Are 5 shot groups worthless statistically?

[Motorhead]

As a competitive Field Target shooter ... my reliance in repeatable accuracy comes in 2 shots at a time !!
That being 2 shots on a fresh target at a new determined distance landing at POA / Intended POI
Do that over 60 shots on 30 different targets at different ranges .. yea it's accurate enough !

 

[elh0102]

I read somewhere that a statistician observes something in practice, but questions if it works in theory.

 

[Treefrog]

It's certainly interesting to see all the different perspectives on this.

I see it as binary. One either hits the target or one misses it. The only thing that matters is the shooter's ability to predict where the next shot will land.

J~

 

[_CTAIRGUNNER_]

To comment on this a little more, to me like @beerthief first shot on target accuracy is key. I use groups more-so to test my rifles consistency rather than mine, there are a few variables that take place when switching to a new bullseye verse staying stationary to shoot the group.

 

[ctshooter]

Not sure who said it but: Numbers Lie and Liars Use Numbers.

Numbers can be manipulated into almost any type of conclusion.

There seems to be a difference though in terms of shooting for groups and shooting for accuracy. From what I have seen, qualitatively, over many many posts of target groups is that when people are shooting for groups they aren't focused on accuracy. So many groups are posted that are not close to the bullseye, but are still tight groups. How does that impact the validity? Does that mean it's a precise but not accurate rifle? Does one try harder when have a clean X for one shot on each target? What if you take a sheet of 20 targets and overlay them - does that equal a group?

 

[XSUltimate]

I prefer to go with 10 shot groups myself. Better portrayal of the rifles consistency. But that still doesn't equate to statistical analysis. I didn't see it discussed yet but from a purely statistical standpoint in a production or manufacturing environment, you do not have usable statistical information until you have 20 consecutive datapoints. Many of you probably already knew this but I offer this for those that don't.
I see ctshooter must know as he mentioned 20!!
Thx
Dan

 

[Vana2]

Interesting to read how people approach this. 25 is my statistical sample size.

I normally test, tune and shoot at 40 yards (far enough to see what's happening, close enough that I'm not negativity affecting the results too badly ) and typically shoot 5 targets of 5 shots to see what is going on.

Any more than 5 shots per target and I can't tell where the individual hits are. I figure that looking at 5 groups of 5 shots is a reasonable indicator of what to expect.

Being pesting/hunting orientated (and being influenced by bows, slingshots and other single shot weapons) I believe in making the first shot count. To that end I'm concerned with the delta between the POA and the POI. I check this by shooting one shot per bull for 25 bulls then averaging the total delta to get my error for that session.

I measure 5-shot groups when I'm tuning and looking at consistency. If I'm generally seeing nice tight groups I don't worry too much about the occasional flier as I guess that it was and odd pellet or something that I did. If I see stringing I figure something is loose (gun or optics,) or I'm being inconsistent in hold or cheek weld. If the groups are scattered then I'll clean the barrel, do a quick check (weight & head size) of the ammo and/or reassess my tune or choice of pellet/slug for this airgun.

Funny, rather that abandoning a group in fear of ruining it as one guy mentioned I do the opposite - I keep on shooting to see how many shots I can stack before blowing it LOL! My personal best string is 13 .22 pellets in a .187" CTC group at 40 yards... should have bought a lottery ticket that day!

Cheers!

 

[OldSpook]

I read somewhere that a statistician observes something in practice, but questions if it works in theory.

This is precisely the use of statistics. You are estimating the probability that a thing will happen within a certain degree of accuracy the next time you try it. That is what statistics does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_probability

 

[OldSpook]

It's certainly interesting to see all the different perspectives on this.

I see it as binary. One either hits the target or one misses it. The only thing that matters is the shooter's ability to predict where the next shot will land.

J~

That part is not binary. It is a calculation of degree, a percentage. You might compute the exact center of a collection of shots but when you predict where the next shot will land you hedge your bets. "It will land at X,Y within +/- "delta" with a X% probability."

 

[_CTAIRGUNNER_]

Not sure who said it but: Numbers Lie and Liars Use Numbers.

Numbers can be manipulated into almost any type of conclusion.

There seems to be a difference though in terms of shooting for groups and shooting for accuracy. From what I have seen, qualitatively, over many many posts of target groups is that when people are shooting for groups they aren't focused on accuracy. So many groups are posted that are not close to the bullseye, but are still tight groups. How does that impact the validity? Does that mean it's a precise but not accurate rifle? Does one try harder when have a clean X for one shot on each target? What if you take a sheet of 20 targets and overlay them - does that equal a group?

To comment on this a little more, to me like @beerthief first shot on target accuracy is key. I use groups more-so to test my rifles consistency rather than mine, there are a few variables that take place when switching to a new bullseye verse staying stationary to shoot the group.

Once I find the most consistent pellet/tune/optic combo then I start playing with the benchrest cards or setting up just the little target pasties to do first shot placement and tie myself and the rifle together.

I definitely think groups serve a purpose in determining a rifles consistency as a whole.

 

[OldSpook]

Not sure who said it but: Numbers Lie and Liars Use Numbers.

This is only possible when people do not understand the math.

Numbers can be manipulated into almost any type of conclusion.

Above.

There seems to be a difference though in terms of shooting for groups and shooting for accuracy. From what I have seen, qualitatively, over many many posts of target groups is that when people are shooting for groups they aren't focused on accuracy.

