Myth Busting - 50 round shot groups at 25 yards - Extreme 9mm accuracy testing
- Thread starter LiveLife
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
No, I meant a larger DIY rest than pistol only rest and design that allowed mag change for AR carbine/PCC when mounted in the machine rest.
I have considered side mounted carbine or receiver without stock machine rest designs.
Last edited:
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Makes you wonder why that is the case.
Is it dependent on continued shooting with the same barrel or shooter factor? Or is it "inherent" part of larger group size that would be achieved if enough 25-50 round groups were shot.
My sentiment is the latter based on my limited range testing. And I wonder if we'll see the same when doing 20-50 round testing with PCC.
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
If you could only see the long list of "Honey Do" list of things I have finished before my retirement.My secret to an unencumbered retirement was having the honey-do list done pre retirement.
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
I will let holes on target do the talking.
After the machine rest is built and tested consistently accurate, I believe accuracy trends will make themselves evident early on in the testing process and certainly before we reach the 50 round count.
And one factory pistol could shoot better than another factory pistol of same model.
Anyways, I started reloading when I shot USPSA as other match shooters told me my groups will decrease. At the time, I was using factory ammunition after testing several different brands and chose the most accurate one. My initial reloads (and not with the most accurate powder) shrank my groups by more than 40%.
And if you look at the table of 25 yard factory load groups with Ransom Rest, average seems to run 3" to 5"+ groups
- https://d2mhjaozymokej.cloudfront.net/media/1540004/table-1-extreme.jpg
kmw1954
Member
bds, I will be lurking and following, hoping to learn a few things. Most of this is more technical than my needs but it does make sense.
My testing is a lot more rudimentary than this and borders on the "Good Enough". I judge mine by how I use it. Standing, two handed, unsupported at 7yds, 10 yards and 15 yards. Normally I can see a load group tighten up as the charge is increased and when continued it will then again start to open up. I include the Human factor because a human, me or my wife, will be firing these rounds as tested. Yes I have found a few that just do not work well at all. Have also accepted that on certain days human will be more accurate than other days.
On the retirement front I have been on disability retirement for 4 years already. I am really enjoying the time now spent with the small grandchildren. After my last surgery I was hoping to regain enough mobility to return to at least part time work. That's not happening either.
My testing is a lot more rudimentary than this and borders on the "Good Enough". I judge mine by how I use it. Standing, two handed, unsupported at 7yds, 10 yards and 15 yards. Normally I can see a load group tighten up as the charge is increased and when continued it will then again start to open up. I include the Human factor because a human, me or my wife, will be firing these rounds as tested. Yes I have found a few that just do not work well at all. Have also accepted that on certain days human will be more accurate than other days.
On the retirement front I have been on disability retirement for 4 years already. I am really enjoying the time now spent with the small grandchildren. After my last surgery I was hoping to regain enough mobility to return to at least part time work. That's not happening either.
My secret to an unencumbered retirement was having the honey-do list done pre retirement.
Or you can go my way. Be so broken that she doesn't expect ya to do much.
Dudedog
Contributing Member
Ok, BDS I can't help myself,
you need to build a climate controlled room for testing so the temp and humidity and lighting will always be the same, otherwise the peanut gallery will say your results are not valid.
Think that extra bright sunlight one one day might have resulted in more high energy photons deflecting the bullets ever so slightly more that on a cloudy day,
but then the extra H2O molecules in the air on the cloudy might deflect it more than the photons.....
Need to make sure it is the same position of the moon as well, you know the moon causes tides so lunar gravity might be effecting things,
bla, bla, bla
The way I look at it test results are useful information, if you don't like the way they were obtained or the test procedure feel free to ignore them,
the last time I looked nobody here was getting paid to test and wasn't charging anyone for their results.
It takes time and effort to test share the results, and I for one appreciate it.
A big thanks to everyone here who takes the time and effort to do it for us all.
you need to build a climate controlled room for testing so the temp and humidity and lighting will always be the same, otherwise the peanut gallery will say your results are not valid.
Think that extra bright sunlight one one day might have resulted in more high energy photons deflecting the bullets ever so slightly more that on a cloudy day,
but then the extra H2O molecules in the air on the cloudy might deflect it more than the photons.....
