Klem Wrote:It looks like our definitions of terms are different.
Accuracy refers to how close the shooter can place bullets to the point of aim, and precision is the guns ability to shoot tight groups regardless of where they fall on the target.
"Better groups" for me in a work-up is precision - I am looking for the tightest group. Environmental conditions like wind are variables we try and exclude when focussing on a guns ability to fire ammunition. Wind affects accuracy but not precision. Shooters often use the term accuracy as an umbrella term when they are technically talking about precision. I do it all the time but right now we are parsing the concepts to get to the bottom of what we are really trying to do.
What hits targets and wins matches is a combination of precision and accuracy.
Your term "durable" seems to me to be consistency in precision. We expect when doing a work-up that the results are repeatable or the same every time, and will be into the future. In scientific experimentation this is called 'Reliability' and is one of the two key measures of experimental quality: Reliability and Validity.
Implied in precision is that results are repeatable, reliable. When I do a work-up, like Henka is saying we often are not controlling variables as well as we should. He rightly points out the risks of lack of reliability in these shooting work-up methods due to differences in case volumes, brass ductility and a host of other variables; some of this is our responsibility and some of it is down to the manufacturers quality control, or even factors beyond anyone's control. Also bear in mind that even if you can control all variables at the time of working up a load, that things are going to change; the gun barrel wears, the brass wears and gets replaced, different powder lots, shooting at different times of the year. In two years' time your favourite load might not be the best load.
I think you will find that Satterlee will be focussing on validity also and not just reliability.
Your right, being accurate and precise are two different things. I was thinking precision and meant that, when I wrote accurate. Slip of the tongue. So, yes, precise would have been a better choice of words in that context.
I still say, Satterlees main goal is finding the lowest possible SDs, at the highest muzzle velocity, with the least temperature sensitivity, over the largest variation in charge weights, in the most efficient way possible. With absolute Precision being further down the list of requirements.
Which is exactly what Im after in a hunting load. I dont need precision as much as I do accuracy. And The Satterlee method is just a quicker more efficient shortcut to basically arrive at the same place you would using Dan Newberrys OCW method. Which has reliably worked for me in the past.
YMMV.
