Which load is the most accurate?

[Bart B.]

Why doesn't all this bantering happen when a cartridge is called a caliber?

Or the target range focus adjustment on scope sights being called a parallax adjustment? Both by their makers and customers.

Or a bullet being called a projectile.

And the head clearance space between bolt face and case head referred to as head space.

And a rifle's accuracy defined by the smallest group fired but all other groups are larger because that happens only once.

 

[Walkalong]

Besides, the smaller the tiniest ones are, the harder it is to repeat them.

Amen to that.

 

[Walkalong]

To me, growing up ignorant of any definitions, accuracy was always the rifles ability to put shots close together, while "good shooting" was been the shooters ability to put them where they want them, whether it was tight groups or a good first shot on game, so I can see it both ways here, kind of like tomato vs tomato. Right, wrong, or indifferent.

I do respect MCMXI's opinions, and the chart he posted makes sense in some ways. Sort of like growing up calling magazines clips, I don't do that now since THR has educated me.

It's been an interesting thread.

 

[badkarmamib]

It's been an interesting thread.

Amen. It has given me something to think about when evaluating loads, and my abilities. It also gives some perspective as to how different people can interpret the same data in different ways, depending on their needs and perspective.

 

[Bart B.]

What a MOA means may be next.

One definition cannot be exactly written down because there's not enough matter in the universe to record all the numbers. And difficult to mentally manage

The other has served well easily matching common units of measure, benchrest group standards for all ranges and most target scoring ring units. Very easy to mentally manage.

What about the four definitions for a mil and three for a mile? One has changed several times over its many decades of use.

 

[Llama Bob]

So point to one academic or scientific reference that uses your definition of accuracy and precision, just one would suffice. That fact that people use a term incorrectly doesn't mean that the term is not well defined. As sirgilligan pointed out, it just means they're ignorant or uninformed of the proper use of the term. Rather than learn by your mistakes and grow as a person you prefer to throw insults from the safety of your keyboard. You're one of the tough guys for sure.

Oh, you got me. I'm a tough guy. Actually, I'm just laughing. You do this in so many threads it's ridiculous. It's like you've made a career of being wrong and belligerent about it!

Oh, and you still haven't said your position on the Precision Rifle Series. Are they wrong, and in need of your oh so erudite correction?

 

[MCMXI]

Oh, and you still haven't said your position on the Precision Rifle Series. Are they wrong, and in need of your oh so erudite correction?

I'll get to your ridiculous question about the PRS which you think is so clever, but first, you stated that you're a better engineer than me and I have no problem with that. I know many engineers and individuals a lot smarter than me and much more knowledgeable and I've learned from many of them. I've learned from this forum over the years and have no doubt that my previous position as an engineer at Remington and my current position as an engineer at a major firearms company were in part due to this forum and all that I've learned. I've made many mistakes in my life both personally and professionally but the point is that I've learned from them and am always keen to learn more. I think the real problem here is that you can't stand that many others supposedly less educated and less accomplished than yourself have known the proper scientifically accepted definition of accuracy and precision for years. There are thousands of examples throughout history where a long established belief or supposed understanding was proven to be wrong. If you have half a brain you accept that you've been wrong for years, you accept the new understanding until such a time that a better understanding is available and you move on. This is called learning.

Now to your ridiculous question about the Precision Rifle Series. In short I have no issue with the name of the series, in fact I joined the series last year. What does the word Precision refer to in this context? My interpretation is that Precision refers to the rifle. The rifle is capable of precision (the ability to shoot small groups) and those using the rifle need to demonstrate accuracy with their rifles by hitting what they're aiming at. Have you ever done any load development? Load development is about precision. You're trying to find a load that puts all of the shots into the smallest group possible and this is called precision. Once a load has been established with sufficient precision you're free to adjust your sights to move the group center to the point of aim, and now it's up to the shooter to achieve accuracy with the load/rifle/sight combination. If a load/rifle/sight combination has been proven to be precise, the accuracy is dependent on the shooter whereas the precision is inherent to that load/rifle/sight.

 

[Bart B.]

What does the word Precision refer to in this context? My interpretation is that Precision refers to the rifle. The rifle is capable of precision (the ability to shoot small groups)

All rifles shoot small, or tiny and microscopic groups once in a while. Shoot enough groups and a few will be one of those sizes. Therefore, by that definition, all rifles are precision. It doesn't matter how often they do that. They are all capable.

What qualifies a group as small? What are the conditions and standards "small" is defined as?

 

[Gtscotty]

All rifles shoot small, or tiny and microscopic groups once in a while. Shoot enough groups and a few will be one of those sizes. Therefore, by that definition, all rifles are precision. It doesn't matter how often they do that. They are all capable.

What qualifies a group as small? What are the conditions and standards "small" is defined as?

I can't get my head around why you're so interested in haranguing people about their definition of group size over and over again, in endless threads. Is it really that interesting of a topic?

Regardless, I find it baffling that anyone is arguing with MCMXI on the definitions of Precision and Accuracy. He's obviously right on the scientific definition of those terms, and no amount of misuse by other parties, or "I feel that it actually means this" statements will change the established definitions.

 

[Howard Roark]

Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. Rhetorical question is rehtorical.

TTFN

 

[Bart B.]

I can't get my head around why you're so interested in haranguing people about their definition of group size over and over again, in endless threads.

A small group to some is under 1/10th MOA. For others, it's a whole MOA. I want to know the level of precision and or accuracy they're referring to.