Need to make sure it is the same position of the moon as well, you know the moon causes tides so lunar gravity might be effecting things,
bla, bla, bla
The way I look at it test results are useful information, if you don't like the way they were obtained or the test procedure feel free to ignore them,
the last time I looked nobody here was getting paid to test and wasn't charging anyone for their results.
It takes time and effort to test share the results, and I for one appreciate it.
A big thanks to everyone here who takes the time and effort to do it for us all.
fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,269
Much light has been made of critics of testing methods.
But the methods are the most important part. If one uses improper or poor methods, any results from the test are invalid.
The concern I have is that some test “results” posted on various forums, including The High Road forum, have used invalid methods, invalid assumptions, and over-interpreted or mis-interpreted results. In short, the conclusions based on the “test” were invalid for a long list of reasons.
That’s fine, as long as readers ignore the results. But too many readers believe them, as shown in their praise of the test and agreement with the results.
The methods matter.
If people use improper methods, they have wasted their time, they have wasted their money, and they have come to the wrong conclusion about their results - whatever they may be. All their effort was for nothing.
If you want results that are valid, make the effort to do it right.
Amateur experimentation can be fun and a great learning experience. It can also be very expensive - time, effort and money-wise. I hate seeing people (including myself - I’m no exception) waste time, effort and money.
I’m glad bds is thinking about future tests in detail. I wish bds the best.
But the methods are the most important part. If one uses improper or poor methods, any results from the test are invalid.
The concern I have is that some test “results” posted on various forums, including The High Road forum, have used invalid methods, invalid assumptions, and over-interpreted or mis-interpreted results. In short, the conclusions based on the “test” were invalid for a long list of reasons.
That’s fine, as long as readers ignore the results. But too many readers believe them, as shown in their praise of the test and agreement with the results.
The methods matter.
If people use improper methods, they have wasted their time, they have wasted their money, and they have come to the wrong conclusion about their results - whatever they may be. All their effort was for nothing.
If you want results that are valid, make the effort to do it right.
Amateur experimentation can be fun and a great learning experience. It can also be very expensive - time, effort and money-wise. I hate seeing people (including myself - I’m no exception) waste time, effort and money.
I’m glad bds is thinking about future tests in detail. I wish bds the best.
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
One of many things I have realized about retirement is that when I wake each morning and drink coffee while looking out the quiet misty redwood acreage is lack of life's distractions that clouded my focus in the past (My daughter reports I am still quite foggy on most days ... Dang ).
To be honest, my work/assignments with state government were often quite stressful (Never imagined I would work as compliance coordinator, support project manager or even director of a large department overseeing 120+ staff and had to deal with problems/issues supervisors/managers could not resolve on a daily basis) and I approached shooting and reloading as a therapeutic getaway and relaxing distraction. But this also meant my focus on shooting/reloading was not entirely clear and perspective twisted (A loud "AMEN" from my wife).
But having promoted through the working ranks, I always held onto the notion that people actually doing the work likely understood the problems/issues better and often held the solutions (carryover from my Army/Air Force training). So when problems/issues arrived at my desk that others could not resolve, I would visit the staff actually doing the work (And I always brought good snacks and treats for the entire work site) and told them to teach me their work process as though I was a brand new staff going through orientation/training. After they got over the shock, we happily went over the work process in step-by-step detail and I would ask them afterwards, "If you had the power to change anything to fix this problem/issue, what would you change?", they often already had the solutions (They just wanted their cocky supervisors and managers to sweat trying to figure out the solution). And just like that, problems/issues were solved.
As I drink my cup of coffee (I know, it's 7:30 PM PST), I am doing the same by focusing on different effects of reloading variables and a light bulb comes on ... I need to sort the reloading variables in the order from greater effect to lesser effect on chamber pressure as reloading variables with greater effect will overshadow reloading variables with lesser effect.
So here is my initial "rough" educated guess sorting (For this initial sorting, I will set aside bullet sizing and barrel groove diameter):
To "THR peanut gallery", I know that my approach/perspective may not be "laboratory grade" absolute as in not using brand new brass, individually weighed powder charges, etc. but I am doing this for the "average" THR member/guest who cannot use brand new brass for their load development and has to contend with mixed range brass they can sort by headstamp. So my methodology will be "focused" on the practicality and reality of everyday reloading with used brass under "typical" reloading conditions.
