Strangest way of measuring a group.
- Thread starter Bfh_auto
- Start date
- Status
someguy2800
Member
I prefer to shoot 10 shots and remove the 8 fliers
Last edited:
Hokie_PhD
Member
Should reduce group size
Well there are lies, D*** lies and statics
Seems he figured out the famous quite
Tommygunn
Member
.......
shooter1niner
Member
Hmmmm...
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,313
He's nothing if not thorough in doing his measurements!
someguy2800
Member
You have a point there. On the internet anything smaller than 1-1/2” is a dime sized group.
rabid wombat
Member
I did the same measurement technique routinely...albeit on buckshot patterns. I wanted to know the area of impact at different distances. I was hoping to find the smallest area - tightest group.
For a rifle....maybe not so much
For a rifle....maybe not so much
I have measured like that to record if it was wind calls that opened it up.
It was averaging the 2 so he could call it a smaller group that makes me shake my head.
Knowing that your group is stringing vertically or horizontally is good information to know. I wouldn't mind having someone include that info in an evaluation of a rifle. If he had simply included both measurements and not averaged them I think that would be good to know. But no, that isn't the correct way to measure a group.
Maybe, maybe not. A group 1 1/2" tall and 1 1/2" wide tells me the rifle is consistent. A group 1/2" wide and 1 1/2" tall indicates potential, but something could be better.
Should reduce group size
Maybe, maybe not. A group 1 1/2" tall and 1 1/2" wide tells me the rifle is consistent. A group 1/2" wide and 1 1/2" tall indicates potential, but something could be better.
At least he could have been measuring mean radius.
Measuring Precision
http://ballistipedia.com/index.php?title=Measuring_Precision
and then he would have a statistically valid measuring system. I think the most exacting measuring system is the string measurement. I have never shot or used it, but the old timers would measure the distance from the target center to the center of each bullet, using a string. They would add up the length of the string and the guy with the shortest string measurement won. You could have a very tight group, but offset from the aiming point, and it would mean nothing because the string measurement would be long. The old timers expected you to hit at what you were aiming at!
GROUP SIZE ANALYSIS METHODS
http://stevespages.com/measuretargets.html
Sounds like Randy's formula on South Park!
I had to Google that.
He probably had him as a math teacher.
That is a lot of reading. I loved the part where it says. Beware a fool with a tool is still a fool.
lightman
Member
CapnMac
Member
I knew (of) a 'regular' at my old local range who always measured his group size by measuring whatever the smallest inside distance was between holes. And, always at the end of a given box of ammo. So, 5, 10, 20 rounds at a go.
Ok, so, there's some statistical merit to a ten shot group (just ask Mike at Bloke on the Range []). However, that implies more method than the regular in question applied. Such is life, or as notre amis frances, c'est la vie.
Ok, so, there's some statistical merit to a ten shot group (just ask Mike at Bloke on the Range [
]). However, that implies more method than the regular in question applied. Such is life, or as notre amis frances, c'est la vie.
Man...why did I ever spend all that time/money getting my rifles/handloads to shoot so well when I could have just applied the fantasy group-measuring methods mentioned here? That's probably what happens when your Dad doesn't shoot, or you enter too many competitions, or work for the government, doing engineering work. I led a sheltered life.
Maybe I need to get counseling?
Maybe I need to get counseling?
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,277
To quote a fella on another shooting site:
“The are lies, damn lies and 4 shot groups”
- Status
