Is sorting ammo economically sound idea?

[_Shorty]

50 rounds / 200 rounds shows what it shows. The math is clear. It paints a particular picture with a particular amount of error and consistency. There's nothing about it that says "This is what you will always get no matter what." Why do you think it should be more, and how much should it be? I hesitate to even discuss it with you because it is a stats discussion, and there have been too many indications that you do not have a very firm understanding of stats, as demonstrated by your continual use of this "one box does this but the next does something else" argument you favour. In that example those two boxes of 50 are not separate 50-sample entities. It is a 100-sample portion of a larger data pool. I've tried explaining this to you a few different ways on a few different occasions but you never seem to understand it. If you did you would stop using this example. Stats doesn't work the way you think it works.

200 rounds gives a 90% confidence interval of +/- 5.8% and a standard deviation of 0.0354. That is predictive of the performance you'd see with the entire lot number with those guns. It literally tells you what you can expect to see, but the last three words of that last sentence are pretty important. It does not tell you that you will see the same thing in your guns. It can give you an idea of what you might see in your guns since that's what it did in those guns. If it shoots that well in those guns it is possible it could shoot that well in your guns. This isn't to say all guns are equal. Obviously they are not. But the fact of the matter is, if a given lot of ammo shows it can perform to a certain level here, it is possible it could perform to a certain level there. It's not a guarantee of anything. It's an example of what it can do. It isn't a statement of what it will do. I would think most people would understand that.

 

[GPSMapNut]

50 rounds / 200 rounds shows what it shows. The math is clear. It paints a particular picture with a particular amount of error and consistency. There's nothing about it that says "This is what you will always get no matter what." Why do you think it should be more, and how much should it be? I hesitate to even discuss it with you because it is a stats discussion, and there have been too many indications that you do not have a very firm understanding of stats, as demonstrated by your continual use of this "one box does this but the next does something else" argument you favour. In that example those two boxes of 50 are not separate 50-sample entities. It is a 100-sample portion of a larger data pool. I've tried explaining this to you a few different ways on a few different occasions but you never seem to understand it. If you did you would stop using this example. Stats doesn't work the way you think it works.

200 rounds gives a 90% confidence interval of +/- 5.8% and a standard deviation of 0.0354. That is predictive of the performance you'd see with the entire lot number with those guns. It literally tells you what you can expect to see, but the last three words of that last sentence are pretty important. It does not tell you that you will see the same thing in your guns. It can give you an idea of what you might see in your guns since that's what it did in those guns. If it shoots that well in those guns it is possible it could shoot that well in your guns. This isn't to say all guns are equal. Obviously they are not. But the fact of the matter is, if a given lot of ammo shows it can perform to a certain level here, it is possible it could perform to a certain level there. It's not a guarantee of anything. It's an example of what it can do. It isn't a statement of what it will do. I would think most people would understand that.

I was going to make a long reply based on my short sample but reading the replies, let me conclude that the all this can be captured in just two short points:
#1. Some of you will not be satisfied unless 100% of the production run was tested.
#2 Till someone presents me with a proof, not an opinion, that selecting ammo by sorting worsen the accuracy of the selected ammo, all your divagations are pointless.
A bonus #3 it doesn't matter what the question is...

 

[Walterfisher]

Experienced and knowledgeable shooters have given you information just like you asked in your original post.
Anything you can do or think regarding ammo sorting has been attempted multiple times by shooters on this forum.
CCI SV is plinking ammo. If you think you can make it better by sorting, then go ahead, no one is stopping you.

 

[OkayShooter]

Experienced and knowledgeable shooters have given you information just like you asked in your original post.
Anything you can do or think regarding ammo sorting has been attempted multiple times by shooters on this forum.
CCI SV is plinking ammo. If you think you can make it better by sorting, then go ahead, no one is stopping you.

But it is not going turn into match ammo. You may get fkuke groups. That won't be repeatable.

And if the OP searches like the 50Y/M challenge he find only couple enteries with CCI.

 

[GPSMapNut]

But it is not going turn into match ammo. You may get fkuke groups. That won't be repeatable.

And if the OP searches like the 50Y/M challenge he find only couple enteries with CCI.

I never expressed desire nor hope to turn plinking ammo into a match grade.
All I hope for is to reduce a number of fliers and improve chances for more repeatable results. No more. No less.

 

[OkayShooter]

I never expressed desire nor hope to turn plinking ammo into a match grade.
All I hope for is to reduce a number of fliers and improve chances for more repeatable results. No more. No less.

Your first post.

I'm confident that the sorted CCIs will perform better for less than Eley's rejects.I can only hope that they will come close to top shelf amo. Maybe not better but close.

And you considered club, tenex rejects. When it totally different ammo.

What you need to do is shoot a type of ammo to see if it has potential first, Then sorting may improve it more.

Because I can say from my experience with CCI SV, it is nothing more than plinking ammo. Even as someone that shoots Eley sport by the 1000s. While I had good rssults, it considered plinking ammo by the elite.

I shot one 1/4" group with cci sv. Never to repeat it.

 

[GPSMapNut]

Your first post.



And you considered club, tenex rejects. When it totally different ammo.

What you need to do is shoot a type of ammo to see if it has potential first, Then sorting may improve it more.

