Group size evaluation

[JF_Idaho]

I don’t know you- why I would insult you. This isn’t twitter or Facebook and I don’t care about silliness.

Instead of reading it as a personal statement, reread it as a thought experiment.

Well you were replying to me, so I figured it was a direct reply to me.

If you were asking what are the factors that cause dispersion- I didn’t read it that way, or understand that was your question. What you wrote read as if you believed there are too many variables to shoot a 30 shot group and get anything out of it because the gun is changing during those 30 shots.

The only thing I was asking was people's opinion on those things factoring into larger shot strings and their contribution to increased group size over more shots fired.

Who said it did?

I thought there was a post that if x amount of rounds = group size of z , then y amount of rounds = group size of q .

Maybe. Who’s tested that in a rigorous manner, and what were the differences?

Don't leave out the "with all else being equal", that's an important distinction. Although, I understand improbable if not outright impossible. I can't say whether it's been rigorously tested. But seems pretty simple physics.

Who’s bothered by talking about things? The issue, is when someone is worrying about the differences in metallurgy or the changes that happen in bore condition between shot 3 and shot 10… yet they can’t hit a 2 MOA target on demand.

But, why the assumption? As I said, it's in relation to long shot strings and/or large groups. It becomes just another variable that increases dispersion.

Sure. It also doesn’t mean that if you are asking questions that are minutia, yet it seems you don’t understand what the 99.5% cause of errors are, that someone won’t point it out. Worrying about something that causes 1% of your error, but ignoring what causes 70% is just mental masterbation. Unfortunately that is what the vast majority the shooting and hunting world do and push.
That is why there is a tendency here at times to focus on statically valid shot group sizes, scopes and rifles that are reliable, and shooting performance on demand from field positions- because if that isn’t locked on tight- none of the other nonsense matters.

Again, you're assuming I'm not thinking about the other, more obvious things. I am. Bigger things like powder, bullet choice, barrel quality, seating concentricity among other things are talked about a lot. And I feel, those things would show dispersion earlier into groups.

They are certainly not "magic".

I'm not taking anything about skill into any of this. That's another conversation for a different thread.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

Again, you're assuming I'm not thinking about the other, more obvious things.

The obvious things are human error, lack of good zero, wind.

I'm not trying to be rude. But this is the quintessential misconception with hunters. The obsession over minutiae that does not matter .5 moa vs 1.5moa, instead of what does matter.

For example: this season I missed a cow elk at 544yds. I made a poor wind call in very difficult conditions. My rifle will shoot 10rds inside a 1.5 inch dot at 100yds. I didn't miss due to mechanical accuracy. I missed because of me and conditions that I shouldn't have even considered shooting in (which comes right back to me).

 

[JF_Idaho]

The obvious things are human error, lack of good zero, wind.

I'm not trying to be rude. But this is the quintessential misconception with hunters. The obsession over minutiae that does not matter .5 moa vs 1.5moa, instead of what does matter.

For example: this season I missed a cow elk at 544yds. I made a poor wind call in very difficult conditions. My rifle will shoot 10rds inside a 1.5 inch dot at 100yds. I didn't miss due to mechanical accuracy. I missed because of me and conditions that I shouldn't have even considered shooting in (which comes right back to me).

That's all fair. I wouldn't disagree with you. I didn't think that this conversation was about any of that. Only mechanical/theoretical dispersion as related in this context to group size.

And for context, I've been a shooter and reloader for a long time. Probably not as long as some members here, but far longer than I've been a hunter. In reality I've just started hunting big game the last couple years. And really only last season as far as really getting out there. I'm here to learn about hunting, and I appreciate the knowledge I learn everyday here.

The minutiae is what my comments were about. I find it interesting. More interesting than the stuff that gets discussed at length all day, everyday with regards to group sizes. No biggie. That's why I questioned when you said argument. I wasn't trying to start an argument at all. I'm sorry it was taken that way.

I need to spend more time listening to the more recent information that's out there such as the Hornady podcasts. I find it interesting.

Eta: By group size, I mean number of shots, not measured size.