2024 Cold Bore Challenge Q&A Thread

[stan_wa]

The only thing that can be taken from this is that less than 50% hit two first round shots two days back to back. 10% hit that claimed their MER of over 600 yards hit all four shots.

In other words, people suck at shooting and do not know their actual on demand capabilities.

I would 100% agree you can also conclude this from the data. Definitely suck and contrary to what people like to think it’s just pretty hard to shoot 500+ yards on game sized targets
I think we can assume that people on this form are at least as good as the average Hunter and people who completed this challenge are probably better than average as a whole therefore, “most” people should probably not be trying to shoot 600 yards at a
Game. And everyone likes to think they are better than average, but in reality being 80% at 500+ is a very small number of people. Maybe zero.

 

[Formidilosus]

Oh boy, I've poked a bear.

Of course It's data, regardless of how seemingly random the data is, you can still develop trends and correlations. If the "not data" matched your narrative I suspect you would call it applicable.

Not even remotely. It is random with no controls at all. The difference isn’t enough from small to low in any direction to see anything. There is nothing objective to be gleaned exact that people suck at shooting.

 

[Formidilosus]

I would 100% agree you can also conclude this from the data. Definitely suck and contrary to what people like to think it’s just pretty hard to shoot 500+ yards on game sized targets
I think we can assume that people on this form are at least as good as the average Hunter and people who completed this challenge are probably better than average as a whole therefore, “most” people should probably not be trying to shoot 600 yards at a
Game. And everyone likes to think they are better than average, but in reality being 80% at 500+ is a very small number of people. Maybe zero.

Yes. The people that shot the cold bore challange are tippy top percentage of shooting skill in hunters. While a 10” target is smaller than most game vitals, it isn’t far off; and people that think 600 yard plus on demand hits in novel broken terrain isn’t “hard” haven’t actually tracked themselves and others in doing so.
As I stated last year after the challenge, and have numerous times before and since- the amount of structured, proper practice in range days, round counts, AND in novel conditions and terrains to make in demand hit past 600’ish yards is way beyond the vast, vast majority of people’s capacity or time.

 

[ljalberta]

Ahhh. The classic correlation and causation confusion arises.

 

[Geewhiz]

Ahhh. The classic correlation and causation confusion arises.

I took stats, I understand causation and correlation but I think its pretty clear what we're seeing here, you guys are all just drunk on the 77tmk koolaid

 

[Formidilosus]

I took stats, I understand causation and correlation but I think its pretty clear what we're seeing here, you guys are all just drunk on the 77tmk koolaid

Yes, that’s it. And because of 175 “data” points- shooters should only shoot animals in high wind conditions- because the hit rate is higher.

 

[stan_wa]

Someone corrrect me if I’m wrong here but from what I remember Stats would tell us that just because there is a correlation does not mean there is a causation, but if there is no correlation, there’s probably not a causation

Of course, assuming significance in the sample size

Form to your point and 15 mile an hour wind having better hits than 10 mile an hour wind that doesn’t seem logical to me. I agree so, what I would say is there could be other factors than just wind that are convoluting that data so for example, maybe the people who shot in higher winds, tend to shoot in places where there is higher winds, and therefore are better. Where people who always shoot out at a flat Range with very little wind are not as good at Reading wind, and those people shot this challenge at that same flat range.
I also think solar shooters point about 5-10 mpg being hard to read due to being switchy could be valid. Form, You’ve got the experience in these situations. Would you agree that those 5 to 10 mile an hour winds can be hard to read because they’re not steady. Or because they’re small enough that they don’t prompt the shooter to make a strong correction where if you have a 15 mile an hour wind everyone probably knows they need to hold?

 

[RS_Non-Res]

The wind thing could be a difference between the population of "all CBC shots" and the "small unrepresentative sample of shots taken in higher winds (13/120)."

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to describe that hit percentage vs windspeed chart as "The few shooters that voluntarily chose to shoot in higher winds have a higher hit rate than those who chose to shoot in lighter winds." The cause for the unexpected result could be "better shooters (color ranges on the chart below) voluntarily chose more difficult conditions in which they were still able to perform well."

Also, everybody around here knows that accounting for wind is much more difficult than just long range, so we're less likely to exaggerate our wind skills rather than long-range. And this is reflected in the hit rate vs range chart, which shows that those that voluntarily chose to shoot longer ranges than their skills may have warrented had lower hit rates.

Then there's the honest and humble beginners (like me that keep their range down and only shoot in light winds.

Something like this (but this chart uses completely made up numbers, and both the wind and range need to be grouped by bins instead of discrete values).


