Your Groups Are Too Small

[Formidilosus]

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..

But that’s not how it works. The cone fills in generally evenly with a standard distribution- more shots land closer to center of the cone, the percentage drops as you get closer to the edge of the cone. A gun doesn’t group 18 shots at .75 MOA and then the next two are significantly out.

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

The moment you start throwing out shots you don’t like, you might as well just shoot three shots and call it good. You don’t know if you have a “good” round in the chamber or a “bad” one. The cone fills in relatively even.

 

[Wolf_trapper]

But that’s not how it works. The cone fills in generally evenly with a standard distribution- more shots land closer to center of the cone, the percentage drops as you get closer to the edge of the cone. A gun doesn’t group 18 shots at .75 MOA and then the next two are significantly out.

You ever heard of Murphy's law??
Just joking. Yes that makes sense both what you and tock-o said. Going to have to open my wallet up and start really testing some loads.

 

[Formidilosus]

You ever heard of Murphy's law??
Just joking. Yes that makes sense both what you and tock-o said. Going to have to open my wallet up and start really testing some loads.

What are you trying to achieve? The task I mean.

 

[wtx]

To derail this a little I just opened up Facebook and the first post that popped up is a cartridge group with everyone posting their 3 shot groups measured out to the thousandths written in pen and with math involved. “1/2moa all day”!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wolf_trapper]

What are you trying to achieve? The task I mean.

Shoot as accurately as possible. Always trying to get better. I need to kill coyotes and wolves which don't give a person many second attempts. Also kill elk and deer but they are large and stationary compared to what I do most of the time.

 

[Formidilosus]

Shoot as accurately as possible. Always trying to get better. I need to kill coyotes and wolves which don't give a person many second attempts. Also kill elk and deer but they are large and stationary compared to what I do most of the time.

There is a point where more precision is not increasing hit rates. Once you are hitting around .7 to 1 MOA for multiple ten round groups, your hit rate in the field isn’t increasing appreciably by better precision and seeking smaller groups just becomes a distracting exercise.

 

[Wolf_trapper]

There is a point where more precision is not increasing hit rates. Once you are hitting around .7 to 1 MOA for multiple ten round groups, your hit rate in the field isn’t increasing appreciably by better precision and seeking smaller groups just becomes a distracting exercise.

I appreciate the advice!

 

[HighUintas]

The moment you start throwing out shots you don’t like, you might as well just shoot three shots and call it good. You don’t know if you have a “good” round in the chamber or a “bad” one. The cone fills in relatively even.

Yes I get your point. I guess it's not a true shooter error that you can call, you wouldn't know which part of the system that errant shot came from, in which case I'd take a look at the rifle, scope, or bras case from that shot if I didn't repeat the 30. Because a 100% jump in group size from 29 to 30 shots doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Formidilosus]

Yes I get your point. I guess it's not a true shooter error that you can call, you wouldn't know which part of the system that errant shot came from, in which case I'd take a look at the rifle, scope, or bras case from that shot if I didn't repeat the 30. Because a 100% jump in group size from 29 to 30 shots doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It just doesn’t happen unless something is broke. It happens, or appears to happen, that you have a “group” forming and then a “flyer” happens, due to small shot group sizes. Once you put 10-30 rounds in a group all the flyers just fill in. In hundreds of rifles and thousands upon thousands of groups, I have never seen a rifle that out 29 shots in a 1 MOA group, and one shot that is all by itself that wasn’t a failed component of some sort.

And beyond that, it’s just not needed. If a field rifle is putting a couple 10+ round groups at 1-1.5 MOA, going smaller isn’t doing much for you. The reason that we have to put so much work into load development and “work up”, is because 3-5 shot groups is not telling us anything- so you’re just aggregating multiple 3-5 shots groups until you can tell yourself a story that makes you comfortable.

 

[Flyjunky]

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.

Good grief, I forgot I’m talking to thee person who knows more than anyone when it comes to shooting.

Go tell the benchrest and f-class guys load development doesn’t matter and shooting 20-30 shot groups is the only way to do it. There is no way an OCW or ladder test, fine tuning, and then verifying works.

I’m sorry I’ll start shooting huge groups to make sure I’m doing it “right”.