They are focused upon repeatability when shooting groups unless they are zeroing a rifle. Then they are focused upon using the mathmatical center of the group to adjust their sights.

So many groups are posted that are not close to the bullseye, but are still tight groups. How does that impact the validity?

It does not impact the validity of the measurement. The degree of error in the aiming point is irrelevant to the consistency measured in the group. For example almost all benchrest shooters do not aim at the desired point of impact. Neither, for that matter, do they zero to the desired point of impact.

Does that mean it's a precise but not accurate rifle?

Means nothing. It is not significant.

Does one try harder when have a clean X for one shot on each target?

I think I do, yes.

What if you take a sheet of 20 targets and overlay them - does that equal a group?

Yes. If you want to use that data statistically and all the shots were taken under the same conditions.

 

[OldSpook]

One of the things we seem to be ignoring here is simply this. Shooters have been using various group sizes for ATLEAST a hundred years to zero their rifles and to make adjustments in powder charges, barrel dimensions, and test projectiles. They have had enormous success.

The statistician rolls over in his grave.

We have an amazing ability to simply LOOK at a group of shots and pick the center of that group by eye. Sure there is a small error, but the operative word there is small. Our fathers and grandfathers probably knew very little about statistics, yet they built rifles that would shoot MOA groups at a thousand yards.

One wonders how it was possible for those barely educated hicks to accomplish the things they did.

But they did, didn't they? My opinion is just noise and hot air on an Internet forum. We all have a feel for what we need to do to FIGURE OUT what we want to know about our rifles. We established the "feeling" in practice by exploiting that amazing ability to look at a group and spot the middle with a high degree of practical accuracy. It doesn't really matter HOW you do that. Shoot thirty bulls or shoot six five shot groups, in the end we find out what we want to know. Some can do the math, some can't, I'll bet there are as many (probably more) shooters in the winners circle who can't as who can.

That's worth thinking about.

 

[Headshots]

I don't really care how many shots a guy shoots on the bullseye. I do think that they should make it clear if they are shooting from a vise and or a mechanical rear rest on shooting challenges . Some of us are trying to compete using bags only.

 

[rc4fun]

If you want to know how good you and your gun are shooting then 1shot per bull tells the story. You can stack bulls to see the group sizes. There is software that can stack them for you. Then on the other hand that can be a lot of target changes, walking. So some days I'd rather just shoot 5 or 10 shot groups.

 

[Nomadic Pirate 66]

I think that when you move from 5 shots groups to 10 it becomes more of a test of the shooter ( it is for me at least )

when I go past 5 I start to get more and more nervous about keeping the group the same size.

just a personal though/experiance.

 

[Hateful McNasty]

Not sure who said it but: Numbers Lie and Liars Use Numbers.

Numbers can be manipulated into almost any type of conclusion.

There seems to be a difference though in terms of shooting for groups and shooting for accuracy. From what I have seen, qualitatively, over many many posts of target groups is that when people are shooting for groups they aren't focused on accuracy. So many groups are posted that are not close to the bullseye, but are still tight groups. How does that impact the validity? Does that mean it's a precise but not accurate rifle? Does one try harder when have a clean X for one shot on each target? What if you take a sheet of 20 targets and overlay them - does that equal a group?

I think that when you move from 5 shots groups to 10 it becomes more of a test of the shooter ( it is for me at least )

when I go past 5 I start to get more and more nervous about keeping the group the same size.

just a personal though/experiance.

Ya, you syart to blow your hold or premature trigger pull not fully on target .
I guess you kinda see your inconsistent icy . Here the 4th and 7th of 8. The moment i let'em go (). You just know

Not to say im shooting the greatest of pellets but them 2 show i slipped in consistency . Weather i early / premature pulled the trigger ( set pretty lite) or jerked on follow through. Regardless i blew it and still got to work on things .. i just think shooting groups tends just to show how consistent your doing in any disapline area or hardware faults. Personly i just stink at it all together.. 30y, irons,cphp

Just cant win..lol

 

[Headshots]

I think that when you move from 5 shots groups to 10 it becomes more of a test of the shooter ( it is for me at least )

when I go past 5 I start to get more and more nervous about keeping the group the same size.

just a personal though/experiance.

I agree . The more shots on target the bigger risk of having a flyer or just blowing a shot.

Here's some ten shot groups and a 5 shot group at 50 yards.

 

[Hateful McNasty]

I agree . The more shots on target the bigger risk of having a flyer or just blowing a shot.

Here's some ten shot groups and a 5 shot group at 50 yards.

View attachment 364813View attachment 364814

Id take that ... What gun, scoped /irons or pellets used ?

 

[Headshots]

Id take that ... What gun, scoped /irons or pellets used ?

That was off hand with iron sights . OK not really. The airgun was a .22 Maverick vp with a UTG swat scope 3-12 and probably air boss 18g pellets using a bipod and squeeze bag .

 

[Motorhead]

Some may not like or approve of this added observation over many years of shooting sports ....
For many who try and meet some accuracy expectation, by a large margin the Better MARKSMAN more often can achieve it.
It in not the gun being shot or the ammunition used with experienced users, BUT the trigger person themself who has the holding, follow threw & sighting w/o parrilax error & more figured out being able to apply it shot after shot after shot ...

Just an opinion based on observation.