cm group/4" and then in same breath it "sometimes" will poke three in early clover leaf group.same rifle,scope ammunition and shooter....just randomly..... If so the world is coming to an end as the opposite MUST also apply. If that clover leaf can be randomly turned to 4" best no one shoot out past 150 yards anymore....

https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....3/#post1656779

The methods and data supporting the conclusions I've posted on this subject have at every stage been shared transparently. The results are testable and repeatable. If you disagree with the results, please go test yourself and post as transparently as I have.

Individual results may vary lol

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

I'm 53... Been " collecting data" from shooting for 46 years.... I've never seen a change that drastic between two sequential groups with everything the same. I mean let's be honest...the six shots shown are not even in same part of target. If I'm looking at it correctly the dark ring is 10cm ?? Across..... So your saying your rifle cannot,will not shoot better than 10cm group/4" and then in same breath it "sometimes" will poke three in early clover leaf group.same rifle,scope ammunition and shooter....just randomly..... If so the world is coming to an end as the opposite MUST also apply. If that clover leaf can be randomly turned to 4" best no one shoot out past 150 yards anymore....

MD it’s completely random. Most people if they started out with a 4” 3 shot group would probably just stop there and change something, so they’d never see the other random dispersion that happens.
Some people need to go and try shoot a large group themselves if they don’t believe it. As many have said, it doesn’t even matter to me, I don’t shoot that far anyway, yet still continue to engage in the convo and deny the data.

Originally Posted by gimp

The methods and data supporting the conclusions I've posted on this subject have at every stage been shared transparently. The results are testable and repeatable. If you disagree with the results, please go test yourself and post as transparently as I have.

You must have a flat section on your forehead from banging it against the wall at this rate . I honestly thought, with your in-depth coverage of the topic, that this was settled: 3-shot groups are statistically not a large enough sample size to measure the accuracy of a rifle!

I get it 3 shots not enough to gauge accuracy but for the new shooters can you at least agree that 3 shots is fine to simply check a zero before a hunting trip

Originally Posted by gimp

@Tentman I think, unfortunately, the thread title is a bit counterproductive, and everyone is just reading it and jumping in to respond with their thoughts to the title.


The nuanced significance of the unreliability of conclusions drawn from 3 shot groups can be found in post 19 here https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....cision-103608/

I dunno. I now have a long list of forumites I would never, ever buy a supposedly accurate rifle off, because they have proved comphensively that they are incapable of testing properly and/or understanding what their groups are telling them.

One thing I know for sure, this same group will be very unreliable marksmen past about 300M.

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

I get it 3 shots not enough to gauge accuracy but for the new shooters can you at least agree that 3 shots is fine to simply check a zero before a hunting trip

To check my zero hasn't drifted sure, but I wouldn't adjust my scope off just 3 shots.

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

I get it 3 shots not enough to gauge accuracy but for the new shooters can you at least agree that 3 shots is fine to simply check a zero before a hunting trip

If you read every substantial thread or post I've started on the topic, I've clearly provided caveats about requirements and applicability of concepts to hunting at conventional ranges.

A good hunter gets as close as possible because that’s where the fun is.
Shooters need a perfectly precise rifle to reach and be at bullseye.
I’ve taken over 1000 hunters in to the field, made them 3 shot group, its off or its on.
I would adjust sights to suit if needed and get them to 3shot group again until satisfied.
It would generally tell me if he’s good to 300m.
A hand full of times I fired a 3shot group with there gun because of loose groups and it was there shooting being the problem.
Otherwise no problems, thousands of animals shot.
Very different styles of hunter out there, the average isn’t burning a box of ammo to check there weapon.
If you want to hit a gong at a km yes 3 shot groups are useless…
My 2c, good chat!

I thank you for all your efforts Gimp many on here will have gained huge insight from it but sorry it goes way over my head - I would need to sit down and study and study to even come close to understanding it - I know my limitations - I dont shoot past 300 yards at deer - but I generally dont miss and 90 percent of the deer I shoot are in the 25-150 yard range - my old 788 does not shift zero so I am happy just with a simple check every now and then - I am more interested where that first dry shot goes - because thats the one normally heading toward my meat - if I was back target shooting then things would change

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

I thank you for all your efforts Gimp many on here will have gained huge insight from it but sorry it goes way over my head - I would need to sit down and study and study to even come close to understanding it - I know my limitations - I dont shoot past 300 yards at deer - but I generally dont miss and 90 percent of the deer I shoot are in the 25-150 yard range - my old 788 does not shift zero so I am happy just with a simple check every now and then - I am more interested where that first dry shot goes - because thats the one normally heading toward my meat - if I was back target shooting then things would change

The camp definitely seems 50/50 on 3 shots being useless or not.
Ive certainly learnt something from Gimps and Tentmans posts
Life's to short for internet pissing matches on 10 shots vs 20 vs 3 but its made some interesting reading in amongst some bits that might put ya to sleep

Sent from my SM-S936B using Tapatalk

So the one thing in all of this is?. What exactly are you trying to prove ?. Is it "How well the rifle shoots?" or "How well the rifle shoots?". And why does it take 10 rounds to do that?, there has ben no evidence except for "I say" , where are the calculations and mathmatical formulars to back it all up?.