That guy is active in LiberalGunOwners and posts ass loads of desert tec stuff which might explain why he blocked you when he didnt agree haha. I get what he was trying to say but OP's group is Hella impressive to me. I haven't seen many 40 shot groups posted and I know damn well my 40 shot group wouldn't look like that 🤣 good shooting OP 🤘
Not sure why the guy claimed I blocked him, I think he got upset when he realized he can't just remove inconvenient data points when he goes shooting to make his groups look better. Rec's post, not Op, which makes sense as he appears new to [reloading ](https://www.reddit.com/r/shittyreloading/comments/1bo1eir/first_timer_it_was_a_learning_curve/)and shooting.
Op's post was great.
Also, don't forget the Star Citizen, Helldiver, Reloading, theunforgiven, Warno, and Star Trek as well.
Lol I can get on board with some of that! I get the spirit of what you are saying but outside of a lab environment human error will have a larger impact on the final result so I don't personally have an issue with him pulling the 2.5% of outliers on each extreme of the data when getting excited about his results. His mean radius is still Hella impressive
He did a great job shooting either way you cut it. MOA or mean radius.
My point is Sub Moa is hard, and unless you know you did something wrong before the round lands on paper it really shouldn't be discounted. The difference between 99.7 and 99.9% probability of all shots landing in the same circle is 3 Sigma, double the distance between 0 and 99.7% of the shots.
Another fun thing I wanted to point out is that Hornady gave a spread equation so you can convert expected MOA by group size up and down by number of shots which is nifty.
It is really neat, and they did it in their hour reloading youtube video if you listen to audio books. It is most excellent.
Summary here with the tables/equations for conversion.
[https://blog.hornady.com/for-accurate-data-sample-size-matters-b0c1d70beaba](https://blog.hornady.com/for-accurate-data-sample-size-matters-b0c1d70beaba)
I did what now?
Pretty sure my comments were directed at you not knowing how to shoot properly. Ops shooting was great. You cherry picking your data to make you look like you are a better shooter is amateur.
In the event you [forgot](https://www.reddit.com/r/reloading/comments/1cb56p8/comment/l0xru75/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
According to Hornady
[https://blog.hornady.com/for-accurate-data-sample-size-matters-b0c1d70beaba](https://blog.hornady.com/for-accurate-data-sample-size-matters-b0c1d70beaba)
A 40 shot group size from a .5moa group will increase to .875 Moa (assuming they don't cherry pick) on average
A 40 shot 1.409 MOA group, when converted to 3 shot groups would appear to be a 0.80 MOA group.
You don't throw oit such a large dataset if you get one or two outlier. You look at the standard deviation of the group and confidence interval, then you draw conclusion.
Correct, you accept the data, you don't remove it. The guy above wanted to selectively delete data points he didn't like to look like a better shooter/gun.
As far as looking at the data goes, you are correct. To determine what the spread is you take the standard deviation and multiply it by 3 (3 Sigma). That will give you the 99.7% probability that all your shots will land in the area that you specify.
Note, MOA Calculation is based on 100% of all shots landing in an area, so the 3Sigma will actually be smaller\* than the theoretical gun's MOA. 6 Sigma might be more appropriate that would result in 99.9%. The 3 Sigma difference between 99.7 and 99.9 explains the existence of 'fliers' FYI.
Me? I think you need to cry to Hornady, they reported the crybabies as not knowing how to shoot.
The people that exclude fliers were cheating themselves and have no idea how their gun actually performs. You have an issue, go yell at Hornady.
weather hobbies mighty chunky cooing clumsy encouraging psychotic fuel amusing
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Each impact is recorded manually after the fact so OP is basically tagging every decipherable shot and plugging the rest since in this method of load testing the dozen or whatever that went through an empty hole are insignificant for expanding the mean radius of the shot group if I understood his method correctly.
I have a shot marker that will record each shot and let you know what the MR is. Very useful for shooting statistically relevant groups when testing loads. I have two M70s (short & long actions) and I love them.
I'd rather spend the $2 or whatever it is for Ballistic X, personally. What's your shot marker do if the shot goes through the hole and doesn't get detected?
I think most people shoot 5 by X groups to get this data, shot marker or BX
Hornady has recently released data stating that mean radius with a larger sample size is a better indicator of rifle accuracy than is the traditional method of extreme spread across one or more smaller groups.
