I applaud Brent trying to make this testing more objective and meaningful. In Saeed's previous 50 yard testing he did post all groups. I used some most simple statistical analysis trying to see if it were true that the first ten shots grouped differently than the last ten shots after cleaning the rifle between ammo brands. There didn't appear to be any signficant difference. Contrary to some people's opinion.

Not sure what I think of the two shot method. Seems quite an improvement. I do have a question for Brent. Did you do the average distance from point of aim comparison with the results of two shots using all the same shots from your two shot results?

BTW, anyone interested in learning a bit more about basic statistics (yeah, not the most popular pastime) might do well to get "Reading between the numbers" by Joseph Tal. A nice book for laymen to learn how statistics can be usefully applied.

As Brent pointed out, should be pretty simple to implement this method Saeed. Excel will do all the work for you.

quote:

Not sure what I think of the two shot method. Seems quite an improvement. I do have a question for Brent. Did you do the average distance from point of aim comparison with the results of two shots using all the same shots from your two shot results?

Esldude,
I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I think my answer is no. Point of aim comparisons complicate things by having to ascertain perfect zeros prior to conducting the precision test using the 2-shot, or any other method. When testing two different loads, they will likely have different points of impact and adjusting sights to compensate for will induce other errors.

I have considered measuring from the weighted geometric center of the group as described for the "best" method on that webpage. But that has other problems - one is that it is really tedious. The second is that there are issues with using the weighted average center (I think).

What I think you suggest is very close to string measure. String measure is an old-time method of judging shooters in competition. Like shooting normal bullseye targets, string measure combines both precision and accuracy as it should for a competition among shooters. But generally when testing a load, we want to learn about the precision of the equipment being used, so we shoot for group (precision estimation, w/o accuracy estimation). Then we assume that the "nut behind the butt" will handle the accuracy issue later by correctly zeroing the rifle and aiming it. That's sort of an oversimplification but more or less what shooters are generally trying to accomplish when working up a load for competition or hunting.

Brent

Good to see another 22 like mine.

quote:

Originally posted by jstevens:
I've shot several good .22 bolt actions at 100 yards, a bunch of them will shoot 1.25-1.5 inch groups if the wind isn't blowing. I have an old Sako .22 that will almost always break 1.25. I have it sighted dead on at 50 and the top of the post of the duplex is dead on at 100, a small V8 can is hittable at that range as are various assorted songbirds.

Most match rifles will group under 1/2" at 100 yards, ideal conditions, which generally means in a covered or underground range. Single Shot Association shoots a target with a 25 ring of 3/4" diameter and possibles, 250X250 are rather common, this at 100 yards. Better look over your shoulder in shooting song birds as most are protected by federal law. Did the state ever rebuild the Gallatin range?

quote:

Most match rifles will group under 1/2" at 100 yards, ideal conditions, which generally means in a covered or underground range. Single Shot Association shoots a target with a 25 ring of 3/4" diameter and possibles, 250X250 are rather common, this at 100 yards.

LD, 1/2" for ASSR or WSU bench rifles? If you mean rifles like Ballard and Martini's I have yet to see any that will group consistently at 1/2" at 100. You guys must have some very special favorites. 250s happen, but I would never say they are common.

Brent

Didn't say consistently. But for the trecord I bought my Mark 5 Martini from Al Freeland. The test targets averaged just over 1/2" at 100 yards, five of 10 shots each. A year or so later a friend also bought a new one from Al and it averaged just under 1/2". Both sets of targets were shot on what looked and felt like butcher paper and how they were able to measure the groups, I'll never know. Both rifles were shot using Tenex. I did shoot two five shot groups. one time and one time only that were just barely under 1/2" at 100 yards. This also with Tenex, VX595. Still have some Club, bought in 1980 that was shooting in the .3" at 50 yard in a cheaply tricked out 10/22. But shooting is about ober due to heart, lungs and arthritis.

Guess I've been shooting at cans and skeet at 100+ yards for so long I guess I thought everyone else was also. To me just from a field position like sitting, shooting at a skeet at under a 100 yards isn't very sporting. Shotgun shells or pieces of skeet at 100 get very challanging and skeet at 200 gets real interesting...especially if there is much more than a breeze.

