Analyze My Groups

[Jordan Smith]

My theory is the simpler one. Yours is the complex, unproven one. Any actual test I've seen, even if not perfect enough for a physicist, has shown the complex hypothesis on tuning ammo with these small tweaks to be untrue. And your counter argument is based on what some "SRBR shooters certainly believe". Sorry but that's a really flawed set of reasoning.

Unfortunately, simple does not make something more likely to be correct. The universe we live in depends on some very complex physics.

I don't have a theory, and yours certainly isn't proven. I've seen plenty of tests that support both conclusions, typically the pre-conceived idea of the tester, but I've never seen one that is robust enough to draw any meaningful conclusions. The guys with the best chance of resolving any meaningful differences between loads are those with the most precise rifles, which is why I mentioned SRBR shooters.

Your argument comes across as zealous and poorly reasoned when you form such a strong opinion based on an anecdotal set of flawed tests. I'm not taking a position, either way, and my entire argument is that I've never seen compelling evidence to convince me of either position being certain.

 

[solarshooter]

I've seen plenty of tests that support both conclusions

Can you share a reference to any of them?

 

[stan_wa]

I’m not gonna go so far as to say small changes can’t ever make any difference, but I think the data is plenty clear to say the small changes. Don’t make a meaningful difference.

I'm not taking a position, either way, and my entire argument is that I've never seen compelling evidence to convince me of either position being certain.

If it’s the case that you’re not taking a position either way, may I suggest that you then take the position of which is less work less expensive since you don’t have an opinion about which one will lead to better results.

I say the with all the kindness to help a fellow out

 

[Jordan Smith]

Considering its Rokslide and talking about hunting, I think we could boil this down to a pretty simple metric .

What do you think about , if you can’t increase your percentage via ( Wes) by 10% or more you won’t even notice the difference on your hunt ?


I want to add that what we are arguing for will make your life easier and even though I’m pretty sure that I’m correct . the reason that I even care to debate it with you is that I legitimately think it’ll simplify and make your entire process more effective and better. I don’t really care about being right. I just want to save you the headache . because two years ago I was at the exact same persuasion as you And wasting a bunch of time.

I agree with you. In the context of hunting rifles and field conditions, there are much larger sources of POI uncertainty than load dispersion. As a typical rule of thumb, when considering the sources of uncertainty, if one source is 3x larger than the others, it dominates the result. So, if wind estimation uncertainty causes a 3 MOA POI dispersion and you have a 1 MOA load, wind drift will dominate the overall windage component of the POI distribution.

But let's go back to the beginning of this debate. It was not specific to hunting rifles nor field conditions:

I don't bother with small tweaks on powder or seating depth, it has been proven this will not make any difference in precision and consistency.

I wouldn't go that far.

 

[Jordan Smith]

For me? .010 off and 1gr. under pressure. If it don’t shoot, I’m moving on lol.

Just to make a point here, you're moving on to what? And how do you know that is makes a statistically relevant difference?

 

[Jordan Smith]

The thing is, they think it matters because they do small sample ladder testing because they don't want to shoot a 1000rd test. But I guarantee you they burn way more than 1000rds chasing nodes. And they shoot the smallest groups in the world because they use the absolute best components, make the absolute most insanely consistent ammo, and shoot light recoiling cartridges out of heavy guns. It's not a mystery.

And the winners, the best of the best, also chase the powder charge node throughout the day as the temp goes up. Interesting.

 

[stan_wa]

I provided a simple data set from what most would consider an exceptionally accurate rifle and bench conditions, and showed that it did not make a difference with a very high level of certainty. Keep in mind the T test I ran was not will you or will you not hit it was are these groups any different at 100 yards from the bench?

Regardless of what was or was not said, I’m trying to reach the practical end conclusion which is do not chase small changes. Do you feel like we have common ground there?

 

[huntnful]

The thing is, they think it matters because they do small sample ladder testing because they don't want to shoot a 1000rd test. But I guarantee you they burn way more than 1000rds chasing nodes. And they shoot the smallest groups in the world because they use the absolute best components, make the absolute most insanely consistent ammo, and shoot light recoiling cartridges out of heavy guns. It's not a mystery.

I do understand what you’re saying.

But to think they ALL do small sample testing, and they ALL don’t understand their craft (which you’ve never participated in, or shot something even remotely precise before) I just think is pretty bold.

I just haven’t seen a single statement by any of them saying powder charge simply doesn’t matter, and seating depth simply doesn’t matter. Load and shoot.

I also have a hard time thinking that I could take someone’s load that produced a 20 round .1 MOA group, shove the bullets in .200 and drop their charge 2 grains and it would make ZERO difference.

A lot of those guys shoot actually pretty large sample sizes at long ranges before they draw conclusions or settle on a load.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Can you share a reference to any of them?

Seriously? You haven't seen tests that conclude that tweaking loads matters? You haven't seen tests that conclude that load tweaks make no statistically relevant difference? These tests are abundant and available everywhere with a simple Google search.

I've conducted and personally witnessed such tests, myself, numerous times. As I said before, none of those tests, whether for or against, was able to control variables and provide statistical power in a way that supports drawing strong conclusions that tweaking a load matters or not. You mentioned 1000-round tests. Even 100-round groups. How many of those do you get from a barrel before you have to start over with a new barrel and all the previous testing is irrelevant? How many barrels do you have to test to demonstrate a statistically meaningful trend from barrel to barrel? How many calibers to demonstrate a statistically meaningful trend across calibers? What about chamberings to show a trend across powder capacity-to-bore size ratios? Did you control for wind drift at 100 yards? How did you control for the shooter getting tired and squeezing off a flier? Etc.

