Lemonaid Wrote:Kicking around a better method of evaluating loads for accuracy. An easy way to account for 5th shot syndrome (4 nice shots in .250 and the 5th opens it up to 1.3 inches). A quick net search got me this link. https://bisonballistics.com/articles/opt...for-rifles. The Radial Standard Deviation method would be great, those that use it please comment on how you like it and how you record the data to compare your loads.
My Simple Minded method is to use a clear template with circles lines like a target, say .5 inch center and .5 between circles and scored like a target, 10 points for each shot inside the center circle, 9, 8, 7, etc for shots that land in the corresponding outer circles.
Place the template on a five round group for max score, record the total for easy comparison.
Suggestions? Helpful criticisms? Better ideas? All welcome!
Back to the original message here. Lemonaid, I think this device is really good. Good because it is easy to use and is quantifiable. Yes, you can use it to find mean radius which is a more technical description of group size than minutes of angle. I used to measure groups in terms of mean radius but it was time consuming to find the center of the group. This template will do so pretty easily.
What I like about it is that it gives you two ways of describing your group. First is mean radius and second is score. By recording a score, you are giving yourself something akin to a probability figure as well as a mathematical record of how small your group was even with one shot that may be an outlier. Or a more open group because although the score was OK, the mean radius was bigger than other groups you recorded.
What to do with outliers? Depends on what you want out of the data.
If you want a total view of the load in terms of the probability that you will shoot a certain score at distance, then you need to include shots you blew because human error needs to be part of assessing probability when it comes to marksmanship.
If you want to make a assessment on the purely technical performance of your ammo and rifle combo without you involved, you can throw out shots you called out and went to your call. This assumes you can call your shots extremely well because if you call a shot wide at 3 and it goes wide at 8, it didn't go to your call and you need to record that shot.
Another thing you can do is shoot five groups of five and throw out the best and worse. Then average the remaining three. Personally, I think this is probably a better way of total assessment.
Like most here though, I shoot for groups at 100 yards only to see if a load has potential. If it has potential, I move my testing to 300 yards to compare two or maybe three loads that were good at 100. I do not think that shooting groups at 100 is a measure of performance. I view 300 as a much better distance to measure performance. I do not waste any more time an ammo on seeing how good groups are. When I find a load I think is good, I use it.
LR55