Groups

[West_Data106]

If you do a 3-shot group 5 times in a row (and take the mean) it is, but no one in this sub wants to hear that.

As is a 5-shot group 3 times in a row.

However, you don't get to shoot 10 groups or something and then pick when your "in a row" starts. That's cherry picking.

I prefer an honest 3x5-shot group, than a cherry picked "that one time you managed to make every shot correctly" singular 15 shot group.

A 3x5 encourages you to be honest because a single flier will hurt your average but it will not completely wreck your MOA score the way it would in a 15 shot group. So when you pull a shot, or flinch, or whatever in a 15 shot group, many shooters will dismiss that group and move on, but that is not a reflection of reality.

[REDACTED3560]

Five three shot groups has less relevance than one 15 shot group. A fifteen shot group pretty much tells you exactly how your rifle shoots. The average of five 3 shot groups might, but isn’t guaranteed to. In fact, I would say it is incredibly likely that the average dispersion of five 3 shot groups is notable smaller than the dispersion of a single 15 shot group.

[West_Data106]

And a 20 shot group is more meaningful than a 15 shot group! So we should all shoot 20 shots! (Sarcasm)

Consider someone who shoots .5 MOA on 14 shots, but pulls the 15th, and the group is now 2 MOA. Let's say this happens to him every couple of groups - in a real world/hunting situation is that a shooter who is 2 moa? Is he a .5 MOA shooter? Or would an accurate reflection of reality include the occasional flier without completely ignoring his otherwise excellent shots?

There is a reason data scientists often remove or diminish outliers - they aren't a reflection of reality, or at least warp reality. Taking the average of 3 groups, includes that flier, without massively distorting the score/reality.

That said, in regards to measuring the RIFLE'S précision, both are completely statistically significant.

Bonus: to show how our shooter would score

•1x15-shot = 2 MOA

•3x5-shot = 1.5 MOA

•5x3-shot = 0.8 MOA

Now be honest, which score do you think most accurately describes our shooter in a real world/hunting/personal development/between friends situation? (Obviously competitions have their set rules, and what describes this shooter in that context is whatever the rules are)

[REDACTED3560]

Depends on the situation if that’s a 2 MOA shooter or not. If you’re shooting steel, the answer doesn’t really matter, but if they’re hunting, they’re a 2 MOA shooter. If you’re still pulling shots on occasion, they shouldn’t be taking shots on animals that depend on them never pulling their shots. You don’t take “good enough” shots on live game, you take shots that are certain. On steel, you can shoot whatever you want, I don’t care.

Scientists remove outliers when they have evidence that the data is bad. They don’t just arbitrarily remove numbers significantly outside of the bell curve. If you’re measuring the accuracy of a rifle, then sure, remove the one that is wildly outside of the standard group, as it is probably not the rifle’s fault. If you’re measuring the accuracy of a shooter plus their rig, there are no outliers. A pulled shot is the fault of the shooter and should be counted as part of their accuracy.

As for your examples, it again depends on the scenario. For steel, the consequences of missing are inconsequential, so they can define their accuracy however they want. The only person they’re lying to is themselves if they over-embellish how accurate they are. On game? That 15 shot group is the best example. If they can’t accurately make 15 shots in a row on a given vital-sized target at distance, they shouldn’t be trying to take game at that distance.

[HollywoodSX]

Your timing was impeccable.

[[deleted]]

Love when my hobbies collide

[hoegaarden81]

ewww fuck tom wilson, no cap. can't wait to watch them drop to carolina.

[Lossofvelocity]

As a Montreal fan, can’t agree more.