Backfire 20 round group video/data

[dårlig jeger]

Kind of a neat Backfire video where he compiles data from 20 shot groups from a couple dozen different rifles.

Spoiler: the only correlation to smaller groups is less recoil. Spoiler 2: the most accurate gun under $1k is a 6.5 creedmoor tikka.

He has the data available for download. Anyone else look into this? Any other conclusions?

 

[Kauaihunter]

It’s a great test and video. He put the info out for free to anyone interested. I got the Excel sheet before I saw the video. People are already poking holes in it but the bottom line is how many actually will go out there and spend the money and time to do stuff like this? It’s just great info to look at and use to build on your own experiences.

 

[MTMeatHunter]

He just hit a million subscribers. He’s kind of a goober, but at least he’s bringing 20 shot groups to the mainstream.

*Forms over there just banging his head on the wall: “I’VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR DECADES!!!”

 

[nm.otter]

Mostly good, but the final moments where (after praising the T3x) he trashes CHF barrels...

 

[dårlig jeger]

Mostly good, but the final moments where (after praising the T3x) he trashes CHF barrels...

I caught that, too. Little bit of a disconnect there.

 

[IAm_Not_Lost]

Mostly good, but the final moments where (after praising the T3x) he trashes CHF barrels...

I caught that, too. Little bit of a disconnect there.

I’m not sure he “trashes” CHF barrels. Just notes what you can see sometimes.

Just because Tikka’s have CHF barrels and generally shoot well doesn’t mean all budget CHF rifles are consistent. Both things can be true.

 

[Hnthrdr]

What is Jim’s user handle on Rokslide?

Dude has to be trolling this forum for ideas…

 

[dårlig jeger]

What is Jim’s user handle on Rokslide?

Dude has to be trolling this forum for ideas…

I think he stops by. He even featured the rokstock on his SHOT show video a year or two ago. He's come around on larger group sizes and field shooting challenges and lower recoil. His arc follows a lot of people that start with a more traditional mindset when they come here.

He's not on board with scope drop testing, but he could be. If he took drop testing mainstream, it would be a big step forward towards recognition and more people seeing the issues.

 

[Balderdash]

I’m not sure he “trashes” CHF barrels. Just notes what you can see sometimes.

Just because Tikka’s have CHF barrels and generally shoot well doesn’t mean all budget CHF rifles are consistent. Both things can be true.

I've ran a handfull of different barrel brands over the years, and when available in a cartridge and twist I'm looking for, I actually prefer OEM Tikka take offs as replacements for Tikka actions. They're generally as accurate as anything, at least for my purposes, and they seem to outlast others I've ran - sometimes by a lot. CHF resulta in a very hard barrel.

 

[mtnwrunner]

He actually needs to take the S2H course.

 

[Balderdash]

Spoiler: the only correlation to smaller groups is less recoil. Spoiler 2: the most accurate gun under $1k is a 6.5 creedmoor tikka.

Goes back to Kieth and O'conner, and likely much further than that.

To me, the main thing that's changed in the bigger always better vs less recoil = better shot placement argument is that there is now significantly more data on the terminal effects of bullets, substantiating that smaller diameter bullets are quite effective at delivering wounds incompatible with life. Years ago such data was largely anecdotal, and the reporting on cause and effect was often more attributional than actual.

I was not one of them - the majority of my big game hunting over the past 35 years has been done with various 7mm, 300 and 338 magnums - but astute hunters have long known that medium velocity, short actions such as 260, 7mm-08, 308, etc with ordinary cup and core bullets were both easy to shoot well and exceptional killers of large and small game both near to pretty far. Long before the 6.5 CM was introduced, my old logger buddy killed everything big and small with a couple of 260's. He always laughed at my many magnums.

 

[vonb]

I applaud him for his efforts. I don't see anyone else (manufacturer or individual) putting up this kind of time and money to validate their products and provide to the shooting community. His testing results still factor in the human element. I'd love to see the AMU do something like this but remove the human element.

I wonder if the barrels were all cleaned prior to the initial test.

 

[swavescatter]

Neat idea for a video, but pretty meaningless "conclusions". Shooting single examples of different calibers with different ammo types is like trying to determine the best fruit by ordering bananas, oranges, apples, watermelons, cherries, tomatoes from 10 different stores in winter.