Because I can say from my experience with CCI SV, it is nothing more than plinking ammo. Even as someone that shoots Eley sport by the 1000s. While I had good rssults, it considered plinking ammo by the elite.

I shot one 1/4" group with cci sv. Never to repeat it.

You are correct. I was mistaken. Club is not a Tenex rejects. Still, it's not a match grade ammo.
And yes, I did express hope to come close to good ammo. I gave up on that. I'm not giving up, yet, on at least matching the results of lower grades ammo from reputable manufacturers.
Let me put it differently;
Performance of club is better than mine. Unsorted CCIs are no better than me.
I hope that by selecting by sorting, I will be able to blame myself, not the ammo.

 

[OkayShooter]

You are correct. I was mistaken. Club is not a Tenex rejects. Still, it's not a match grade ammo.
And yes, I did express hope to come close to good ammo. I gave up on that. I'm not giving up, yet, on at least matching the results of lower grades ammo from reputable manufacturers.
Let me put it differently;
Performance of club is better than mine. Unsorted CCIs are no better than me.
I hope that by selecting by sorting, I will be able to blame myself, not the ammo.

It is rimfire. It like rolling dice. Lower the quality, the more you just need accept a certian level of accuracy. While you may post a good group, you'll have many that are not. And it is not your doing. Just nature of mass produced rimfire ammo.

Only reason why Im shooting Eley Sport. I was getting it for less than half than CCI SV.

Then if you don't read wind proper, it can be misconstrued as a flier.

 

[grauhanen]

I was going to make a long reply based on my short sample but reading the replies, let me conclude that the all this can be captured in just two short points:
#1. Some of you will not be satisfied unless 100% of the production run was tested.

The point is the most hyperbolic claims made in this thread. It makes no sense.

#2 Till someone presents me with a proof, not an opinion, that selecting ammo by sorting worsen the accuracy of the selected ammo, all your divagations are pointless.

Good for you. You should keep sorting. With any ammo that's sorted you won't risk worsening accuracy. It's the lowest bar.

 

[grauhanen]

All readers such know that none of .22LR match ammo makers has ever made public a full explanation of how they grade a production run. Any explanation for how a production run is graded must also account for lots that are supposed to perform well on target and/or over the chrony but don't.

When it comes to grading match ammo, there's a simple and sensible way to look at it.

Readers can easily understand that when top tier .22LR match ammo doesn't always shoot like top tier ammo across many barrels, it can't be the result of a grading system that's test shooting only. Anyone who has shot a lousy lot of Tenex or X-Act can verify that some top tier ammo doesn't shoot well.

They can also understand that when top tier match ammo has unusually wide ES/SD figures, it can't be the product of a grading system requiring them to fall within a strict set of parameters. Anyone who has chronied many lots of top tier ammo can verify that there are lots that perform poorly over the chrony across many barrels.

The unavoidable conclusion? When the explanation that grading is done by test shooting only doesn't account for some lots that perform poorly it must be flawed and inadequate. When grading is supposed to have chrony results within a strict set of parameters and they don't, there must be something else involved.

Anyone wishing to discuss grading ought to start another thread. I don't need to return to this one.

 

[_Shorty]

Hehe.

 

[_Shorty]

Glenn, ammo can be excellent in their test barrels and mediocre in yours. You should already know this. Their testing is a random sampling of a random distribution, just like your "one box does this over the chrony and the next box does something else" example. The result is not an absolute. It is a random sampling. And the lot number itself is a random distribution of a given shape. Taking a random 50-shot sample from a ~35,000 randomly distributed total pool with a given random shape is going to result in a random answer of a given random shape that fits within that total pool shape. And doing it again will result in another random answer with another random shape that again fits within that total pool shape. Here's an example you should be able to follow:

A fair coin that is flipped over and over will come up heads 50% of the time. Please, grab a coin you have handy and flip it 50 times, akin to a 50-round box of ammo, and write down how many times you got heads. And then, like your chrony example, flip it 50 times again and write down how many times you get heads. On average you should get heads 25 times out of those 50 flips. This is not the same as saying you will get heads 25 times for every 50 flips. You could get 30 heads the first time and 23 heads the second time. This does not mean something is wrong with the coin. Getting heads 30/50 times and then 23/50 times are both completely legitimate results that both fit within the overall random distribution and shape of a coin flip test with millions of iterations. Each result is a random sampling of a given random shape that comes from a random distribution of a given random shape, and both cases fit within the overall random distribution and its given shape. Getting 30 one time and 23 the next does not mean you should make the leap to "Something is wrong with this coin." Yet, that's what you're doing with your two-box chrony testing. Every single shot is a random sample pulled from a larger random pool. Naturally, when you have a random thing taken from a pool of random things you are going to get a random answer. Things like "mean" and "standard deviation" and "extreme spread" are terms that describe the shape, not the amount of randomness. Generally speaking, it's all random. Only the shape changes.

Mean: tells you where you'll find the centre of the fuzzy cloud

Standard deviation: tells you the overall spread/width of the fuzzy cloud

Extreme spread: the distance between the smallest sample and largest sample you've measured

The last term is the least predictive, since it is a direct measurement of just two samples. It can hint at how big outliers might get, but we must remember that that is something that's very dependent on sample size.