What is the cheapest build you have that can punch a single hole at 100 YDS

[pisgah]

The truth is that you don't really get a good picture of accuracy until not 3,not 10, but 1000's of rounds. Fortunately, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is a rifle's accuracy relative to what is needed to fulfill its purpose.

Example -- in 50 years of deer hunting I have never had to fire more than three shots at a deer, and that only a couple of times. So, 3-shot groups are entirely appropriate as an accuracy measurement for my deer rifles. Mind you, I don't mean just one three-shot group, but if I have a rifle that allows me to fire 3-shot groups of, say, 1.25" or 1.5" at will, then I know I have a rifle more than adequate to its intended purpose. On the other hand, if a rifle's intended purpose is firing 200 rounds in an afternoon at distant prairie dogs, 3-shot groups ain't telling me much...

[mag410]

So, if you shoot enough groups you get a fair estimation.


So if you shot these 3-shot groups, all with the same Point of Aim, how would you report you findings?

http://www.ventriloquistinc.com/Upload%20Pictures/3%20shot%20groups.jpg

[ninner]

So if you shot these 3-shot groups, all with the same Point of Aim, how would you report you findings?

http://www.ventriloquistinc.com/Upload%20Pictures/3%20shot%20groups.jpg

Same load or different?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kentgoldings]

Making up a photoshop fantasy doesn't refute what I'm saying. I'm expressing a statistical truth. It doesn't contradict anything you said. In fact, it confirms it.

I simply don't like to stack many impacts on on the same target. I can't see the .223 holes from 100 yards b/c my scope is only 9x and lacks the resolution. The only way I can judge individual impacts is to keep the groups small. That is all.

I never claimed that group was the actual reflection of accuracy. It actually said it is rare. I don't rate accuracy by a single group. That would be disingenuous. So, you're preaching to the choir. Single groups are relatively meaningless. I said that too. Groups of more shots have more meaning be because the random variation is more pronounced. It said this too. None of this disagrees with you. In fact, it agrees.

When I consider a a rifle/ammo/shooter combinations, I use ALL the groups. I consider every shot fired. Only in aggregate, does the picture make sense. The CLT says the group size matters less because the average of the distribution of group sizes doesn't depend on the number of shots. The standard deviation of the group size distribution of more-shot groups is smaller. Therfore, more-shot groups individually represent the accuracy of a rifle/shooter/ammo better. But, individual groups never represent better that a complete average.

I compile these reports for my notes to record my progress. It holds nothing back. Every shot is accounted for.

Note: the 100 is a typo I was too lazy to fix. It is all 3 round groups.
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/716/32387955226_b9c4f35bd7_z_d.jpg

[mag410]

Kent

It has been a while since I beat a dead horse.

There are lots of ways to skin a cat, your methodology is probably just a good as any other to determine a good load for your rifle. I used exactly the same method for many years to pick out good loads from bad. I dug deeper into accuracy testing because I was perplexed by the apparent wandering of POI between individual 3-shot groups. 10-shot groups show that the wander is not real, the true center stayed the same, the wander was just the random grouping with-in the normal distribution. Funny thing is that 20 shot groups are often no larger that the first 10 shots as 10 are enough to show true distribution.

Unless you are shooting tiny groups and they all have exactly the same point of impact, simply reporting/recording averages of group sizes does not give a complete picture of the accuracy/repeatability of the rifle/ammo/shooter combination.

In my "photoshop fantasy" below I just copied your very nice 3-shot group into the nice round pattern that 10 shot groups tend to make. Of course larger groups do not usually end up in 3 nicely packed clusters, but it is my fantasy and it makes the contrasts easier.

If you simply average the the 3 individual ~.375" groups, you would get ~.375"

Now suppose the same 9 shots were shot as Blue group, Yellow group then Red group. The overall group size is identical, but the average of the 3 individual 3-shot groups would be ~1".

Same shots, same target but more realistic data as the true center of the group the rifle/ammo/shooter combination produces is clearly evident.

Determining mean radius would be more useful still for comparing one very accurate load from another..

I'm through, the **** the buzzards have eaten the dead horse.

Michael

http://www.ventriloquistinc.com/Upload%20Pictures/3%20shot%20groups%20B.jpg

[ninner]

I may need to start a thread on the most expensive build you have that won't consistently shoot 1 MOA. I've got a 300 RUM build kicking my ass. I'm talking 3 shot groups not anal retentive 5 or 10 shot groups. I'm reliably getting 1.5" 3 shot groups at 100yds.

[cricketrulez]

Just a Byods Thumhole. The stock does make a difference. The real magic is the handloads.

I have pages and and pages of one whole wannabes.


Hi, If I read it correctly it is axis 2 xp correct? did you have to do any additional mods to the stock from boyds or were you able to just drop it in?

I'm thinking of upgrading my stock and am a bit of newbie. could you please share your experience with the stock switch? thanks in advance.