He's a lawyer that has some good ideas and is getting better at being a content creator, but any of these "tests" make it clear he doesn't grasp basic math and science. His and Eric Cortina's MOA challenges are pretty good though!

 

[MuleyFever]

Neat idea for a video, but pretty meaningless "conclusions". Shooting single examples of different calibers with different ammo types is like trying to determine the best fruit by ordering bananas, oranges, apples, watermelons, cherries, tomatoes from 10 different stores in winter.

He's a lawyer that has some good ideas and is getting better at being a content creator, but any of these "tests" make it clear he doesn't grasp basic math and science.

I don't watch this guy, or any influences, but I wouldn't infer from this that he doesn't grasp basic match or science. He is simply creating some content to entertain and give people something to think about. Again, wont watch the video but I would guess he doesn't say this is a definitive test. Its good to see people test things and make people think and maybe even test their own gear. If no one did that simply because their test doesn't pass a peer review that would be too bad. Do you feel the scope drop tests are meaningless and that the people doing them don't grasp basic math and science? Or would you say its a good way for people to get some data and then test their own equipment and make some informed decisions?

 

[mt terry d]

The kid's hat:
Make 3-shot Groups Extinct Again


He can shoot alright.

 

[swavescatter]

I don't watch this guy, or any influences, but I wouldn't infer from this that he doesn't grasp basic match or science. He is simply creating some content to entertain and give people something to think about. Again, wont watch the video but I would guess he doesn't say this is a definitive test. Its good to see people test things and make people think and maybe even test their own gear. If no one did that simply because their test doesn't pass a peer review that would be too bad. Do you feel the scope drop tests are meaningless and that the people doing them don't grasp basic math and science? Or would you say its a good way for people to get some data and then test their own equipment and make some informed decisions?

I do not think the Drop "Tests" are necessarily sufficient to draw conclusions in isolation. They are not repeatable, controllable to a large extent, nor do they offer more than an n=1 representation of a mass produced item. This is why even Form says it is not a test, rather an evaluation.

Look at the Maven RS 1.2 - the DIY drop tests were repeated by dozens of people here on multiple dozens of scopes and they largely held up. I would give that more confidence than a single serialized example passing. Conversely, abject failures by a scope performed by Form are a pretty good indicator that the design itself may be flawed.

But yes, the guy is generating content and engagement and he is very good at that. Him and his 12-year old senior engineer have both said things on camera that made me cringe (on his backfire recoil pad design vid specifically), but I do appreciate his creative approach to pushing the industry forward.

 

[wind gypsy]

Jim has come a long way. Good stuff.

 

[Kyguy]

He's making bank doing what he loves to do. Doesn't get any better than that.

 

[JFK]

Neat idea for a video, but pretty meaningless "conclusions". Shooting single examples of different calibers with different ammo types is like trying to determine the best fruit by ordering bananas, oranges, apples, watermelons, cherries, tomatoes from 10 different stores in winter.

He's a lawyer that has some good ideas and is getting better at being a content creator, but any of these "tests" make it clear he doesn't grasp basic math and science. His and Eric Cortina's MOA challenges are pretty good though!

I kinda agree but isn’t that what the vast majority of people do? Buy a rifle and pickup a box or two of ammo to see how it shoots? Accurate guns tend to shoot multiple types of ammo well. It’s not conclusive. You’d need an unrealistic number of rifles and ammo for that. And, sure, he could have gotten exceptionally good or bad examples of each rifle, but I still think it’s useful information.

 

[UnckleBob]

I kinda agree but isn’t that what the vast majority of people do? Buy a rifle and pickup a box or two of ammo to see how it shoots? Accurate guns tend to shoot multiple types of ammo well. It’s not conclusive. You’d need an unrealistic number of rifles and ammo for that. And, sure, he could have gotten exceptionally good or bad examples of each rifle, but I still think it’s useful information.

No test that we can actually execute is going to be perfect. We don't have access to perfect test rigs or cannot shoot in tunnels with no wind. We don't have access to a statistically significant sample of rifles from each manufacturer.

Given those realities, I think his effort was more valid than most I have seen. 20 shot groups are statistically significant.