I don't think you understand statistical variability, or distribution. The first 3 shots could go into .3" and the group could blow up to 2" or more if you keep shooting, but you don't know unless you shoot the shots.
Your over analyzing, and you've made an incorrect assumption, but carry on I guess. And, if the first shot is .3", well..
They absolutely do, because they may be the next 7 cold bores on the next 7 hunts. You can know where they would have gone by shooting them at the target, the more you shoot at the target the better idea you have of where the next 7 are gonna go. See the trend here?
For that shooting session, sure. Next shooting session maybe, maybe not. If they do, and your first shot is 2 MOA, then why? Is it because you need to warmup a little and settle in behind the rifle better or is it because the rifle is erratic cold? That can be the difference between a leg shot below the brisket or a low double lung. I hope my rifle is capable of better predictability when it matters.
I certainly don't need to do this everytime before I go hunting...
You don't know the probability of hitting targets without a measurement of precision. The Applied Ballistics WEZ calculator requires precision, which is the true ES of the cone of fire. A 1 MOA on demand shooter at whatever distance would be a pretty bold claim.
If I can take my rifle out at any time and hit what I'm aiming at...well...the probability of hitting it the next time is likely. You don't train a rifle to do anything. Small groups at different intervals enough times is a data set as well...
Okay? So get a new barrel and make temperature irrelevant. But distinguishing the warm/cold deviation also takes a large sample size to validate, and it's pretty clear you're not a fan so I wouldn't put any stock in that.
huh?
Everyone should absolutely want that, the point is there's very little statistical validity to 3 shot groups, unless you shoot multiple and correlate group size and POI, and compile the data. A larger sample is just higher probability and more confidence, as you said. But more often than not, the group exceeds 1 MOA, or grows drastically larger than the shooter wants to accept because the interwebs only accepts 1/4 MOA all day, if you do your part.
Your larger sample size will either confirm consistency or that you have zero faith in it being able to get the job done with one shot. If that's what you want to do every year before you hunt, then yay for you?
If your group exceeds an MOA or grows drastically with a higher data set...
The statistics produced by ballisticians don't lie. Try it for yourself sometime at the range and results usually align.
Never said it did. In fact, I don't recall ever having said I can perfectly hit within an MOA ever time I shoot one round. Maybe I did. If so, please point it out to me.
What I do remember saying is that my rifles all shoot adequately enough to hit a 3" circle at 400 yds the first time, so yeah. I can see how that could be interpreted as me being the best marksmen ever.
Your own statistical distribution will prove that it will happen at least once in a 20 shot group. It would be correct to say the repeatability of any one shot out of a 20 shot group will hit within 1 MOA the first time if that 20 shot group proved to be a 2 MOA group.
Perhaps what I should have said and will say is that my rifles all shoot well enough to where the capability is there to hit within 1 MOA, which, is accurate enough for me, but laying in the snow prone on an angled piece of sandstone with melting snow dripping down my neck would likely make me "miss" by 4 MOA like anyone else. To quote Benjamin Martin "what did I tell you fellas about shooting...aim small, miss small"
@Macintosh
@wind gypsy
Thank you gentlemen for your concern. I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing because it works and hasn't necessarily been wrong. It's certainly unorthodox to popular (and probably correct) thinking and that's okay. I've taken many animals before I even knew what Rokslide was, and will take even more after Rokslide is just a distant memory for me.
Cheers.