Your Groups Are Too Small

[Sandstrom]

Hornady just did a follow up to the original podcast. It is “your groups are still too small” episode 52.
Ryan

 

[gbflyer]

That was a good listen. Thanks for posting.

I’m in that ignorance is bliss camp, like their sponsored guy he spoke of.

 

[ToolMann]

Their external ballistics episode is a fantastic listen as well.

 

[eoperator]

I thought my reloading mentor (local reloading shop owner at the time) was going senile when he tried to teach me this same mentality 20+ years ago. All other avilable information at the time was completely different than the information he was trying to feed me.

Another good example of the older I get the more I realize how smart my peers actually were.

 

[UTJL]

Precision Rifle Blog has a couple of great articles on group size and what affects shot distribution, as well. The biggest takeaway, is that improving your ability to estimate wind speeds wil give you the greatest increase in accuracy.

How Much Does Group Size Matter?

As long-range shooters, we tend to obsess over every little detail. We think everything is important...

precisionrifleblog.com

Precision & Group Size – Statistics for Shooters Part 3

This article is going to dive into the most effective ways to quantify the precision of a rifle and...

precisionrifleblog.com

 

[wtx]

Today I shot a 15 rd zero prior to a hunt next week. 1.1". I'm satisfied.
View attachment 489499

Greasy I'm going to use this as an example. So by the podcasts "rules" you would need to shoot another 10-15 shot zero after an adjustment to make it statistically valid. Shooting a hunting rifle, especially with carbon barrels that need to cool its not practical from a "time spent zeroing" standpoint. I understand what they were trying to portray with the data, and it makes a lot of sense (gonna change my outlook for sure during load dev). Where is the happy medium for the mid range hunters?

 

[Formidilosus]

Greasy I'm going to use this as an example. So by the podcasts "rules" you would need to shoot another 10-15 shot zero after an adjustment to make it statistically valid.

Why would you need to shoot another 10-15 shots?

 

[wtx]

Why would you need to shoot another 10-15 shots?

Why wouldn’t you?

I personally wouldn’t, probably just plug the offset into strelok and roll. But to follow the theme of the podcast a 1-3 shot check after adjustment could be 60-70%off “zero”. So are you truly zeroed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

Why wouldn’t you?

I personally wouldn’t, probably just plug the offset into strelok and roll. But to follow the theme of the podcast a 1-3 shot check after adjustment could be 60-70%off “zero”. So are you truly zeroed

No. One, if the scope actually works correctly, adjust scope from center of POI, to center of POA, shoot one round and if it falls within the cone size, you’re done. Two, one can only be off by whatever distance from center to worst shot in the cone. From that group posted with 15 shots, he could only be off .2 mils even if he zeroed off of one shot. If he shot 3-5 rounds he would be within .1 mil from center.

 

[grappling_hook]

Hornady just did a follow up to the original podcast. It is “your groups are still too small” episode 52.
Ryan

 

[Flyjunky]

If I can put 3 shots where I want them at 600-800 yards, I’m good. All that other talk is just info overload.

Ladder test at 800, fine tune from there and I’m good.

 

[Formidilosus]

If I can put 3 shots where I want them at 600-800 yards, I’m good. All that other talk is just info overload.

Ladder test at 800, fine tune from there and I’m good.

Actually it’s not. Why not just shoot 2 shot groups then? Or take it even farther- why not just hit the target one time and call it good?

 

[Flyjunky]

Actually it’s not. Why not just shoot 2 shot groups then? Or take it even farther- why not just hit the target one time and call it good?

I find a good node, hopefully about 1 grain wide, go somewhere in the middle, mess around with seating depth, and then validate. From there, every time I'm at the range we'll do validation. I wasn't implying that I only shoot 3 shots and call it good. Loads are verified and changed as needed but if people want to shoot 20-30 round groups, great.

Maybe I'm just lucky but this method seems to work for me. Others can do what they want but this works for me and I don't see a need to change.

 

[Formidilosus]

I find a good node, hopefully about 1 grain wide, go somewhere in the middle, mess around with seating depth, and then validate.

“Nodes” don’t actually exist. All you are doing is taking a random set of shots that just happen to be near each other and then telling yourself that it means anything. Shoot the exact same loads/ladder again the second day, and another “node” will appear to be the best. Shoot another day of the exact same loads/ladder, and still a third will show up as the “best”. On and on until every single different combination shows it is the “best” at some point.

Maybe I'm just lucky but this method seems to work for me.

Probably because any combination is enough to make some random shots. I can buy a Tikka in 6.5cm tomorrow, load 41gr of H4350 and a 140gr ELD-M or 143gr ELD-X; zero it, be trued up, and kill an elk at 800 yards in less than 20 rounds with zero load work up.

All people are doing with endless “load testing” with small sample sizes is convincing themselves about something that doesn’t exist. Load a combination close to max- shoot 10-20 rounds in single group on target. If it’s isn’t acceptable to you, you have to change the bullet or powder. No amount of fiddling with incremental changes in seating depth or powder charge weight is going to materially change that group size.

