Thread: 3 shot groups are useless!

Originally Posted by Tankd

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?.

You clearly haven’t read any of Gimps or others threads or posts. There is statistical maths by the truckload.

I'm not go through all the rubbish , give me the formulars. And using averages is really meaningless drivel . A "mean" has more importance.
And what is the accepted error rate ie + and -.

Really depends on the size of your freezer.. or if you are doing pest-control and need to know what a hot-barrel is going to do ( not including competition shooting here ) Hot-barrels = barrel-wear . If you are hunting for the freezer you only need to know where the first cold-barrel-shot is hitting and number two should be close , three-shots gets you into the price of a Lotto-ticket

Originally Posted by Tankd

I'm not go through all the rubbish , give me the formulars. And using averages is really meaningless drivel . A "mean" has more importance.
And what is the accepted error rate ie + and -.

Nope. I’m good. Forget i said anything.

Here ya go @gimp I found a target. This is typical for this rifle. Sometimes if my trigger control is better they group in a ragged hole. If I superimposed the last 10 zero check firings it would make a approx 40mm ragged hole.

5 shots
120gr @2900fps
Tikka 6.5 x55
Vx 3 3.5-10

Originally Posted by Longrun

Attachment 286233

Here ya go @gimp I found a target. This is typical for this rifle. Sometimes if my trigger control is better they group in a ragged hole. If I superimposed the last 10 zero check firings it would make a approx 40mm ragged hole.

5 shots
120gr @2900fps
Tikka 6.5 x55
Vx 3 3.5-10

The point I'd like to make is that most shooters have a good idea of their rifles precision from repeated 3 or 5 shot zero checks over a period of time. My wooden stock rifle will wander on zero a bit over time. Because I think I have a good idea about its precision, I'm happy to adjust the scope after 2 shots to suit.

Originally Posted by Longrun

The point I'd like to make is that most shooters have a good idea of their rifles precision from repeated 3 or 5 shot zero checks over a period of time. My wooden stock rifle will wander on zero a bit over time. Because I think I have a good idea about its precision, I'm happy to adjust the scope after 2 shots to suit.

I think the point is your zero probably isn't wandering. As an experiment that didn't require any extra shooting you could keep track of what your adjustments are to your zero. My guess is you would see a 1 click down, 1 click left, 1 click right, 1 click up, on average, not in that order.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Err no. I move the group back to where I want it and the 2 or 3 outliers remained that.

I have a pretty good idea of the precision of all my rifles

longrun you are a breath of fresh air in a long running argument on here - 2-3 shot groups > I have a pretty good idea of the precision of all my rifles< exactly and I dont need 10 shot groups to tell me 1-2 shots tell me - what is wrong with that - zero check 1-2 shots bang on I dont need to waste 10 rounds to tell me - if I was reloading -playing- trying different loads- trying a new rifle - HAVE THE MONEY TO SPEND ON AMMO - but my old favourite hunting rifle 1-2 shots will tell me if she is still zeroed

I get what gimp is on about, although I don't understand the detail.
I do know though that in statistics more is better. I relate to stuff that I know - for instance the theory of the wisdom of the crowd.
The jar of jelly bean guessing thing - the more guesses there are the more likely the mean of the guesses is the actual number in the jar.

Exactly, and the "data" is built up over 10 or so sight ins.

Also good to remember we only "need" precision adequate for our purposes

Originally Posted by Tahr

I get what gimp is on about, although I don't understand the detail.
I do know though that in statistics more is better. I relate to stuff that I know - for instance the theory of the wisdom of the crowd.
The jar of jelly bean guessing thing - the more guesses there are the more likely the mean of the guesses is the actual number in the jar.

Yes, there is definitely room for more to be known from larger group samples. Here's an easy to read article that I found more palatable than gimp dogma.

https://www.everydaymarksman.co/mark...fle-precision/

I think this subject has run its course young hunters there is nothing wrong with a check zero of a rifle that has been previously zeroed just before you go for a hunt- that is all I need to know - my 788 first dry fire will be slightly high and left no more than 1/4 inch at 100 it has done that for 40 years next will be spot on - does not miss a beat - why waste another 20 rounds to tell me any different - and besides after 5 I dont want to do any more any way - we are not olympic shooters - for a 10 round group to mean anything all our faults need to be eliminated - fatigue - flinch - hold - comfort - precision - trigger let off - most on here are not target shooters to be able to do that reliably - so it is in some ways not a meaningful argument theres to much shooter error - just zero your rifle and check it regularly - held me in good stead last 50 years - and thats my last post on this because 3 shot groups its not an argument for most kiwi hunters - leave it to the target shooters where it belongs

Originally Posted by Longrun

Yes, there is definitely room for more to be known from larger group samples. Here's an easy to read article that I found more palatable than gimp dogma.

https://www.everydaymarksman.co/mark...fle-precision/

Thats a nice article. Funny how it confirms the original assumption after 6 pages of mostly drivel.

Heres how I see it working out for real hunters. They turn up at the range to zero their gat. Mostly they are a bit appalled if we go back to 300 after they've gotten a 3 shot 100M zero . .. .the standard comment is "wow, 300 is a long way" often followed by Id never shoot that far. This is about 75% of hunters, the ones Barry etc are talking about.

About another 20% of the 3 shot zero boys are pretty confident and usually will hit a 200mm gong at 300. Then keep going back a bit more and by the time we get to 571M (the furtherest we shoot on our range) and none of them can consistently land a first shot hit on the 200mm. The most irritating thing about it is - its not ygat their rifle isn't accurate enough, its that its not properly zeroed.

The remaining 5% of guys who zero properly will usually smack a 150mm gong at 500 and 600, first ahot from just about any hunting rifle you care to name (assuming in all cases the wind us friendly).