Thread: 3 shot groups are useless!

While I dont agree with the thread title, And Im not pushing my rifles capabilities too where it becomes important, I can see that no one has been able to prove the underlying information wrong. And I can see that it might become very important if you intend to shoot animals at longer ranges where this and other error factors could be the difference in a dead, or missed /wounded animal.

Originally Posted by Tankd

I have to ask the realy stupid question . How is it anyone believes any of this , and yet at no time has anyone actualy provided any evidence as to how this is relavant ? and not just total and utter bulshit???????????????????

You're welcome to stupid questions, but no one can really help if you have comprehension issues, this is afterall a forum based on reading!

Following @RHG s excellent post . . . . If you want to truly understand the precision of your rifle, and you want to shoot at extended ranges (past about 280M) then there are better tools than a 3 shot group

18 years ago I brought a factory 7mmrum that promised half MOA or better accuracy. Came with a 3 shot test target which was impressive. Another member who is still here did some load development and we sighted her in. Ask him. He’ll verify this. That rifle took a
Lot of deer between 350 and 900 yds and a couple a little further. That same rifle got taken to a forum long range shoot in Canterbury around 2010. It repeatedly hit the steel 1000 yd gong one shot after another until I was sick of wasting ammo. I don’t disagree with others opinions in this thread. I think I mostly get my head around where you’re coming from. For me 3 shot groups are great.

The attached pic is my 7mm08 after load development and sighting in. First 3 shot group on the left. Second group after moving a few clicks right. You can see my scribble on the target. 3 right and 5 up. That’s what I did and we have since shot 9 deer with that rifle and load from 50yds to 470yds. One shot kills.
For me I just couldn’t be bothered with the over analysis and head scratching. I like to keep it simple. Here is the kicker — IM NOT A GREAT SHOT and I know it. I don’t like recoil.
Good gear , Good load development and Proper Preparation Prevent Piss Poor Performance.

I suspect, @whanahuia, a thread title maybe aimed at challenging people's thinking has proven somewhat provocative and perceived as a threat by some? Who would know. A challenge to one's thinking I contend, however, is never a bad thing if taken objectively and dispassionately.

Where I land on the "bullshit" calls perspective is that what has been promoted by the "ayes" on this thread is founded on the fundamentals / principles of statistics which have underpinned scientific research across multiple disciplines of human endeavour since the late 19th century. This holds great weight for me.

For others, (it seems clear from some of the comments) not so, with a preference shown to forming conclusions based upon long term personal experience and practice. This is undeniably valid to those individuals and has proven to adequately meet their needs.

I respect this approach and their views.

R

@RHG I think the thread title is provocative. I’m
Sure what works for some will
Not work for others and vice versa. As greendog would’ve said there’s more than one way to skin a cat

@Nathan F Precisely! Well said, sir

Originally Posted by RHG

I suspect, @whanahuia, a thread title maybe aimed at challenging people's thinking has proven somewhat provocative and perceived as a threat by some? Who would know. A challenge to one's thinking I contend, however, is never a bad thing if taken objectively and dispassionately.

Where I land on the "bullshit" calls perspective is that what has been promoted by the "ayes" on this thread is founded on the fundamentals / principles of statistics which have underpinned scientific research across multiple disciplines of human endeavour since the late 19th century. This holds great weight for me.

For others, (it seems clear from some of the comments) not so, with a preference shown to forming conclusions based upon long term personal experience and practice. This is undeniably valid to those individuals and has proven to adequately meet their needs.

I respect this approach and their views.

R

Put 3 shots in a match box at a 100yds.Go hunting inside 250yds.
Good luck.

Originally Posted by Nathan F

@RHG I think the thread title is provocative. I’m
Sure what works for some will
Not work for others and vice versa. As greendog would’ve said there’s more than one way to skin a cat

But can you hit the cat with a 3 shot group?

Originally Posted by RHG

I suspect, @whanahuia, a thread title maybe aimed at challenging people's thinking has proven somewhat provocative and perceived as a threat by some? Who would know. A challenge to one's thinking I contend, however, is never a bad thing if taken objectively and dispassionately.

Where I land on the "bullshit" calls perspective is that what has been promoted by the "ayes" on this thread is founded on the fundamentals / principles of statistics which have underpinned scientific research across multiple disciplines of human endeavour since the late 19th century. This holds great weight for me.

For others, (it seems clear from some of the comments) not so, with a preference shown to forming conclusions based upon long term personal experience and practice. This is undeniably valid to those individuals and has proven to adequately meet their needs.

I respect this approach and their views.

R

Yes, it's not very scientific to state 3 shots are useless, without stating what parameters they are useless for. But hey thats been the enjoyable part of this discussion, Establishing some degree of guideline for when 3 shots are indeed, not useless; and for when they are.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Yes, it's not very scientific to state 3 shots are useless, without stating what parameters they are useless for. But hey thats been the enjoyable part of this discussion, Establishing some degree of guideline for when 3 shots are indeed, not useless; and for when they are.

Agreed, maybe the point is that we all now know (or most of us anyway) that three shot groups are less that precise (is that the correct term?) than is possible if we are willing to gather a larger sample. It's up to the individual to decide if it's worth the time and expense...but surely its better to know than to operate in the dark?

rather than understanding statistics I used AI...question being "if a rifle shoots a 1.5 moa 20 shot group at 100 yards what are the odds the first three shots will be within moa".

"Given the underlying precision, it is a near certainty that the first three shots will land within a 1 MOA group.
Answer:
The odds of the first three shots being within 1 MOA are extremely high, approaching 100%. The average 3-shot group size for a rifle that consistently shoots 1.5 MOA for 20 shots is expected to be approximately 0.8-0.9 MOA."

Who needs to be smart?

To achieve a reliable zero for long-range work, larger sample sizes are required to identify the "true" center of your system's cone of fire:
10 Shots: Offers a significantly more stable and representative point of impact than 3 or 5 shots.
20+ Shots: Considered the industry standard for establishing a truly consistent, reliable point of impact for precision shooting.
Practical Compromise: If ammo cost or barrel heat is a concern, you can shoot multiple 3-shot groups at the same point of aim and use the composite center of all shots to make your final adjustment.

Il fire my 2nd 5shot group in March 26 a year after I fired the 1st 5 shot group at the same target as I used in March 25.It will be a interesting result to find.

Originally Posted by Trout

Il fire my 2nd 5shot group in March 26 a year after I fired the 1st 5 shot group at the same target as I used in March 25.It will be a interesting result to find.

Bejassuuus Grant, you must be feeling "flush" to waste money on a 5 shotter!

Originally Posted by Fisherman

To achieve a reliable zero for long-range work, larger sample sizes are required to identify the "true" center of your system's cone of fire:
10 Shots: Offers a significantly more stable and representative point of impact than 3 or 5 shots.
20+ Shots: Considered the industry standard for establishing a truly consistent, reliable point of impact for precision shooting.
Practical Compromise: If ammo cost or barrel heat is a concern, you can shoot multiple 3-shot groups at the same point of aim and use the composite center of all shots to make your final adjustment.

That "practical compromise" is probably what most of us do. I do. I shoot many 3 shot groups over time with my rifles and hold a mental picture in my mind of the built multi shot group. The greatest likely whoopsee is zero shift, but you know that when you see it.