How much can i expect handloading to change the accuracy with a given bullet? And what are the performance of the average factory rifle with a variety

[stanginthe11s]

ok, I'm confused about one thing. @Formidilosus, you are showing multiple targets and asking which one is cold vs hot. all are visually different, yet you say there is no difference hot or cold. so what's up?

 

[grfox92]

If your 10 shot group is larger then the 3 shot group how can you prove its the rifle and not the operator

It doesn't really matter if your the one shooting the groups. That's your ability with your rifle and your rifles true capability.

Everyone in the post arguing for 3 shot groups says its fine because it's a hunting rifle. Well, if your 10 shot groups are wider then your 3 shot groups and that is due to the abilities of the shooter, who is taking the rifle hunting, then that 10 shot group is your hunting rifles ability, is it not?

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

 

[Harvey_NW]

Talking about hunting, we have to get an idea of how can we rely on the mechanical accuracy of a rifle in order to know the limitations of the equipment. That's it.

Precisely. The only way to KNOW is to shoot a sufficient sample size. That's the "simple concept" many aren't "catching on to".

 

[ResearchinStuff]

What order were these groups shot in? 30 rounds in about 30 minutes on an 85F day, 2 different bullets, lighter one hits a smidge higher. Barrel got real hot.



Cold bore is a myth used to explain other, more likely phenomena, like overcleaning, scopes that don't hold zero, and poor shooting (takes one for the flinch to come back).

Also, hornady wasted a few barrels disproving traditional load development so the rest of us don't have to.

 

[Archer86]

Precisely. The only way to KNOW is to shoot a sufficient sample size. That's the "simple concept" many aren't "catching on to".

A count of 10 is not a substantial sample size in real world scientific data. There are to many errors your 10 round 20 round 30 round groups do nothing to prove a rifles accuracy potential unless it's is in a fixes device holding the exact same point of aim everytime in a controlled environment so there is nothing that can effect the outcome.

 

[Archer86]

It doesn't really matter if your the one shooting the groups. That's your ability with your rifle and your rifles true capability.

Everyone in the post arguing for 3 shot groups says its fine because it's a hunting rifle. Well, if your 10 shot groups are wider then your 3 shot groups and that is due to the abilities of the shooter, who is taking the rifle hunting, then that 10 shot group is your hunting rifles ability, is it not?

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

I would say it's not as most people shoot worse in a hunting situation if they are being honest. No bench or perfectly flat area to shoot in most hunting situations.

 

[Harvey_NW]

A count of 10 is not a substantial sample size in real world scientific data. There are to many errors your 10 round 20 round 30 round groups do nothing to prove a rifles accuracy potential unless it's is in a fixes device holding the exact same point of aim everytime in a controlled environment so there is nothing that can effect the outcome.

What's your point, if you don't have an accuracy fixture you'll never be able to perfectly prove it, so you might as well just shoot 3 shot groups and send it with a prayer at an animal? Not my preference.

As a hunter my objective is to be as lethal and effective as possible, the only way to know how precise you are is to shoot a sufficient sample size to at least apply the statistics to. 10 is usually enough for a sound shooter and system to get an indication.

 

[grfox92]

I would say it's not as most people shoot worse in a hunting situation if they are being honest. No bench or perfectly flat area to shoot in most hunting situations.

So then why is a 3 shot group off a bench at the range a good indication of your hunting rifles accuracy?

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

 

[Archer86]

So then why is a 3 shot group off a bench at the range a good indication of your hunting rifles accuracy?

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

You guys either can't read or choose not to. I use 3 rounds on the initial load development find a promising group then take that load and shoot five 5 shot groups at the same target

I dont consider a group allowing the barrel to cool I shoot 5 take a break shoot 5 take a break somewould consider that string of fire a group on here I don't. So I shoot 5 shot groups in my eyes

 

[Formidilosus]

ok, I'm confused about one thing. @Formidilosus, you are showing multiple targets and asking which one is cold vs hot. all are visually different, yet you say there is no difference hot or cold. so what's up?

Ok. Which one is which? This should be easy if a hot barrel resulted in the groups “walking” or opening up. That is, if cold barrel produces a result that is different in point of impact, or relevant group size, then it should be no problem to say which is cold and which is hot.


Guns do not shoot to a point, the shoot to a cone. Shoot enough rounds and they produce a round group. Overlay the two 5 round targets and it starts to look more round because you are starting to see the cone fill in. The reason the groups “look” different is because 5 shots isn’t enough to see the real group size- it’s random impacts inside the total cone.

 

[Formidilosus]

A count of 10 is not a substantial sample size in real world scientific data.

No ten shots is not “enough”. It is a baseline. 10 shots gives around an 80% probability of the true cone size. Or stated another way, the circle formed by ten shots will on average in compass around 80% of the shots from that system. A circle drawn around three shots has almost zero value- around 10% of the shots. 5 rounds somewhere around 30-50% of the shots.

There are to many errors your 10 round 20 round 30 round groups do nothing to prove a rifles accuracy potential unless it's is in a fixes device holding the exact same point of aim everytime in a controlled environment so there is nothing that can effect the outcome.

Use logical thought process here. If someone can not shoot 10, 20, 30, or 100 shots consistently without having a seizure behind the rifle, then that same person can not shoot 3 shots or 5 consistently. The worse a system is, the more data points needed to see the average.


Point in fact, if someone is producing errors, they have to shoot more shots per group, not less to have the same total confidence factor.

 

[Formidilosus]

All this doesn't sound practical at all.

Shooting three shots isn’t practical. It doesn’t tell you anything about what size target you can hit reliably, except that you can hit nothing smaller than that 3 shot group formed.