Go over to accurate shooter and read through the 18 pages. Tell those guys, who I’m sure can shoot as good as you, are doing it wrong. Go tell Cortina, Sauter, etc they don’t know what they’re doing by shooting 3,5, and 7 shot groups and doing load development in .3gr increments. Or that a load anywhere in a grain and seating depth doesn’t matter. That was a joke when they said that right?

Should I go shoot a 20 shot group, or is 7 3-shot groups good enough?

Btw, I listened to both podcasts.

 

[Formidilosus]

Good grief, I forgot I’m talking to thee person who knows more than anyone when it comes to shooting.

Go tell the benchrest and f-class guys load development doesn’t matter and shooting 20-30 shot groups is the only way to do it. There is no way an OCW or ladder test, fine tuning, and then verifying works.

I’m sorry I’ll start shooting huge groups to make sure I’m doing it “right”.

Go over to accurate shooter and read through the 18 pages. Tell those guys, who I’m sure can shoot as good as you, are doing it wrong. Go tell Cortina, Sauter, etc they don’t know what they’re doing by shooting 3,5, and 7 shot groups and doing load development in .3gr increments. Or that a load anywhere in a grain and seating depth doesn’t matter. That was a joke when they said that right?

Should I go shoot a 20 shot group, or is 7 3-shot groups good enough?

Btw, I listened to both podcasts.

Hyperbole doesn’t suit anyone, nor does appeal to authority. I only talk about what I personally have done and seen. Math, statistics, and reality doesn’t care about “it works for me”. My apologies- as I thought we were discussing reality and not “I like/I think/ I feel”.

In your experience- does shooting the same ladder “test” multiple times result in the same outcome each time? It’s quite simple- if it’s real, then ladders will result in the exact same conclusion each time. If it doesn’t result in the same outcome- it’s not real.

 

[Tmac]

Good info here. Spit balling a bit. Sometimes I think we make a mistake to think in terms of a 1 moa group or what ever. For hunting it seems we could be better served to think in terms of distance from aim point. If all my shots are 1 moa from the Bull, I have essentially what most would call a 2 moa rifle, but do I? It is hitting 1 moa from point of aim.

Accuracy competitors need tiny groups, but as a hunter I just need to deliver a lethal shot. If I know I am always 1” or .75” or what ever from point of aim per 100 yards, I can determine my lethal range for a given quarry. Adequate precision vs maximum accuracy? I dunno.

While I shoot at 100 quite a bit, I always pay close attention to how it groups at 200 and 300 before I take it hunting. I had one load that grouped as well at 200 as it did at 100, and had a normal increase in dispersion from 200 to 300. An anomaly of some sort. Plenty of other loads did a normal linear increase in size from 100 out of the same rifle/scope combo. Go figure.

 

[Flyjunky]

Hyperbole doesn’t suit anyone, nor does appeal to authority. I only talk about what I personally have done and seen. Math, statistics, and reality doesn’t care about “it works for me”. My apologies- as I thought we were discussing reality and not “I like/I think/ I feel”.

In your experience- does shooting the same ladder “test” multiple times result in the same outcome each time? It’s quite simple- if it’s real, then ladders will result in the exact same conclusion each time. If it doesn’t result in the same outcome- it’s not real.

I thought we were talking about accuracy, load development, and the podcast?

Tbh, I’ve only had to repeat a ladder a couple times. One was because it was too windy but I thought I could cheat it, and the other was because I simply wasn’t shooting well.

Why can’t we talk about others who found what works for them? Is it because it goes against what the podcast or you found? Isn’t the podcast about what “others”, seemingly authorities, have found?

I told you what I do, my experience, and you tell me it doesn’t work. I then tell you about other’s experiences and what they have found but then that doesn’t count??

When some of the BEST shooters in the world don’t agree with what was said on the podcast I’ll listen to what they have to say.

 

[Formidilosus]

I thought we were talking about accuracy, load development, and the podcast?

That’s exactly what I have done.

Tbh, I’ve only had to repeat a ladder a couple times. One was because it was too windy but I thought I could cheat it, and the other was because I simply wasn’t shooting well.

So you’ve never tried to repeat your method and see if you get the same results, but are convinced it will repeat and are arguing about this with someone who has done that thing hundreds of times, and a group of ballisticians who did it and saw that it their beliefs were wrong?

Instead of arguing and getting personel- why don’t you just go shoot the same ladders 3-4 times over and see for yourself it if actually is consistent?

Why can’t we talk about others who found what works for them?