And yes, I will continue reloading on the humble Pro 1000 because of consistent .001" OAL it produces - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...progressive-press.833604/page-2#post-10779806
Depending on the powder type, I will utilize C-H 502 micrometer powder measure or even hand trickle the charges (if necessary to obtain .1 gr powder charge variance) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/c-h-502-micrometer-powder-measure-10-drops.834894/
... Dang ).To be honest, my work/assignments with state government were often quite stressful (Never imagined I would work as compliance coordinator, support project manager or even director of a large department overseeing 120+ staff and had to deal with problems/issues supervisors/managers could not resolve on a daily basis) and I approached shooting and reloading as a therapeutic getaway and relaxing distraction. But this also meant my focus on shooting/reloading was not entirely clear and perspective twisted (A loud "AMEN" from my wife
).But having promoted through the working ranks, I always held onto the notion that people actually doing the work likely understood the problems/issues better and often held the solutions (carryover from my Army/Air Force training). So when problems/issues arrived at my desk that others could not resolve, I would visit the staff actually doing the work (And I always brought good snacks and treats for the entire work site) and told them to teach me their work process as though I was a brand new staff going through orientation/training. After they got over the shock, we happily went over the work process in step-by-step detail and I would ask them afterwards, "If you had the power to change anything to fix this problem/issue, what would you change?", they often already had the solutions (They just wanted their cocky supervisors and managers to sweat trying to figure out the solution
). And just like that, problems/issues were solved.As I drink my cup of coffee (I know, it's 7:30 PM PST), I am doing the same by focusing on different effects of reloading variables and a light bulb comes on ... I need to sort the reloading variables in the order from greater effect to lesser effect on chamber pressure as reloading variables with greater effect will overshadow reloading variables with lesser effect.
So here is my initial "rough" educated guess sorting (For this initial sorting, I will set aside bullet sizing and barrel groove diameter):
- Bullet nose/ogive consistency which directly affects bullet base seating depth/finished OAL
- Optimal OAL for greater neck tension and initial powder burn/chamber pressure build
- Case wall thickness which affects neck tension and bullet setback
- Powder case fill (primer flash on powder granules vs primer flash on air gap then powder granules)
- Powder charge variance
- Primer brand (primer flash size and duration)
To "THR peanut gallery", I know that my approach/perspective may not be "laboratory grade" absolute as in not using brand new brass, individually weighed powder charges, etc. but I am doing this for the "average" THR member/guest who cannot use brand new brass for their load development and has to contend with mixed range brass they can sort by headstamp. So my methodology will be "focused" on the practicality and reality of everyday reloading with used brass under "typical" reloading conditions.
And yes, I will continue reloading on the humble Pro 1000 because of consistent .001" OAL it produces - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...progressive-press.833604/page-2#post-10779806
Depending on the powder type, I will utilize C-H 502 micrometer powder measure or even hand trickle the charges (if necessary to obtain .1 gr powder charge variance) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/c-h-502-micrometer-powder-measure-10-drops.834894/
Last edited:
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
True
I agree that assumptions/conclusions made based on limited number of holes on target using inconsistent testing methods may not be expressive of trueness in testing.
I agree
To be honest, even I may lack the proper equipment and laboratory setting to satisfy your "right methods" of testing but I will attempt to make my testing methods more consistent, as much as possible under my limitations.
As I already posted, much of my posting the past 10 years have been on "hobby" basis with no real serious effort made on my part. With retirement upon me, I am hoping to reapproach range testing in a brighter light.
Thank you. I will try to make you and other THR members proud.
... < Now, where are those aluminum plates for the new hybrid pistol/carbine machine rest build > ...
Last edited:
This post begs the question - Who decides what is valid, particularly when you're posting on the interwebs?
Quite frankly I think it should be me but someone will point out right away that all I have is an opinion based on my own limited experience just like almost everyone else.
kmw1954
Member
I have my own test methods, very unscientific but it works for me. Don't ask anyone else to use it or approve of it.
fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,269
There are objective methods for designing a test comparison.
The ideal experiment: Control all variables but one. Run the test. If there is a difference, it’s due to the one variable you manipulated, and not the others because you controlled them.