All of the above, and more, is why I say that it's difficult to draw firm conclusions based on the existing body of data.

 

[huntnful]

Just to make a point here, you're moving on to what? And how do you know that is makes a statistically relevant difference?

I normally start with 2 two bullets I’d be happy hunting with and 3 powders I’m willing to try.

I pick my favorite of the two bullets and shoot it with my favorite chosen powder. If it doesn’t shoot 5 shots in a .5, then I go to the next powder, and then the next powder.

If nothing produces with that number 1 pick bullet, then I do the same thing with the next bullet.

Normally have zero issues finding a load pretty quick with my rifles. Berger’s and VV powders normally hammer.

 

[Jordan Smith]

I provided a simple data set from what most would consider an exceptionally accurate rifle and bench conditions, and showed that it did not make a difference with a very high level of certainty. Keep in mind the T test I ran was not will you or will you not hit it was are these groups any different at 100 yards from the bench?

Regardless of what was or was not said, I’m trying to reach the practical end conclusion which is do not chase small changes. Do you feel like we have common ground there?

I'm 100% supportive of a guy's decision to take the pragmatic approach, given that it's difficult to even show that the additional effort and cost makes a difference for his use at the end of the day.

Having said that, I would again argue that your experimental method likely does not support conclusions with a very high level of certainty. People are drawing strong conclusions and forming strong opinions, whether for or against, based on insufficient evidence, IMO.

 

[Flyjunky]

So you’ve never actually taken a good true BR gun (long or short) and put it through its paces? As far as common guns in the hands of common people I’d agree most won’t see seating depth or powder charge changes. Either one or both are incapable of it.

Exactly my thoughts. People on here arguing against shooters who shoot tiny, tiny aggregates over the course of a weekend.

Don’t even get me started on the Hornady podcast. Those numbers were covered on this site many times.

 

[stan_wa]

It’s a fair point. I cannot say confidently that powder charge and seating depth do absolutely nothing. And I’m not trying to say that I’m just trying to say it’s not worth chasing.

I can say that I have never see anyone show it Make a measurable difference when making small changes for example .2 grains or .020.

 

[Jordan Smith]

I normally start with 2 two bullets I’d be happy hunting with and 3 powders I’m willing to try.

I pick my favorite of the two bullets and shoot it with my favorite chosen powder. If it doesn’t shoot 5 shots in a .5, then I go to the next powder, and then the next powder.

If nothing produces with that number 1 pick bullet, then I do the same thing with the next bullet.

Normally have zero issues finding a load pretty quick with my rifles. Berger’s and VV powders normally hammer.

I'm certainly not criticizing your method, but I'll just point out that 5 shots per load doesn't mean much upon which you can draw strong conclusions.

I'm not saying that approach doesn't work for you, just playfully pointing out that "doesn't shoot" or "finding a load" requires large sample sizes to validate, just like "proving" that small powder charge and seating depth tweaks make a meaningful difference also requires large sample sizes.

 

[Flyjunky]

And the winners, the best of the best, also chase the powder charge node throughout the day as the temp goes up. Interesting.

Don’t forget tweaking for humidity, but what do these guys know.

 

[huntnful]

I'm certainly not criticizing your method, but I'll just point out that 5 shots per load doesn't mean much upon which you can draw strong conclusions.

I'm not saying that approach doesn't work for you, just playfully pointing out that "doesn't shoot" or "finding a load" requires large sample sizes to validate, just like "proving" that small powder charge and seating depth tweaks make a meaningful difference also requires large sample sizes.

5 shots per group absolutely means something when you have a maximum precision goal. If it exceeds that goal, move on, because it takes too much testing to shrink it with a great deal of confidence. If the first 5 shots land into a .5, it’s going to be decent. If they land into a 1.5, it’s going to be dogshit.

It might mean nothing if you have no goal in mind though.

Pretty easy to see if the gun wants to favor a particular powder/bullet with a 5 shot group. Normally they all shoot decently enough.

Also super easy to repeat, and see if what you initially saw is holding consistently

 

[stan_wa]

I think a great way of thinking about five shots not meaning anything is five shots can tell you what won’t work. It just can’t necessarily tell you what will work

 

[Packmansion]

Don’t forget tweaking for humidity, but what do these guys know.

Don't forget lunar calendar or astrological symbol either.

If your gun is not grouping to your expectations then change powder or bullet and if that doesnt work get a new gun. 99% of the lift is the gun. Or you might need practice...

Or be like the guys who use ocw and believe that every flier is your fault and not the gun.

 

[Schmo]

I get validating a load at distance, and I too believe it’s a must. A comment that I think was made by Form (could have been someone else), said he’s never had a load shoot bad at distance that shot great at 100 with a 10 shot group. The 10 shots being the key. 5 wouldn’t be enough. However, if 5 shots go into .5, I don’t think you’re gonna have a 2” 10 shot group.

 

[Schmo]

Also, remember that we’re discussing hunting rifles here, not comp rifles. A 1.5” 10 shot group at 100 is larger than I’d like, but if I can squeeze that down to 1” for a 10 shot group, gives me the warm and fuzzy