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

[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?

[ninner]

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

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.