i find groups worthless when the group is larger than 1.5 times the projectile size . the shooter cannot see if the projectile went through the hole in the center or just where the new hole is .
Upvote 0
Are 5 shot groups worthless statistically?
- Thread starter HogKiller
- Start date
My personal testing makes more sense I believe if you consider I am not a bench rest or field target competitor . I am a for fun plinker, pesting , hunter . Although I appreciate extreme precision and that is the goal, (I try my hardest) but the pcp with me driving doesn't always make it lol.
I guess an honest answer from me would be the farther the distance the more shots or a full mag dump I am going to do. because as CT stated proven repeatable and constant is a priority for me. More shots more info./data in my book lol.
Now the shorter the distance or closer I get the less shots per group as in maybe five shots or sometimes maybe seven. I do not see much benifit to putting 25 shots or more in a quarter inch hole and Because I want to see if the clover leaf groupings are repeating in any way, so smaller shots per group but multiple groups = example maybe ten = 5-7 shot groups .
If longer distances 50 to a 100 a mag dump and five to six = groupings at 100 with a minimum of 10 shots at least and almost always more haha, lol.
To each their own and what ever works for you as long as you are enjoying it and having fun.
I guess an honest answer from me would be the farther the distance the more shots or a full mag dump I am going to do. because as CT stated proven repeatable and constant is a priority for me. More shots more info./data in my book lol.
Now the shorter the distance or closer I get the less shots per group as in maybe five shots or sometimes maybe seven. I do not see much benifit to putting 25 shots or more in a quarter inch hole and Because I want to see if the clover leaf groupings are repeating in any way, so smaller shots per group but multiple groups = example maybe ten = 5-7 shot groups .
If longer distances 50 to a 100 a mag dump and five to six = groupings at 100 with a minimum of 10 shots at least and almost always more haha, lol.
To each their own and what ever works for you as long as you are enjoying it and having fun.
Upvote 0
I have never competed but I see people shooting one pellet per bullseye on like 100 bullseye targets (AoA hosted event). Isn't that the best way to shoot for a score? Seems much more precise instead of a random number of shots into the same target.
Upvote 0
I cannot print groups that tight at longer distances hence the more shots the farther the distance for me. I get exactly where you are coming from if you are that good or really close. I would find it useless as well haha. I do agree with that
Upvote 0
i find groups worthless when the group is larger than 1.5 times the projectile size . the shooter cannot see if the projectile went through the hole in the center or just where the new hole is .
what i mean here is if i shoot an X perfect shot . next i shoot 3/8 of an inch off ,then i shoot a hole that just nicks the 3/8 hole and so on till the holes connect . Now you have a 3/8 grouping most will say wow a 3/8 group is wonderful @ 50 yards ! i say i missed the X 4 times. So i shoot a new bull every shot .
what i mean here is if i shoot an X perfect shot . next i shoot 3/8 of an inch off ,then i shoot a hole that just nicks the 3/8 hole and so on till the holes connect . Now you have a 3/8 grouping most will say wow a 3/8 group is wonderful @ 50 yards ! i say i missed the X 4 times. So i shoot a new bull every shot .
Upvote 0
I’m the same way. I like these targets. Every pellet is different and shooting outdoors every shot is different in the wind, and I’m a human so I’m a huge variable.
06-15-2023-9-14-37-AM hosted at ImgBB
Image 06-15-2023-9-14-37-AM in Yanchula81's images album
ibb.co Upvote 0
What just happened lol how did i post before you and quote something you wrote after me lol. strange
Upvote 0
i posted the statement twice, the first was the statement the 2nd was the explanationWhat just happened lol how did i post before you and quote something you wrote after me lol. strange
View attachment 364761
Upvote 0
I realized a few weeks ago as I tried to get slugs to group like my pellets that more than one shot was not a good comparison.
My reasoning is not so fancy and formula related though. I thought my pellet groups were tighter as it appeared to be one "jagged" hole.
My slugs seemed to be several extremely close holes all connected. Then it hit me, my domed pellets were punching through the paper, my slugs with the smaller front end were slicing through the paper and leaving a much smaller hole per shot. When I compared the actual group size they were pretty much the same. The pellet hole just looked prettier.
My reasoning is not so fancy and formula related though. I thought my pellet groups were tighter as it appeared to be one "jagged" hole.
My slugs seemed to be several extremely close holes all connected. Then it hit me, my domed pellets were punching through the paper, my slugs with the smaller front end were slicing through the paper and leaving a much smaller hole per shot. When I compared the actual group size they were pretty much the same. The pellet hole just looked prettier.
Upvote 0
Do you score your targets?