I do not mean this rudely. You have started multiple threads about cartridges, rifles and now group size. How much time have you spent doing so? How much ammo? How many times have you shot, thought it was good, then on another range trip had something “off” that lead you to shooting more to check it?

This is practical- Buy rifle, scope, and mounts that are durable, reliable, and consistent, in a cartridge that is shootable and known to work without fuss. Buy the projectiles you want, the known best powder, primer and cases. Load one round at 1gr under max at mag length, making sure the bullet isn’t touching the lands. Shoot, make sure no pressure signs. Load .5 grain under pressure, shoot. Load at book max, shoot. If no pressure, load ten rounds, shoot. If those ten rounds do not go 1.5 MOA or whatever you find acceptable- change bullet or powder.

With 13 rounds you know whether that combo will do what you want. There’s an entire thread in here with me doing 7-8 different rifles exactly like that, and multiple other people trying it.

Talking about hunting, we have to get an idea of how can we rely on the mechanical accuracy of a rifle in order to know the limitations of the equipment. That's it.

That is exactly what we are talking about. Shooting a group is about a confidence factor. 3 shots, even multiple unless they overlaid with respect to POA, is about a 10% confidence factor. 5 shots generally between 30-50%. 10 shots gives about an 80% confidence factor. 20 shots gives between 85-90%. 30 shots 95%.

Notice how there is a very large jump in confidence from 3 shots to 5. And again, a large jump from 5 shots to 10 shots. The jump gets significantly smaller from 10 to 20, and even smaller from 20 to 30 shots.

 

[Formidilosus]

Personally, I don't have the resources or $ to shoot 10 shot groups for testing loads.

I’ll bet you shoot more total rounds in load development than I do. In fact, I bet that almsot everyone that argues with me about this shoots (wastes) more rounds in load development than I do- by a lot. And, in doing so, they have way less real information about their load than I do.

I shoot 3 shot groups and then choose the best 3 shot group. Call it a day at that, save money, and go kill animals with it.

The issue, is that with 3 shots you are just choosing a random set that has no repeatability to it. Your are guessing, and you didn’t save money. With that process why do load development at all?

 

[MallardSX2]

The issue, is that with 3 shots you are just choosing a random set that has no repeatability to it. Your are guessing, and you didn’t save money. With that process why do load development at all?

It's not a random set. It's a set of three.

Shot 1- Bullseye
Shot 2- Bullseye
Shot 3- Bullseye

Do I need to shoot 7 more to prove anything?

No. Case closed.

If I shoot a set of three at powder charge 55.0 and they are all 2" apart and then I shoot a set of three with powder charge 56.5 that are touching, I don't think I wasted my time.

And I certainly don't think that I got magically lucky on the set of three that were touching...

This works for me. I'm not chasing ribbons. I'm reloading to save money and kill animals.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

except that the next group of 3 from that 56.5 is as likely to be 2" as it is to be touching.

 

[Formidilosus]

It's not a random set. It's a set of three.

Shot 1- Bullseye
Shot 2- Bullseye
Shot 3- Bullseye

Do I need to shoot 7 more to prove anything?

No. Case closed.

If I shoot a set of three at powder charge 55.0 and they are all 2" apart and then I shoot a set of three with powder charge 56.5 that are touching, I don't think I wasted my time.

All you did was lie to yourself- you threw bones and tried to predict the future based off of how they land.

And I certainly don't think that I got magically lucky on the set of three that were touching...

That’s exactly what you did. Because if you repeated that exact same scenario- 55gr and 56.5gr it would not repeat exactly as it did the first time- you are just as likely for the 55gr ones to be touching, and the 56.5 grains to be nearly 2 MOA. And then if you did it again, it would change again. Because 3 of anything isn’t “data” it’s random variation and noise. If you shot 30 shots of both 55gr and 56.5gr into a single target for each, there would most likely be no statistical difference between the two charge weights.

This works for me. I'm not chasing ribbons. I'm reloading to save money and kill animals.

That’s fine, and if you aren’t asking much of the rifle system it’ll work fine- but you aren’t getting what you believe you are from it. Doing 3 shots for load development isn’t showing you the best loads, it’s just a feel good. Worse than that, you have as high a probability of actually choosing the worst load based on 3 shots.

 

[MallardSX2]

All you did was lie to yourself- you threw bones and tried to predict the further based off of how they land.


That’s exactly what you did. Because if you repeated that exact same scenario- 55gr and 56.5gr it would not repeat exactly as it did the first time- you are just as likely for the 55gr ones to be touching, and the 56.5 grains to be nearly 2 MOA. And then if you did it again, it would change again. Because 3 of anything isn’t “data” it’s random variation and noise. If you shot 30 shots of both 55gr and 56.5gr into a single target for each, there would most likely be no statistical difference between the two charge weights.

Ok.

 

[Harvey_NW]

except that the next group of 3 from that 56.5 is as likely to be 2" as it is to be touching.

Yeah but that's from the barrel heating up

 

[Formidilosus]

Here’s another gun. Which is cold bore group, and which is hot bore group? What’s the difference in mean point of impact (zero)?

 

[ssimo]

If a 10 shot group is larger then a 3 shot group, how can you have an understanding of your rifles accuracy if you only shoot 3 shot groups?

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

My friend this doesn't make any sense. I never said i shot only one 3 shots group, i am saying that i use 3 shots group for everything, from checking zero after the rifle took a beating, to test its accuracy, the trajectory and so on. 10 shots with the ammo i use would be very expensive. No need to waste money and barrel life.. unless you wanna say you use 10 shots groups on a forum