It does not matter whether it posted on the internet or in a scientific journal. Appropriate methods are required for the test to be valid and the results to be useful. If the method is invalid, the results are invalid.
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
What fxvr5 posted IS true.
It is what we should strive to achieve to make our testing methods as objective and factual as possible.
Our limitations are lack of equipment and laboratory condition/space.
But with that goal in mind, I hedge forward to meet that goal as much as I can.
It is what we should strive to achieve to make our testing methods as objective and factual as possible.
Our limitations are lack of equipment and laboratory condition/space.
But with that goal in mind, I hedge forward to meet that goal as much as I can.
fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,269
When testing accuracy, there is a human element that can mess up the results. If the gun is hand held and operated, even off a sturdy bench, humans can add error to the procedure by having shaky hands, poor trigger control and imperfect sight alignment. This is why there is a push for a mechanical device to control all of these elements. The better approach is a Ransom Rest or barrel fixture.
A Ransom Rest works well for revolvers, but a little less so with semi-autos because it cannot control slop in the slide to frame fit that might degrade accuracy because it might mean the barrel is not pointed at the exact same spot for every shot.
A barrel fixture solves this because it requires that the barrel is removed from the gun and is locked in the fixture device to hold the barrel in the exact same position for every shot.
We don't need lab space or conditions for testing accuracy. It's done all the time at the range, which serve as the lab space. And a loading press in the basement (or wherever) serves as the lab space for loading the ammo correctly. Controlled conditions just means that the variables are controlled according to the basic principles taught in Science 101 classes. One must first identify the variables that contribute to or degrade accuracy, and control them by making sure they are equal for all samples being tested at the time.
A Ransom Rest works well for revolvers, but a little less so with semi-autos because it cannot control slop in the slide to frame fit that might degrade accuracy because it might mean the barrel is not pointed at the exact same spot for every shot.
A barrel fixture solves this because it requires that the barrel is removed from the gun and is locked in the fixture device to hold the barrel in the exact same position for every shot.
We don't need lab space or conditions for testing accuracy. It's done all the time at the range, which serve as the lab space. And a loading press in the basement (or wherever) serves as the lab space for loading the ammo correctly. Controlled conditions just means that the variables are controlled according to the basic principles taught in Science 101 classes. One must first identify the variables that contribute to or degrade accuracy, and control them by making sure they are equal for all samples being tested at the time.
Unless the different loads have different influences on that lockup. Perhaps load A is better at getting a particular gun to return to battery in precisely the same condition than load B. In that case, load A may be more accurate out of the semi-auto than load B, even if load B shoots better in a particular test barrel. In that case, attempting to control one variable would make the results reliable, but not valid.
That really wouldn't be any smarter than going to space in order to minimize the effects of atmospheric variability on your test if the plan is then to use the loads on planet Earth.
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
And ultimately in the end, at least for me, it's all about having fun.
Sure, it will be nice to get some more data set, but when I stop having fun shooting/reloading, I will stop and take up knitting or something I can enjoy in the comfort of couch with my dogs.
Dudedog
Contributing Member
I believe we are still free to chose to ignore them or not.
A test is not an experiment, they are two different things.
Some definitions
Test
a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use.
Experiment
a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact. (Bold added by me)
hmmm two different things it appears.
Conclusion
a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.
A Scientific Result is a different thing than a conclusion.
I test a combo of something before I load up 500 rounds of it, I may report the results of my test.
I have never said I conducted a scientific experiment on what I tested.
If I load round W with primer X, so much powder Y, a bullet Z and say this is how it shot for me freehand the results I have are valid for me on that day, with my gun, that lot of primer, powder, bullets etc.
If I do the same thing later I can see if the results were repeatable or not and I can draw some conclusions from that.
If I do it a third time and get about the same results that tends to make me think that my conclusions might be correct.
If I was having a decent day shooting and they were repeatable then I can say this is about how that load will shoot for me in my gun when I have a decent day shooting.
I don't shoot my pistol from a rest when practicing or shooting matches so that information is not as valuable to me as what it does when I am shooting it.
I am not trying to imply that information has no value, but using a rest gives results from that type of rest.
And as far as it goes that rest, we would of course need to conduct an experiment with proper controls to determine if we could obtain valid results using a large enough sample of rest XYZ to see if we were going to use it in our ammo testing experiment and the rests meet certain standards.