Several years ago on the now gone Shooters.com one of the guys called me a total liar because I posted about shooting silhouette targets at 300 yards with a Remington 40X Sporter mounted with a Shepherd scope. I told him he could come shoot my rifle any time he was in the area...turns out that not only was he in the area...he was on the Board of Directors of the club I belong to! He came down...head shot the silhouette target at 300 yards (what a perfectly windless day) and then isuued an apology on Shooters.

When I lived in Conn. back in the 70's The Lyman Blue Trail Range used to have several 200 yards OFFHAND matches a year for .22 rifles.

Thanks Saeed for all your great work on this...Bob

ps...at 300 yards I saw no evidence of bullets punching anything but a round hole in the target....no tumbling noted and the ammo was just Plain Jane Winchester Super-X 40 grain solids.

Two rifles are done, and we are running out of some of the ammo. Although we have been promised a new supply soon.

Next I think I try our Walther Match rifle.

Some of the groups might appear rather large. The reason for this could be due to the fact that the odd round either goes super sonic and prints over an inch higher. Or, as with some of the ammo, we get a very low velocity round that goes well below the rest of the group.

We had a bit opf argument about what to do with this. Some of the boys thought we should discount that round, and fire another one.

My opinion was that we should not do this, but count every shot taken. As all the groups are shot from the same box of ammo. And if some of these are out of spec, it should be reflected in the results.

So this what we will continue to do.

In regard to Brent's "Two Shot" test method:

I gave it a try. It has some good things going for it in a test such as Saeed is engaged in completing.

Okay first off, shooting targets for score like the USBR is mentally draining. Shooting 5 shot groups is much easier to deal with for testing purposes. I find shooting 10 or more shot groups also gets draining. You find it too easy to lose focus before you complete one group and reset your mind to start another.

But shooting two shots is the easiest of all. You make that careful first shot. Take careful aim for the second. And boom, your done ready to go to the next grouping. Measuring the group is also about as painless as one can get with only two holes (hopefully overlapping) to measure. So that goes quickly. Putting it all into Excel to do the math is a breeze. After you do it the first time it is much quicker than you think it will be.

To try it I shot my Anschutz 54 Match at 50 yards with two low cost ammos that are good, not great. I know which is better having shot many dozens of 5 shot groups with each ammo. Also have shot a couple dozen USBR practice targets with each ammo. I got lucky with about as perfect a day for this short of being indoors. Thin even overcast wtih almost no wind. Was shooting in narrow gully with tall trees to provide further protection from what little air currents there were.

In the past, testing ammo, I would shoot ten 5 shot groups and get the average. I find under calm conditions this is surprisingly consistent. Especially surprising with me behind the trigger. If the average is close, I would further find the standard deviation of the test groups. Looking at the range of standard deviation, and how the two different ammo's overlapped it was plenty clear which is better overall.

Using the "Two Shot" method I fired off two 12 target pages with each ammo. Then just had time before darkness to fire a third with one of the ammo types. The method of analyzing the strings worked pretty well. It shows T-test probability that one ammo is better than the other of between 85% and 94% depending on which set of results is paired up together. Using the combined results of all two shot groups gave me T test probability of 91%.

I went back and did a few ten 5 shot group analysis using the TTest on the group size. Such was a bit more even doing that. With various pairings of the two ammo types showing between 90 and 97% T test probability.

I think the "Two Shot" method worth doing. I would suggest for something like Saeed is doing here, it would be among the easiest and msot informative ways to do it. Yes, I know Saeed is deep into the testing already. But he might consider doing it this way in the future.

Seems discriminating enough for most purposes. I would say for others trying to make ammo choices rather than doing marathon test sessions. Anything over 90% is probably safe. Anything over 80% might be worth doing again with ten 5 shot groups compaired with the T test to make it clearer. Anything less and you cannot be sure which is really the one to choose. I also think three 5 shot groups simply isn't statistically enough info to have reliable conclusions. While 24 shots done in groups of two tell us much more without being all that many more shots per ammo.

Saeed I agree with you. What you shoot is what you get.

We are preparing a Walther KK 200 match rifle next.

This is one of those typical German contraptions, with an aluminium and wood frame, and has about half a million adjustments!

If it shoots half as good as it is supposed to be we should all have our groups as one holers!

Saeed,

Not trying to look a gift horse in the mouth. But three 5 shot groups simply isn't enough to be valid for comparing ammo. Which all of your effort is wasted.

You have some ammo that grouped better at 100 yards, than 75 yards. You have some that grouped better at 75 yards than at 50 yards. Those should point out, that your average of only three groups has too much variation to mean very much.

