Required precision video and using WEZ

[TaperPin]

Really- please explain that as well.

I don’t blame Brian for writing books people want to buy - anyone that’s making a living selling things has to have a wider audience than they might prefer.

It‘s possible my attention wasn’t as good as it could be listening to his discussion - I’ll try to listen to it again.

The typical misuse of statistics I see is declaring results without context being factored in, as if they are universal truths.

 

[aschuler]

I can see you’re verbalizing a way to get the most bang for the buck - where to put limited resources and time for the biggest return on investment. No? There’s nothing wrong with that - except you‘re handicapping the learning experience by not having an above average rifle that gives better feedback and you have more confidence in. You go to battle with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.

I'm not sure what you consider average. I shoot a brux barrel chambered and put together by a reputable custom gun builder, shooting carefully crafted handloads with the best components available. BUT, the WEZ model tells me I might have gained a 3-5% increase in hit probability over my factory Tikka.

Don't get me wrong I had my custom rifle built for all the reasons you stated, mostly confidence. So as was learning I KNOW it's me causing the error. So for me personally now that I've gotten past that I'm looking for all the other sources of error and the needle (including WEZ) keeps pointing back to the nut behind the trigger (or the guy making the wind call lol)

 

[aschuler]

The typical misuse of statistics I see is declaring results without context being factored in, as if they are universal truths.

This is a little strange to me. I've read all Bryan's books (that I know of) and many of the whitepapers available from Applied Ballistics.

Do you have a specific example in mind?

 

[TaperPin]

Nope, as soon as he started explaining his computer simulations I had to tag out. Using a simulation to describe the behavior of an individual and expect someone to alter their behavior based on it is wishful thinking. Lol

 

[TaperPin]

BUT, the WEZ model tells me I might have gained a 3-5% increase in hit probability over my factory Tikka.

This statistic derived from his computer simulation says 3-5% regardless of what your accurate rifle has taught you - that 3-5% is trying to assign a nice number to something that’s quite variable and has a lot of external factors not in his model. I don’t know of any good shooters that would consider themselves average, or fitting well in a simulation. Aiming for average is a very low bar, and it doesn’t describe individuals.

How many couples in the US have 1.7 kids? Zero That statistic without context is meaningless to describe the couple that lives next door to me.

 

[Macht]

This statistic derived from his computer simulation says 3-5% regardless of what your accurate rifle has taught you - that 3-5% is trying to assign a nice number to something that’s quite variable and has a lot of external factors not in his model. I don’t know of any good shooters that would consider themselves average, or fitting well in a simulation. Aiming for average is a very low bar, and it doesn’t describe individuals.

Tell me you don't understand the basis of statistics without telling me you don't understand the basis of statistics.

Monte Carlo approaches like WEZ are a very powerful tool for building an understanding of multivariable problems. Could you list a few of the "lot of external factors not in his model"?

 

[Formidilosus]

Nope, as soon as he started explaining his computer simulations I had to tag out. Using a simulation to describe the behavior of an individual and expect someone to alter their behavior based on it is wishful thinking. Lol

Who are you taking about. Once again you are talking about things that you are totally lost on.

This statistic derived from his computer simulation says 3-5% regardless of what your accurate rifle has taught you - that 3-5% is trying to assign a nice number to something that’s quite variable and has a lot of external factors not in his model.

Again- you have no idea what you are even referring to.

I don’t know of any good shooters that would consider themselves average, or fitting well in a simulation. Aiming for average is a very low bar, and it doesn’t describe individuals.

What are you talking about?

How many couples in the US have 1.7 kids? Zero That statistic without context is meaningless to describe the couple that lives next door to me.

Do you realize that you are not in any way speaking about, or making sense about the topic of this thread?

 

[hereinaz]

The way I see it, you input the error of the rifle system, and that includes the shooter. Using that model, you can set up a WEZ for standing, kneeling, sitting, and prone for appropriate distances.

Yes, absolutely, the shooter is the biggest source of error by a wide margin.

As long as targets are big enough, you can use a 2 moa gun. Make the target point big enough to capture the 2 moa and the typical wobble. And, get some space around it on paper.