I haven’t said we can’t. The issue is “works for me” isn’t real. It either works- which means it produces the expected outcome for everyone that follows the protocol, or it doesn’t. “Works for me” is an excuse for “I have no idea why I’m doing or saying this, but I don’t want to be challenged”. You can not find a single post where I say or question anyone about anything based on “it works for me”, or because I like something, or because I think something. That’s not how I work.
I have been apart of quite a few projects with people that were extremely competent in the disciplines that you mentioned, and they swore their way was the way to show differences in precision; yet when actually measured and controlled for variables, it didn’t show up.
Most short range bench resters don’t even use a scale for measuring powder, they throw powder and it changes day to day.

Is it because it goes against what the podcast or you found? Isn’t the podcast about what “others”, seemingly authorities, have found?

No, it’s because those “authorities” haven’t actually done anything that resembles a test. Base line statistics will tell you that three or five random samples of something, will not tell you anything about an expected outcome. Nor does someone winning a match say anything about whether their reloading process makes any difference what so ever.

I’ve watched multiple champion F class and BR shooters go through their whole load work up and explain why it worked (they were all different) then watched them shoot 50 shot groups with their load, and two other loads which were random so they didn’t know which load they were shooting, that varied from what their method said was the best. In all cases using the same components- that is bullet, case, primer, and powder- none resulted in a statistical difference in those 50 shot groups between their load and the random loads. Some of the 50 shot groups was smaller with the random load than theirs, some their chosen load was smaller- in no case were the differences large enough to say which was which.

It’s all BS based on voodoo, witchcraft, and “belief”. Statistics needs numbers. “Ladders” are based on single shots that are just plucked randomly from the bullet gods. It’s like looking at the clouds, seeing the shape of a dolphin and then assigning some sign from Zeus about it.

Ladders would work if they were shot at distance, with 10-20 shots per charge weight and compare where the mean POI from different charge weights occur.

I told you what I do, my experience, and you tell me it doesn’t work.

I never said that your method didn’t result in you being successful. Please show where I did?

I simply said that you shooting ladders isn’t doing what you believe it is- that is a fact and it’s easily proven. Contact Ryan Avery, I’ll pay for your components and you can load everything on the range and prove that ladders are consistent with us standing there. That’s not me being a jerk or calling you out or anything other than- it is either provable and repeatable, or it’s not real. I would genuinely like to see a ladder test repeat itself over and over.

I then tell you about other’s experiences and what they have found but then that doesn’t count??

When some of the BEST shooters in the world don’t agree with what was said on the podcast I’ll listen to what they have to say.

That’s the issue- you’re assigning an appeal to authority to the subject. It’s doesn’t work. I have multiple partners that have won matches at every level including world championships, in multiple shooting disciplines and not one of them could be mistaken for anything but basic level reloaders. Shooting skill is what wins matches, especially field matches at distance. If ladders work (or any other “load work up” method) then it would be repeatable by anyone following the same protocol. But when actually shot over and over- it does not repeat itself.

 

[Formidilosus]

Good info here. Spit balling a bit. Sometimes I think we make a mistake to think in terms of a 1 moa group or what ever. For hunting it seems we could be better served to think in terms of distance from aim point. If all my shots are 1 moa from the Bull, I have essentially what most would call a 2 moa rifle, but do I? It is hitting 1 moa from point of aim.

Yes, that would be a 2 MOA rifle as it can only reliably hit a 2 MOA target in your example.

Accuracy competitors need tiny groups, but as a hunter I just need to deliver a lethal shot. If I know I am always 1” or .75” or what ever from point of aim per 100 yards, I can determine my lethal range for a given quarry. Adequate precision vs maximum accuracy? I dunno.

That doesn’t help or save you anything over just using what the group size is in extreme spread- it’s the same thing while making it sound less bad to you.

While I shoot at 100 quite a bit, I always pay close attention to how it groups at 200 and 300 before I take it hunting. I had one load that grouped as well at 200 as it did at 100, and had a normal increase in dispersion from 200 to 300. An anomaly of some sort. Plenty of other loads did a normal linear increase in size from 100 out of the same rifle/scope combo. Go figure.

Groups that are non linear- as in smaller than should be at distance, are not repeatable and do not happen without outside influence. There is no way for a gun that is producing 1” groups at 100, to produce 1” groups at 200. It might shoot a smaller group at longer range once, or infrequently, but that is just due to group size variation based on small sample sizes.