I don't think you could consider the experiment results valid if we don't test the rest. (but most of us here are testing not conducting experiments)
Gun X may shoot better out of a rest than gun Y, but if I shoot gun Y better that is what is important to me.
I test for the conditions where I will be using the ammo those are the results that matter to me.
Someone may decide to try my load and it may or may not work for them, if it does great, if not, I am not trying to sell my recipe saying it is the best one out there.
All the back and forth about test procedures needs to remember two things,
1. it is a test not an experiment, and 2. All guns are different.
IMO no two guns are the same, so unless I have your gun what worked for you is a guess for me.
An experiment with scientific procedures could be conducted with proper controls in place that proves bullet X is happier at a longer OAL for the gun/guns used in that experiment.
The results might show longer OALs work better, but who's to say my gun might not be happier with a shorter OAL, so even though we had valid scientific results they may be useless to me.
A car magazine might test a car.
That is one car out of maybe 100,000 or more.
They did not conduct an experiment using a sample of cars of the same configuration made on different days at different times of the year.
Does that make the results of the test they conducted invalid?
Did they have several professional drag racers conduct the 1/4 mile test? If not are the results of test invalid?
If they did a lap time did they have several top Formula one drivers do the lap?
Did they have lab grade race spec gas when they tested car X and Y?
............
Did they say they conducted a valid scientific experiment or a test?
Because they did not conduct an experiment does that mean their results are of no value to me? (or others)
BTW if the front seat is not comfortable for me all the other results are worthless to me.
I can toss a piece of potato in a skillet of oil to test if it is hot enough to fry potatoes.
I can draw a conclusion from the result. This is a valid conclusion even though I did not test the temp of the oil with a calibrated thermometer, and I did not look up the temp of the oil necessary to fry potatoes at my altitude.
I can also draw a conclusion that if the oil is hot enough to fry potatoes I don't want to stick my finger in it without testing it by sticking my finger in it.
If I said I tested something that means one thing,
If I said I conducted an experiment to prove/disprove/show something that would be another matter, my methods and procedures would have to follow standards and be subject to peer review.
I am shocked sometimes at how much time some people in the world spend pointing out how others are doing things wrong. (which I am guilty of here)
Since everybody else is doing it wrong that time would be better spent doing it the "correct" way and posting the results.
Constructive criticism is one thing, nit pickling IMO is another thing entirely.
Some people like to do things, some people always like to tell the people who are doing things how they are doing them wrong.
My dad when he was alive used to always say there were doers and complainers, the doers got things done, the complainers, well they complain.
Mods and everybody,
Sorry if I got a little off the High Road here.
Last edited:
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
I got some good news.
I spent most of morning driving 2 hours out of town to pick up a 600 lb gun safe (Thank goodness seller and his brother were strong) and spent most of afternoon at a metal salvage yard and found promising heavy gauge stainless steel table, fixtures and plates to build the machine rest. I also picked up aluminum plates and long stocks that I needed for the 18 foot Starcraft so it was a good day.
I am done for the day and after a hot shower, going to bed early or pass out while watching a movie with wife on the couch with dogs.
I will start posting the new machine rest build thread in the morning.
Goodnight!
I spent most of morning driving 2 hours out of town to pick up a 600 lb gun safe (Thank goodness seller and his brother were strong) and spent most of afternoon at a metal salvage yard and found promising heavy gauge stainless steel table, fixtures and plates to build the machine rest. I also picked up aluminum plates and long stocks that I needed for the 18 foot Starcraft so it was a good day.
I am done for the day and after a hot shower, going to bed early or pass out while watching a movie with wife on the couch with dogs.
I will start posting the new machine rest build thread in the morning.
Goodnight!
fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,269
Yeah, I didn't bother reading all that.
This statement still stands, like it or not, "Appropriate methods are required for the test to be valid and the results to be useful. If the method is invalid, the results are invalid."
kmw1954
Member
And all tests and methods have parameters yet I haven't seen you state any. A same test can be done and are done using many different parameters which doesn't invalidate either test.
fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,269
I'm not doing the test. bds is.
But, as stated before, the ideal experiment/test (to make dudedog happy): Control all variables but one. Run the test. If there is a difference, it’s due to the one variable you manipulated, and not the others because you controlled them.
- Status