@solarshooter if you make this chart with real numbers, I'll delete this fake news and/or bellybutton inspection.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

My 4th shot at 814 yards was a millimeter away from it only being 2 folks with 4/4 600+ yard hits instead of 3 folks. Bringing the percentage down to 6.7%

In my experience with shooting, guiding, and teaching shooting in the past, I would say the real number of folks who can get a first hit kill in actual hunting scenarios and field shooting positions past 600 yards is closer to 1-2%

If we took 100 shooters of all different skill levels and gave them an elk target painted to blend into the terrain, and then told them where it is as if we had glassed it up for them. Gave them a yardage, let’s say 605 and even gave them a good wind call. Then we gave them 2 full minutes to get set up and get a shot off with what they have on their body or in their pack. My guess is 1-2 shooters make a killing hit. This is assuming there isn’t an equipment issue with the scope and rifle.

 

[Mike Islander]

Someone corrrect me if I’m wrong here but from what I remember Stats would tell us that just because there is a correlation does not mean there is a causation, but if there is no correlation, there’s probably not a causation

Of course, assuming significance in the sample size

Form to your point and 15 mile an hour wind having better hits than 10 mile an hour wind that doesn’t seem logical to me. I agree so, what I would say is there could be other factors than just wind that are convoluting that data so for example, maybe the people who shot in higher winds, tend to shoot in places where there is higher winds, and therefore are better. Where people who always shoot out at a flat Range with very little wind are not as good at Reading wind, and those people shot this challenge at that same flat range.
I also think solar shooters point about 5-10 mpg being hard to read due to being switchy could be valid. Form, You’ve got the experience in these situations. Would you agree that those 5 to 10 mile an hour winds can be hard to read because they’re not steady. Or because they’re small enough that they don’t prompt the shooter to make a strong correction where if you have a 15 mile an hour wind everyone probably knows they need to hold?

Often correlation is a plenty good justification of an action. No need to understand the exact "why", as long as we know the "what". So, if using a smaller caliber gives better hit rates; if you want hit rates you might want to use a smaller caliber. If using a smaller caliber still results in reliable kills, and even more kills than larger calibers in high winds, it doesn't matter why. As long as you want more kills in high winds, that fact that smaller caliber works is plenty good enough to justify using a smaller caliber. Once you know the why's, you might be able to adjust something in the larger caliber, but in this case doubtful.

 

[solarshooter]

Negative. If it were 175 points from the same environment and scenario, and the rifles were all controlled for zero, etc- then yes. But here you have 175 random points, from 175 random environments and scenarios. That isn’t “data”.

I'm no stats expert, but I don't think this statement is totally true. If the question you are trying to answer is, "in general, across all shooters/conditions/ranges/etc, do those who shoot smaller calibers have higher hit rates?", then I think this data is very useful. Now, 175 data points may not be enough to say this confidently, but if we had several hundred or thousand data points then the trends that emerge do become meaningful. I might go back and survey the 2023 Cold Bore challenge and process that data in the same way.

 

[Formidilosus]

I'm no stats expert, but I don't think this statement is totally true. If the question you are trying to answer is, "in general, across all shooters/conditions/ranges/etc, do those who shoot smaller calibers have higher hit rates?", then I think this data is very useful. Now, 175 data points may not be enough to say this confidently, but if we had several hundred or thousand data points then the trends that emerge to become meaningful. I might go back and survey the 2023 Cold Bore challenge and process that data in the same way.

I gave all of this to one of the statisticians that I work with. His response was- “without controls for shooter, wind, zero, ranges, and environments- it’s meaningless. You can’t make any conclusions or trends from that much chaos in that small a sample size, and the differences seem to all be within the standard expected deviation range anyways- you would need thousands for that demographic. That amount of shooters with only 2-4 shots a piece- you could get something with maybe showing a slight trend if all were controlled for zero, weather, properly functioning equipment, and the exact same range to target- without those controls you have nothing to draw even a slight trend”.


Using the CBC for differences in hit rates between recoil, caliber, etc is trying to read tea leaves.

 

[stan_wa]

Stats would tell us that just because there is a correlation does not mean there is a causation, but if there is no correlation, there’s probably not a causation

The practical application of this statement regarding this data would be ;

• smaller caliber is not helping hit rates,
• lower energy is not helping hit rates,
• Higher speeds “might be” helping hit rates.
• 5-10 mph winds “ might be” the lowest hit rates for winds between 0-20.

This statement should not be controversial, as it’s just a reduction of the data. Caliber choice seems to be hot button here on the slide, I personally think it doesn’t matter that much . I say that because this data would suggest a weak or no correlation. I am not saying this to be argumentative or even to fight against the small caliber revolution.

A larger data set would be better. Even in a “small” data set. Strong correlations should manifest. I agree partially with forms above point that in small data sets uncontrolled variables can destroy the data. However if zero, or equipments have variance i would think they are random among the given data bins, and there for wash out.