At 100 yards, a 2 moa gun is going to put all its bullets no more than 1 inch from the aim point in any direction.

If targets at distance are too small, which they are (edit to add they often are too small, the gun can be a handicap. Get a big enough target at all ranges, especially long ranges so you can see exactly where you missed.

I try to use big steel and anything outside the appropriate size for the position is a miss. Just like misses are caught on the paper when zeroing, no one would try it with a 2 moa circle on a popsicle stick. Given that, I just practice and figure out how far I am capable for each field position.

The vast majority of shooters don’t get off the bench and try actual field shots and practice them. That’s what makes a good shooter.

Nothing helped me more than going for a hike and shooting rocks. A close second was buying the right gear and focusing on using my tripod as the nearly universal shooting position. In that way, I only have to practice a few supported positions and learn how to build them and my limitations in each position. In my hunting style and locations, I do a lot of glassing. Gives me time and opportunity. I don’t have many hasty shots.

I want to get better at them, that’s when I really realized the benefit to use a sling for unsupported positions, including off a tripod or front support like rock, tree, or fence post. I am going to keep practicing with the sling, it can cut my wobble just a little more.

Consistency in building a position improves group size by reducing variables.

 

[atmat]

Tell me you don't understand the basis of statistics without telling me you don't understand the basis of statistics.

Welcome to Rokslide. That’s just @TaperPin.

 

[TaperPin]

Who are you taking about. Once again you are talking about things that you are totally lost on.




Again- you have no idea what you are even referring to.




What are you talking about?





Do you realize that you are not in any way speaking about, or making sense about the topic of this thread?

If someone finds value in what’s in the video, more power to them. I‘m out.

 

[TaperPin]

Tell me you don't understand the basis of statistics without telling me you don't understand the basis of statistics.

Garbage in garbage out - they teach that day one in freshman level statistics classes. I laughed out loud (for real) when he described average ranges of wind errors.

 

[UpNorth89]

If someone finds value in what’s in the video, more power to them. I‘m out.

Good for you. Bye.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

Im curious to know but does the accuracy dispersion start to matter more when you shrink the target size down? Say your trying to hit a 4-6 inch target at 500 would the accuracy matter more because the general dispersion starts to get larger than the target or do the other factors increase so much it still doesn't matter.
I know its not really relevant to big game hunting but long range rabbit/fox shooting possibly

Using a standard 6.5 CM load with 147gr ELD-M at 2,700fps MV, 5,000ft DA, 6” square target, and 1.5mia, 1 MOA, and .5 MOA for all. Again, keep in mind these are 1st first hit probability in an unshot/novel environment and target.


4 mph wind caller.

1.5 MOA is 37.4%-




1 MOA is 43.9%-



.5 MOA is 47.7%-



For a 10% increase in hit rate from realistic mechanical precision of 1.5 MOA to a completely unrealistic .5 MOA.



Now, the same but with a 2 mph wind caller:

1.5 MOA is 57.6% (already 10% higher than the 4mph wind caller with .5 MOA rifle)




1 MOA is 71%



.5 MOA is 79%


For a difference of 21% from 1.5 MOA to .5 MOA.

You do see more of a difference when the target is at mid ranges- 300 to 500 yards and smaller than the base cone.

Here’s why. With a 4 mph average wind caller- which you (the colloquial “you”) aren’t in broken terrain unless you are shooting in novel broken terrain a lot- the wind is the largest source of error- not precision.

1.5 MOA causes of horizontal error. The vast majority of error is wind-



.5 MOA the vast majority of error is wind-





If you want to hit things more often, find what is producing the larger source of error in reality, in the field- and reduce that source.

 

[Formidilosus]

I was just thinking the same scenario you laid out in the video, just with something more like 3-5 MOA precision.