 

[Tmac]

Groups that are non linear- as in smaller than should be at distance, are not repeatable and do not happen without outside influence. There is no way for a gun that is producing 1” groups at 100, to produce 1” groups at 200. It might shoot a smaller group at longer range once, or infrequently, but that is just due to group size variation based on small sample sizes.

I’ll never know. Was some time ago and was seeking an accurate load for a hunt, so was trying multiple loads. But I did shoot about 10 shots at each distance, all at the same target, 3-4 shots at one distance, cool down, then at the next distance, because I did not believe my initial results. That load grouped the same at 100 and 200 for the shots taken that day.

Not sure why I tried 200 after not seeing what I wanted at 100, really wanted to try that bullet I suppose. Never seen it before or since. That rifle shot everything else in a nice linear way, and still does. Some shooters talk about a bullet going to sleep, not sure about that.

 

[Flyjunky]

That’s exactly what I have done.




So you’ve never tried to repeat your method and see if you get the same results, but are convinced it will repeat and are arguing about this with someone who has done that thing hundreds of times, and a group of ballisticians who did it and saw that it their beliefs were wrong?

Instead of arguing and getting personel- why don’t you just go shoot the same ladders 3-4 times over and see for yourself it if actually is consistent?






I haven’t said we can’t. The issue is “works for me” isn’t real. It either works- which means it produces the expected outcome for everyone that follows the protocol, or it doesn’t. “Works for me” is an excuse for “I have no idea why I’m doing or saying this, but I don’t want to be challenged”. You can not find a single post where I say or question anyone about anything based on “it works for me”, or because I like something, or because I think something. That’s not how I work.
I have been apart of quite a few projects with people that were extremely competent in the disciplines that you mentioned, and they swore their way was the way to show differences in precision; yet when actually measured and controlled for variables, it didn’t show up.
Most short range bench resters don’t even use a scale for measuring powder, they throw powder and it changes day to day.





No, it’s because those “authorities” haven’t actually done anything that resembles a test. Base line statistics will tell you that three or five random samples of something, will not tell you anything about an expected outcome. Nor does someone winning a match say anything about whether their reloading process makes any difference what so ever.

I’ve watched multiple champion F class and BR shooters go through their whole load work up and explain why it worked (they were all different) then watched them shoot 50 shot groups with their load, and two other loads which were random so they didn’t know which load they were shooting, that varied from what their method said was the best. In all cases using the same components- that is bullet, case, primer, and powder- none resulted in a statistical difference in those 50 shot groups between their load and the random loads. Some of the 50 shot groups was smaller with the random load than theirs, some their chosen load was smaller- in no case were the differences large enough to say which was which.

It’s all BS based on voodoo, witchcraft, and “belief”. Statistics needs numbers. “Ladders” are based on single shots that are just plucked randomly from the bullet gods. It’s like looking at the clouds, seeing the shape of a dolphin and then assigning some sign from Zeus about it.

Ladders would work if they were shot at distance, with 10-20 shots per charge weight and compare where the mean POI from different charge weights occur.




I never said that your method didn’t result in you being successful. Please show where I did?

I simply said that you shooting ladders isn’t doing what you believe it is- that is a fact and it’s easily proven. Contact Ryan Avery, I’ll pay for your components and you can load everything on the range and prove that ladders are consistent with us standing there. That’s not me being a jerk or calling you out or anything other than- it is either provable and repeatable, or it’s not real. I would genuinely like to see a ladder test repeat itself over and over.






That’s the issue- you’re assigning an appeal to authority to the subject. It’s doesn’t work. I have multiple partners that have won matches at every level including world championships, in multiple shooting disciplines and not one of them could be mistaken for anything but basic level reloaders. Shooting skill is what wins matches, especially field matches at distance. If ladders work (or any other “load work up” method) then it would be repeatable by anyone following the same protocol. But when actually shot over and over- it does not repeat itself.

Ok, you’re right.

 

[Rob5589]

Great podcasts, and as expected, feathers got ruffled. It's hard for folks to admit that their $5000 rifle doesn't shoot .25 min all day long.

 

[Flyjunky]

Great podcasts, and as expected, feathers got ruffled. It's hard for folks to admit that their $5000 rifle doesn't shoot .25 min all day long.

Read my post #15 on the first page