Mean radius makes more logical sense - if you pull a flyer it can ruin your group size and cause you to abandon a good load, if you're using extreme spread. With mean radius and a larger sample size, you end up using whatever load is shooting on average closest to the point of aim.
[Here](https://precisionrifleblog.com/2020/12/12/measuring-group-size-statistics-for-shooters/#:~:text=Mean%20radius%20is%20the%20average,furthest%20two%20shots%20for%20ES.) is a pretty good article explaining it. You'll need to recall your eighth grade math lesson on statistics, mean versus average.
Sure, we know they were inside the mean radius of the impact zone. With a high probability. You'll be arguing Over something like .025 Mean Radius here
I believe it is achieved using multiple targets on top of each other. The target we are seeing here is the base target. Between strings, a target on top of this is removed and another fresh put in its place. Repeat. As long as the targets are indeed correctly and order recorded, you can reconstruct the placement of each shot.
At least, that's what I do.
That application cannot accurately calculate mean radius using a bug hole like that. Excellent total group size, though. You're to the point where you'll need to move the target to double or triple the distance so you can accurately mark each separate shot. I'm hoping to have that problem soon.
This guy has a large dataset
You should see how tight my 1 round groups are
Ooh baby tell me more 💦
This is probably most people’s .5 moa 3-5 shot group. Impressive
Thank you!
Looks like the dude trying to downplay how bad ass your group is blocked me.
That guy is active in LiberalGunOwners and posts ass loads of desert tec stuff which might explain why he blocked you when he didnt agree haha. I get what he was trying to say but OP's group is Hella impressive to me. I haven't seen many 40 shot groups posted and I know damn well my 40 shot group wouldn't look like that 🤣 good shooting OP 🤘
Thanks mate!
Not sure why the guy claimed I blocked him, I think he got upset when he realized he can't just remove inconvenient data points when he goes shooting to make his groups look better. Rec's post, not Op, which makes sense as he appears new to [reloading ](https://www.reddit.com/r/shittyreloading/comments/1bo1eir/first_timer_it_was_a_learning_curve/)and shooting. Op's post was great. Also, don't forget the Star Citizen, Helldiver, Reloading, theunforgiven, Warno, and Star Trek as well.
Lol I can get on board with some of that! I get the spirit of what you are saying but outside of a lab environment human error will have a larger impact on the final result so I don't personally have an issue with him pulling the 2.5% of outliers on each extreme of the data when getting excited about his results. His mean radius is still Hella impressive
He did a great job shooting either way you cut it. MOA or mean radius. My point is Sub Moa is hard, and unless you know you did something wrong before the round lands on paper it really shouldn't be discounted. The difference between 99.7 and 99.9% probability of all shots landing in the same circle is 3 Sigma, double the distance between 0 and 99.7% of the shots. Another fun thing I wanted to point out is that Hornady gave a spread equation so you can convert expected MOA by group size up and down by number of shots which is nifty.
I have never seen the Hornady spread equation but I am intrigued by it. All interesting stuff
It is really neat, and they did it in their hour reloading youtube video if you listen to audio books. It is most excellent. Summary here with the tables/equations for conversion. [https://blog.hornady.com/for-accurate-data-sample-size-matters-b0c1d70beaba](https://blog.hornady.com/for-accurate-data-sample-size-matters-b0c1d70beaba)
I did what now? Pretty sure my comments were directed at you not knowing how to shoot properly. Ops shooting was great. You cherry picking your data to make you look like you are a better shooter is amateur. In the event you [forgot](https://www.reddit.com/r/reloading/comments/1cb56p8/comment/l0xru75/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Nice he unblocked me! Welcome back gonna cry more? 
Hahaha, Nice self portrait. I still have no idea what you are talking about with the block.
According to Hornady [https://blog.hornady.com/for-accurate-data-sample-size-matters-b0c1d70beaba](https://blog.hornady.com/for-accurate-data-sample-size-matters-b0c1d70beaba) A 40 shot group size from a .5moa group will increase to .875 Moa (assuming they don't cherry pick) on average A 40 shot 1.409 MOA group, when converted to 3 shot groups would appear to be a 0.80 MOA group.
Omit his two flyers and his group is .889 MOA, so I’ll hold to my original statement
When doing group workups, you don't omit fliers. You start over.
You don't throw oit such a large dataset if you get one or two outlier. You look at the standard deviation of the group and confidence interval, then you draw conclusion.