I think you used
12" target @ 600yds
+- 4mph wind
8 fps SD
+- 1m range

I’ll use the one I used above- 6.5 CM with 147gr ELD-M at 2,700fps MV, 5,000ft DA, 609 yards, 12” square, 4mph, 10 fps SD, 1m range. For a background, the vast majority of PRS/precision shooters were between 3 and 4 MOA on the Kraft drill with no time limit when submitted to Kraft initially. My own experience is that most people that actually practice, are the same- between 3 and 5 MOA field hitters. I’m using the term field “hitter” here because it’s a very different thing to shoot a “2 MOA ten shot group”, and to “put 10 rounds in a row on a 2 MOA target on demand”- they are not the same thing.


3 MOA field hitter is 41.7% first round hit probability-



5 MOA field hitter is 24%




2 MOA field hitter at 53.5%-




1.5 MOA field hitter at 58.4%-





1 MOA field hitter is 61.2%-



The plateau is obvious starting around 2 MOA (the size of the target at 600 yards). Below 2 MOA, and especially omce 1.5 MOA is reached, it takes increasingly more dramatic reductions in group sizes to make very small differences in hit rates.

 

[aschuler]

3 MOA field hitter is 41.7% first round hit probability-
5 MOA field hitter is 24%
2 MOA field hitter at 53.5%-
1.5 MOA field hitter at 58.4%-
1 MOA field hitter is 61.2%-


The plateau is obvious starting around 2 MOA (the size of the target at 600 yards). Below 2 MOA, and especially once 1.5 MOA is reached, it takes increasingly more dramatic reductions in group sizes to make very small differences in hit rates.

Thank you so much for taking the time to run those. I really appreciate your input on this topic and pushing the conversation forward.

 

[aschuler]

The way I see it, you input the error of the rifle system, and that includes the shooter. Using that model, you can set up a WEZ for standing, kneeling, sitting, and prone for appropriate distances.

This is a great idea.

Nothing helped me more than going for a hike and shooting rocks. A close second was buying the right gear and focusing on using my tripod as the nearly universal shooting position. In that way, I only have to practice a few supported positions and learn how to build them and my limitations in each position. In my hunting style and locations, I do a lot of glassing. Gives me time and opportunity. I don’t have many hasty shots.

+1 I switched to pretty much only shooting from a tripod. I always have it with me hunting here in AZ (see what I did there) and most of the time I'm in rocky, uneven terrain where it just makes sense. Coues hunters if you know, you know.

 

[seand]

When I mentioned 3-5 MOA I was wondering about introducing shooter error (field position shooting) into the precision input. For example, you might have 1.5MOA due to rifle and 3.5 MOA due to shooter for a total of 5 MOA in precision.

This is really an important and misunderstood concept, stacking errors.

They aren’t really additive. It’s more like square root of the sum of the squares. So the combined error is closer to 3.8MOA than 5MOA. What you find is the largest source of error (shooter in this case) absolutely dwarfs the other error. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to focus on the rifle error when the shooter error is larger.

 

[Formidilosus]

This is really an important and misunderstood concept, stacking errors.

They aren’t really additive. It’s more like square root of the sum of the squares. So the combined error is closer to 3.8MOA than 5MOA. What you find is the largest source of error (shooter in this case) absolutely dwarfs the other error. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to focus on the rifle error when the shooter error is larger.

Correct, and thank you for stating that. I overlooked addressing it.

 

[aschuler]

This is really an important and misunderstood concept, stacking errors.

They aren’t really additive. It’s more like square root of the sum of the squares. So the combined error is closer to 3.8MOA than 5MOA. What you find is the largest source of error (shooter in this case) absolutely dwarfs the other error. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to focus on the rifle error when the shooter error is larger.

That makes sense to me intuitively. How did you derive that?

 

[seand]

I didn’t derive it, it’s a concept in statistics for adding random variables

Why Variances Add—And Why It Matters – AP Central | College Board

The Pythagorean Theorem of Statistics Quick. What's the most important theorem in statistics? That's easy. It's the central limit theorem (CLT), hands down. Okay, how about the second most important theorem? I say it's the fact that for the sum or difference of independent random variables...

apcentral.collegeboard.org

Also applies to reloading of course. Folks spend lots and lots of time doing things that don’t make much difference at all on target (like weighing kernels of powder….). Kind of funny.