 

[bhylton]

^^ After loading a ton and killing a bunch of stuff, I'm trying this next. I've always thought I was somewhat lying to myself with OCW test and so on..
Probably explains why my rifles "best" loads with multiple powders and bullets always ends up around 1moa for 3 or 5 shots... its cause they all are about the same and probably closer to 1.5 or 2moa If I shot 15rds. ..
oh the time I've spent chasing the "flyer"

 

[Flyjunky]

“Nodes” don’t actually exist. All you are doing is taking a random set of shots that just happen to be near each other and then telling yourself that it means anything. Shoot the exact same loads/ladder again the second day, and another “node” will appear to be the best. Shoot another day of the exact same loads/ladder, and still a third will show up as the “best”. On and on until every single different combination shows it is the “best” at some point.




Probably because any combination is enough to make some random shots. I can buy a Tikka in 6.5cm tomorrow, load 41gr of H4350 and a 140gr ELD-M or 143gr ELD-X; zero it, be trued up, and kill an elk at 800 yards in less than 20 rounds with zero load work up.

All people are doing with endless “load testing” with small sample sizes is convincing themselves about something that doesn’t exist. Load a combination close to max- shoot 10-20 rounds in single group on target. If it’s isn’t acceptable to you, you have to change the bullet or powder. No amount of fiddling with incremental changes in seating depth or powder charge weight is going to materially change that group size.

Interesting, I guess I'll just go grab a load from the book and shoot it.

 

[Wolf_trapper]

“Nodes” don’t actually exist. All you are doing is taking a random set of shots that just happen to be near each other and then telling yourself that it means anything. Shoot the exact same loads/ladder again the second day, and another “node” will appear to be the best. Shoot another day of the exact same loads/ladder, and still a third will show up as the “best”. On and on until every single different combination shows it is the “best” at some point.




Probably because any combination is enough to make some random shots. I can buy a Tikka in 6.5cm tomorrow, load 41gr of H4350 and a 140gr ELD-M or 143gr ELD-X; zero it, be trued up, and kill an elk at 800 yards in less than 20 rounds with zero load work up.

All people are doing with endless “load testing” with small sample sizes is convincing themselves about something that doesn’t exist. Load a combination close to max- shoot 10-20 rounds in single group on target. If it’s isn’t acceptable to you, you have to change the bullet or powder. No amount of fiddling with incremental changes in seating depth or powder charge weight is going to materially change that group size.

My biggest problem is that I don't know what is acceptable anymore. Always shot 3-5 shot groups. From listening to the podcasts 20rd 1moa groups are pretty good. I haven't done it yet but if I shoot 18 rounds at .75moa and then have 2 out at 1.5 my head might explode. Work 20 more rounds up or stick to it knowing it's not perfect..

 

[Formidilosus]

^^ After loading a ton and killing a bunch of stuff, I'm trying this next. I've always thought I was somewhat lying to myself with OCW test and so on..
Probably explains why my rifles "best" loads with multiple powders and bullets always ends up around 1moa for 3 or 5 shots... its cause they all are about the same and probably closer to 1.5 or 2moa If I shot 15rds. ..
oh the time I've spent chasing the "flyer"

Correct.

 

[HighUintas]

My biggest problem is that I don't know what is acceptable anymore. Always shot 3-5 shot groups. From listening to the podcasts 20rd 1moa groups are pretty good. I haven't done it yet but if I shoot 18 rounds at .75moa and then have 2 out at 1.5 my head might explode. Work 20 more rounds up or stick to it knowing it's not perfect..

They mentioned in the follow up episode, and I think I've seen it referenced from one of Brian Litz's books, that there is generally a certain percentage the group will increase in size with each shot you add, depending on how many shots you've already put into that group.

Say I shoot 30 rounds. If I shot 29/30 rounds into 1moa but 1of those 30 shots makes that group 2moa, regardless of where it happened in those 30 rounds, I would likely throw that shot out because of the statistical confidence gained by 29, especially if the other 29 fit the bell curve distribution that I'd expect to see. That's just what I'd do. Others may shoot another 30, others may include that bad shot that doubles group size.

Including or excluding that bad shot, because it's 1 of 30, likely won't change your zero that much... Unless that 1 bad shot is like 3" off the rest. The biggest impact including that 1 shot will have is that your max group size that you can have X statistical confidence in will be different.

 

[Formidilosus]

Interesting, I guess I'll just go grab a load from the book and shoot it.

Did you listen to the podcast linked? You can go back years and see that I have been saying the same thing as I am now. It’s not based on a belief or a feeling- it’s based on the reality of shooting massive amounts of ammunition and overlaying hundreds of shots to see what is happening.

Have you ever reshot your ladder multiple times to see if you get the same “node” each time? If the hide is real, then it will show up every time.