3 shot groups

[iron cat]

Yeah, three shot groups don't tell you much, especially at 300 meters . I'll still shoot them for zeroing though ! LOL
Cat

 

[Dogleg]

If the purpose of a group is a test sample to predict how the rest of it will shoot:

3 is a very weak maybe.
5 is a stronger maybe.
10 is a probably.
20 is an almost certainty.

 

[todbartell]

More 3 round group testing yesterday

Tikka T3x CTR 223 Rem
Factory SIG ammo w/ 55gr Sierra Blitzking
3173 fps SD18 on 27 rounds

Fired nine 3 shot groups at 110 yards (letting barrel cool between groups)

3 shot groups averaged out to 0.89moa, so using the 65% variability rule, 3 shot groups could be expected from 0.31moa to 1.47moa.

I experienced groups from 0.3 to 1.46moa

 

[Dogleg]

With 3 shot groups you’d be better off looking at your worst group for predictive purposes, if you shot more than one. Your best group means nothing, because the existence of larger groups proves that it isn’t indicative of the whole. It’s the same deal with average group size. Whats the logic of saying a rifle shoots 1 MOA if mathematically, and demonstrably half of your groups are bigger than that?

At least your worst group has a chance of predicting the precision of the whole. Out of the 120 unique 3 shot groups in a 10 shot group, there are 8 groups that are tied for worst, all of which give the same size group as the 10 which gets the odds of a single 3 shot group up to 6.5 percent. The best group or average group size have a zero percent of being right.

 

[iron cat]

That is why I showed the larger group as well as the smallest ones in the last three.
The larger of the last three is pretty much typical of the larger of the 10, three shot groups I shot while zeroing at 300 meters .
I fully intend to shoot a couple of ten and 15 shot strings next time out because as you know Dogleg, that is what we shoot for each match target.
Cat

 

[acrashb]

3 shot groups averaged out to 0.89moa, so using the 65% variability rule, 3 shot groups could be expected from 0.31moa to 1.47moa.

I experienced groups from 0.3 to 1.46moa

As interesting as this is, especially confirming Hornady's claims, why would we shoot multiple 3-shot groups when we could just shoot one large group and in so doing gain sound information about precision? I am missing the point.

 

[bcsteve]

As interesting as this is, especially confirming Hornady's claims, why would we shoot multiple 3-shot groups when we could just shoot one large group and in so doing gain sound information about precision? I am missing the point.

You're not missing the point but you'd be missing your point of aim once you've shot 20+ rounds at your target!

 

[MRP]

With 3 shot groups you’d be better off looking at your worst group for predictive purposes, if you shot more than one. Your best group means nothing, because the existence of larger groups proves that it isn’t indicative of the whole. It’s the same deal with average group size. Whats the logic of saying a rifle shoots 1 MOA if mathematically, and demonstrably half of your groups are bigger than that?

At least your worst group has a chance of predicting the precision of the whole. Out of the 120 unique 3 shot groups in a 10 shot group, there are 8 groups that are tied for worst, all of which give the same size group as the 10 which gets the odds of a single 3 shot group up to 6.5 percent. The best group or average group size have a zero percent of being right.

You just proved that it shoots a bad consistent 3 shot cold barrel group for hunting. Shooting 10 or 20 shot groups wont help it.

 

[todbartell]

As interesting as this is, especially confirming Hornady's claims, why would we shoot multiple 3-shot groups when we could just shoot one large group and in so doing gain sound information about precision? I am missing the point.

I wouldn't suggest shooting a bunch of 3 shot groups. What I've been posting just proves the variability in small sample testing

More results to come in future

 

[Dogleg]

You just proved that it shoots a bad consistent 3 shot cold barrel group for hunting. Shooting 10 or 20 shot groups wont help it.

I didn’t prove much of anything; much like 3 shot groups don’t prove much of anything.

If you really want to know what your barrel does cold, shoot a cold shot group, one shot per day until you’ve accumulated enough to believe it, whatever that number is to you.

 

[apexanimal]

I didn’t prove much of anything; much like 3 shot groups don’t prove much of anything.

If you really want to know what your barrel does cold, shoot a cold shot group, one shot per day until you’ve accumulated enough to believe it, whatever that number is to you.

So 3 shot groups are useless, but 1 shot groups are totally fine. Interesting theory.

 

[acrashb]

What I've been posting just proves the variability in small sample testing

Got it. And it's solid proof

 

[iron cat]

So 3 shot groups are useless, but 1 shot groups are totally fine. Interesting theory.

Three shot groups for zeroing the rifle.
One shot from a cold bore barrel hours or a day apart will confirm cold bore POI , which is important for a hunting rifle.
When i am practicing with my hunting rifles I fire two quick shots only.
For my match rifles it's a different story.
Cat

 

[OldDude]

So 3 shot groups are useless, but 1 shot groups are totally fine. Interesting theory.

I think the idea is to shoot a single shot at the same target, point of aim, etc over a number of days.

 

[todbartell]

So 3 shot groups are useless, but 1 shot groups are totally fine. Interesting theory.

Dogleg means shoot one round per day into the same target. 365 round group would be excellent info LOL

 

[apexanimal]

Three shot groups for zeroing the rifle.
One shot from a cold bore barrel hours or a day apart will confirm cold bore POI , which is important for a hunting rifle.
When i am practicing with my hunting rifles I fire two quick shots only.
Fir my match rifles it's a different story.
Cat

Yes im aware. My point is if you're talking about hunting the level of accuracy required is not sufficient to justify the level of autism present in precision shooting disciplines. 3 round groups, while not ideal could hardly be called "useless" in the context of zeroing a hunting rifle.

 

[Dogleg]

I wouldn't suggest shooting a bunch of 3 shot groups. What I've been posting just proves the variability in small sample testing

More results to come in future

A bunch of 3 shot groups can work; if you stack the targets when you’re done and see what the whole thing looks like

So 3 shot groups are useless, but 1 shot groups are totally fine. Interesting theory.

Not a 1 shot group; but a group formed out of only cold bore shots.

 

[Hand Skills]

Since some of us seem to be getting hung up on terminology, the technically correct term is 'aggregate'.

BR guys aren't into the cold bore thing, but they talk about 'ag-ing' alot

I.E. An aggregate of 10 cold bore shots at the same target.

 

[iron cat]

Yes im aware. My point is if you're talking about hunting the level of accuracy required is not sufficient to justify the level of autism present in precision shooting disciplines. 3 round groups, while not ideal could hardly be called "useless" in the context of zeroing a hunting rifle.

I realize that , that is why I mentioned I do not use the same system for my match rifles.
Cat

 

[track]

I don't know if everyone is talking about target or hunting rifles. I'm most content with only three-shot-groups. This fad of 5, 10, 15, 20 shot groups is for others, if they wish to spend money on expensive reloading components.

I, nor my rifles, have nothing to prove. As a FUDD, it's the first shot that counts the most, out of any numbered groups. I farmore thrive to a greater degree to compete with a big game animal, than punching holes into paper to locate ES SD, etc.

I enjoy handloading, accuracy, hyper velocity and tinkering with new products in the shooing field, to a certain extent.