The most obvious point from this data is that hits rates are not good enough!

Next year let’s get 500 shooters to show up and enritch the data ! ( I’ll do my best to participate, @Justin Crossley , maybe a longer time window next year ?)

 

[Formidilosus]

The practical application of this statement regarding this data would be ;

• smaller caliber is not helping hit rates,
• lower energy is not helping hit rates,
• Higher speeds “might be” helping hit rates.
• 5-10 mph winds “ might be” the lowest hit rates for winds between 0-20.

This statement should not be controversial, as it’s just a reduction of the data. Caliber choice seems to be hot button here on the slide, I personally think it doesn’t matter that much . I say that because this data would suggest a weak or no correlation. I am not saying this to be argumentative or even to fight against the small caliber revolution.

The issue is you aren’t controlling for any variable to understand what is causing any change. And, the “differences” between “caliber” isn’t even enough to say it isn’t random variation. We don’t have a hundred shooters, shooting a light recoiling rifle and a heavy recoiling rifle with the same weight, scope, rest, range, etc to say that in general one is better than the other.


Anyone that thinks recoil doesn’t affect the shooter, especially when stressed or under time- didn’t arrive at that belief through trial and testing.

 

[solarshooter]

Next year let’s get 500 shooters to show up and enritch the data ! ( I’ll do my best to participate, @Justin Crossley , maybe a longer time window next year ?)

Maybe we can just have people do this exercise on their own, same rules, and post their results here. No prizes to win but if you want to prove for yourself what your MER is and add to the overall dataset, you can.

 

[solarshooter]

I gave all of this to one of the statisticians that I work with.

Once again, I wonder what the heck you do for a living - shooting instruction, depredation hunts, AND statisticians?!?!

You can’t make any conclusions or trends from that much chaos in that small a sample size, and the differences seem to all be within the standard expected deviation range anyways- you would need thousands for that demographic.

I agree with this. Seems like Rokslide collectively takes tens to hundreds of thousands of shots per year in hunting-like scenarios. It would be awesome if we could start to compile this data and really gain some concrete insights.

 

[stan_wa]

Anyone that thinks recoil doesn’t affect the shooter, especially when stressed or under time- didn’t arrive at that belief through trial and testing.

I fully agree here and it’s very likely the people in this challenge who chose higher recoil ate also people who are more practiced with higher recoil. And there is no time stress so they all build the most stable and comfortable position possible thus mitigating the affect of recoil.

 

[huntnful]

I shoot my 22 CM better than my 7-300 NMI. But I chose the 7-300 for the wind forgiveness on the 1000 yard part of my CBC. And still missed the wind by 2 MPH and the plate by 2-3” I think.

Under perfect shooting conditions and rest positions, the groups can be fairly similar sized though.

But under random field shooting situations that maybe someone else placed me in and created as stations with targets, I would put my money on the 22 CM over the 7-300 as far as group shooting goes, I know that much.

For me personally, I know that beyond 500 yards, I’m starting to roll the dice on shot placement being adequate. And when I’m shooting further than that, I just need to be prepared to deal with the aftermath.

 

[ID_Matt]

If we took 100 shooters of all different skill levels and gave them an elk target painted to blend into the terrain, and then told them where it is as if we had glassed it up for them. Gave them a yardage, let’s say 605 and even gave them a good wind call. Then we gave them 2 full minutes to get set up and get a shot off with what they have on their body or in their pack. My guess is 1-2 shooters make a killing hit. This is assuming there isn’t an equipment issue with the scope and rifle.

If they have a "good" wind call already I would bet that the number is way higher than 1-2% just based off luck.

 

[eric1115]

My 4th shot at 814 yards was a millimeter away from it only being 2 folks with 4/4 600+ yard hits instead of 3 folks. Bringing the percentage down to 6.7%

In my experience with shooting, guiding, and teaching shooting in the past, I would say the real number of folks who can get a first hit kill in actual hunting scenarios and field shooting positions past 600 yards is closer to 1-2%

If we took 100 shooters of all different skill levels and gave them an elk target painted to blend into the terrain, and then told them where it is as if we had glassed it up for them. Gave them a yardage, let’s say 605 and even gave them a good wind call. Then we gave them 2 full minutes to get set up and get a shot off with what they have on their body or in their pack. My guess is 1-2 shooters make a killing hit. This is assuming there isn’t an equipment issue with the scope and rifle.

For what it's worth as one of the 4/4 shooters (though 3 and 4 were only at 720, much closer than some of the better shooters and almost no wind)...

If you put me in that scenario, I'd be optimistic. Maybe confident depending on wind conditions. But very high level of confidence? Like 10-1 odds, win $100 for a hit but lose $1000 for a miss? Nope. I think in steady sub-10mph wind conditions I would at most take 2-1 odds.