There are a lot of different ways to shoot groups. One of them is to shoot bull's eyes and score the target.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
yes i score the targets , X is a hit , touching the 3/16 inch ring around the x is a hit . Honestly i only get 3 or 4 out of 12 bulls , but getting a bit better with the misses all the time .
Upvote 0
As soon as the guy in the video said "You'd need 10,000 shots and multiple barrels" I summed him up as an amateur statistician who doesn't understand that changing a SIGNIFICANT variable such as your d*#$ barrel may result in statistically significant change in group size, which entirely negates the entire basis of his argument 'science says you need to...'. Thank god he is not the face of science...
-Matt
-Matt
Upvote 0
I have a MS in statistics. There are two measures of concern, here, reliability and validity. Three shots may be reliable, but not necessarily valid for a given test. 300 shots, under the same conditions would be both reliable and valid.
Shooters testing lots of ammo/pellets are looking for test-retest reliability. Ten repeated tests, using three shots each, can be both reliable and valid. With enough data one could use SPSS to calculate the reliability and validity, but it is really not necessary. The human brain does a good job on tasks like these.
If one is interested, you could use a free version of SPSS for analyzing your data. (SPSS costs $$$$$$$$.)
PSPP - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
www.gnu.org
A quibble here. Yes it is reliability and validity. It is really test-retest (stability over time) that is being tested. Though those analysis could be applied. It is really, from a psychometric perspective, alternative form reliability. However I would grant it is a matter of how you applied psychometric theory here. Shooting bulls, for example, could be conceptualized as internal consistently.
Note this intended as 90% humor with <9% information and the rest random error. No attemp to classify systematic error was made.
Upvote 0
I heard that 80% of all statistics were made up 60% of the time and believed another 95%.
I'm going to go outside and shoot just worry about what I can control.
Smitty
I'm going to go outside and shoot just worry about what I can control.
Smitty
Upvote 0
I wish I had that problem.
Instead I have heaps of slugs that don’t shoot for crap. Statistically speaking.
Upvote 0
Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Shoot and be happy!
Shoot and be happy!
Upvote 0
statistics (quoted out of context), most surely.
With all of the content and data out there in the world today I think this has proven only more relevant.
Upvote 0
I like "OldSpook"'s explanation but will try to put what I think is the same argument in different words. The creator of the subject video was arguing that shooting a 5 shot group is insufficient information to tell him whether changing the powder charge by 0.1 grain or changing a bullet or making another similar change increased or decreased accuracy. I can agree with that more for small groups than large ones. If the combination results in a big group, more shots is not going to make it better. If the group is really small, there is a chance that essentially the shooter got lucky. Shooting more groups would add certainty to the conclusion.
When checking accuracy of new pellets I shoot groups but I measure velocity as I am shooting. I have noticed that my ES and std deviation are much better for pellets my guns like than ones they do not. If the ES is over 10 for a 10 shot string it isn't a good pellet for the gun, regardless of what the group size is. Usually decent pellets are under 5 for ES. If the ES is OK, then I want to know group size. But after a group or two, I like to shoot a 30 yard challenge target. I want my gun to consistently hit what I am shooting at, not make little groups at whatever point it chooses to shoot to. I think getting 24 shots to behave is a better test than getting five or 10.
If I am adjusting my scope, I may make an adjustment for two shots in the same, wrong, place. Isn't a perfect way to do it but two shots touching is a pretty good idea where the gun is shooting. Similarly I've used 3 shot groups a lot for testing ammo. Not one but multiple. I need to allow for the fact that the guy pulling the trigger is not as consistent as he would like to be. Low number of shots doesn't provide a 100% confidence of what is going on but it can be enough to give me a pretty good idea.
When checking accuracy of new pellets I shoot groups but I measure velocity as I am shooting. I have noticed that my ES and std deviation are much better for pellets my guns like than ones they do not. If the ES is over 10 for a 10 shot string it isn't a good pellet for the gun, regardless of what the group size is. Usually decent pellets are under 5 for ES. If the ES is OK, then I want to know group size. But after a group or two, I like to shoot a 30 yard challenge target. I want my gun to consistently hit what I am shooting at, not make little groups at whatever point it chooses to shoot to. I think getting 24 shots to behave is a better test than getting five or 10.
If I am adjusting my scope, I may make an adjustment for two shots in the same, wrong, place. Isn't a perfect way to do it but two shots touching is a pretty good idea where the gun is shooting. Similarly I've used 3 shot groups a lot for testing ammo. Not one but multiple. I need to allow for the fact that the guy pulling the trigger is not as consistent as he would like to be. Low number of shots doesn't provide a 100% confidence of what is going on but it can be enough to give me a pretty good idea.
Upvote 0