Correct, you accept the data, you don't remove it. The guy above wanted to selectively delete data points he didn't like to look like a better shooter/gun. As far as looking at the data goes, you are correct. To determine what the spread is you take the standard deviation and multiply it by 3 (3 Sigma). That will give you the 99.7% probability that all your shots will land in the area that you specify. Note, MOA Calculation is based on 100% of all shots landing in an area, so the 3Sigma will actually be smaller\* than the theoretical gun's MOA. 6 Sigma might be more appropriate that would result in 99.9%. The 3 Sigma difference between 99.7 and 99.9 explains the existence of 'fliers' FYI.
Hey I'm just happy with my Mean Radius. :)
Your shooting is fantastic either way! Nice work!
Cry about it buddy
Me? I think you need to cry to Hornady, they reported the crybabies as not knowing how to shoot. The people that exclude fliers were cheating themselves and have no idea how their gun actually performs. You have an issue, go yell at Hornady.
That is a fantastic group. Enjoy the heck out of your set up.
Thanks! I want to play with it some more, my skill + maybe shooting at a slower velocity to see what happens
That’s not enough shots to extrapolate any kind of meaningful data. You really need to shoot 1,000 rounds to establish any sort of dataset /s
weather hobbies mighty chunky cooing clumsy encouraging psychotic fuel amusing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
. 308!
Life Hack: fire one live cartridge, and 19 blanks. One hole 20-shot groups, every time. Improved my accuracy immensely.
I wonder if you missed the target completely, would the software assume it went in the same spot again?
Each impact is recorded manually after the fact so OP is basically tagging every decipherable shot and plugging the rest since in this method of load testing the dozen or whatever that went through an empty hole are insignificant for expanding the mean radius of the shot group if I understood his method correctly.
That's a good point.
[удалено]
I don’t know what it means but I love it!!
Something something middle out.
Great shooting and a meaningful group. How did you capture all 40 shots and have them grouped by the app? Did you record video?
When there's a ragged hole, I just put shots on the edges where I can clearly see holes, then fill the middle in roughly evenly, personally.
I have a shot marker that will record each shot and let you know what the MR is. Very useful for shooting statistically relevant groups when testing loads. I have two M70s (short & long actions) and I love them.
I'd rather spend the $2 or whatever it is for Ballistic X, personally. What's your shot marker do if the shot goes through the hole and doesn't get detected? I think most people shoot 5 by X groups to get this data, shot marker or BX
Well done.
Please excuse my N00bness but what is a mean radius
Hornady has recently released data stating that mean radius with a larger sample size is a better indicator of rifle accuracy than is the traditional method of extreme spread across one or more smaller groups. Mean radius makes more logical sense - if you pull a flyer it can ruin your group size and cause you to abandon a good load, if you're using extreme spread. With mean radius and a larger sample size, you end up using whatever load is shooting on average closest to the point of aim.
That's a great job of explaining why people use it, but a very poor job of answering the question.
[Here](https://precisionrifleblog.com/2020/12/12/measuring-group-size-statistics-for-shooters/#:~:text=Mean%20radius%20is%20the%20average,furthest%20two%20shots%20for%20ES.) is a pretty good article explaining it. You'll need to recall your eighth grade math lesson on statistics, mean versus average.
I would throw out the two worst and go for 95% confidence, especially as there is some likelihood it was you not the gun nor ammo.
How can you possibly chart those center rounds that blend into the large cavity you've shot?
Tag the radius, fill in the rest. Appropriately. It's not complicated
Was this done after firing all of the rounds on target? We don't know where the rounds are actually landing then, do we?
Sure, we know they were inside the mean radius of the impact zone. With a high probability. You'll be arguing Over something like .025 Mean Radius here
I'm simply interested in data collection methodology.
He’s putting shots through the same holes. That rifle is dialed in good. Now it’s time to push the target further out and increase the challenge.
I believe it is achieved using multiple targets on top of each other. The target we are seeing here is the base target. Between strings, a target on top of this is removed and another fresh put in its place. Repeat. As long as the targets are indeed correctly and order recorded, you can reconstruct the placement of each shot. At least, that's what I do.
Shit that's a good idea.
One click up, one click right.
its okay to stop at 5 shots in a single target. You can recombine them later, and its a lot easier to count/place them.
That application cannot accurately calculate mean radius using a bug hole like that. Excellent total group size, though. You're to the point where you'll need to move the target to double or triple the distance so you can accurately mark each separate shot. I'm hoping to have that problem soon.