Yet none of the 100 yard and 50 yard results were flip flopped. Because the lower edge of the variation at 100 yards and the upper edge of variation at 50 yards are far enough apart to not meet.

You need eight 5 shot groups to be useful in characterizing a given ammo/rifle combo's accuracy. If you are really interested mostly in 100 yard results, drop the tests at 25 and 50 yards. Shoot eight groups at 100 yards. The results will mean something. And you will actually be firing fewer shots than you currently are doing.

Saeed, don't worry about these over educated statisticians and analists,
You can never "prove" anything with 22's anyway what with different rifles and differend ammo batches and other variables.
The interesting thing is the overall results taken as a whole.
Im just waiting until you get into the "normal"
field type rifles. THAT will introduce some variables, you may have to try 5 rifles of the same type. The boffins among us will let you know how many of the same rifles to try.
John L.

JAL,

If you wish to ignore known principals of statistical analysis, and consider yourself something other than a boffin (maybe say an under-educated boffin at that) then I guess ignorance is not only bliss, but a higher form of knowledge to one such as yourself.

People will waste many resources, and much time trying to learn something, when a slightly different, but much better method can yield worthwhile meaningful results for the same time and resources. Perhaps learning something useful is anathema to JAL. But otherwise, why would I or others bother to suggest more meaningful ways to do a test? In order to make results worse? In order to obscure what is going on? Make any sense?

Perhaps you can explain, if the results are telling us anything, how some ammo groups better at further ranges than closer ranges?

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
JAL,

If you wish to ignore known principals of statistical analysis, and consider yourself something other than a boffin (maybe say an under-educated boffin at that) then I guess ignorance is not only bliss, but a higher form of knowledge to one such as yourself.

People will waste many resources, and much time trying to learn something, when a slightly different, but much better method can yield worthwhile meaningful results for the same time and resources. Perhaps learning something useful is anathema to JAL. But otherwise, why would I or others bother to suggest more meaningful ways to do a test? In order to make results worse? In order to obscure what is going on? Make any sense?

Perhaps you can explain, if the results are telling us anything, how some ammo groups better at further ranges than closer ranges?

Whatever I have learnt from shooting in the past goes out of the window as soon as I play around with 22 ammo!

It is so inconsistant - regardless of who makes it, how expensivse it is or whatever claims are made for it.

If one does not get a weird round every clib, then one gets one every box.

And in my book that is bloody awful.

We are not trying to prove anything scientifically. What we are trying to do is see how these different types of ammo shoot in our sample of rifles.

Real world results, not what might happen.

Saeed,

My best results have come from getting entire batches (same lot #) of Eley TENEX. Has proven itself to be the best method thus far for .22 consistency, if there is such a thing.!

Jeff

PS: My Daystate MK3 air rifle has proven to be better than any .22LR for accuracy / consistency.

Saeed,

It is the very inconsistency of rimfire, which makes a more careful approach required to charactize it in any meaningful way. As for real world results versus what might happen, how is analysis of actual shooting results not real world?

Three 5 shot groups isn't telling you very much about relative accuracy of each ammo type. You say you are trying to see how these different types of ammo shoot in your sample of rifles. But the way you are going about it will simply help you fool yourself. If you don't believe it, repeat the same test, with say 5 types of ammo with one of the rifles you have used already. See if the average groupings show anything like consistency or vary so much they begin to look like different results altogether. If the latter, you are doing little more than burning ammo. Why not choose better methods when they are known, and are no more trouble than what you are already doing?

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
JAL,

Perhaps you can explain, if the results are telling us anything, how some ammo groups better at further ranges than closer ranges?

Um, statical abnormalities??
Do your own bloody tests ??
John L.

Pardon the spelling.

JAL,

That is the point. The strange results aren't statistically abnormal. But in fact what one would expect with such low numbers of samples from rimfire ammo that inherently has less consistency than centerfire. Doesn't make it impossible to learn about it, you just have to take that into account.

I have done my own tests. With fewer ammo types, but tests all the same. Only with enough of the right kinds of samples will it make much sense.

Brent has shown one way to get meaningful results without shooting too many shots. I have mentioned another. Same as what is being done, you just need more groups than three. Once you shoot eight or ten groups the averages begin to settle down. You can repeat the test and get very similar results. With only three groups, the results would wander over a wide range if you repeat the test.

As an example, using one ammo, ten 5 shot groups done 12 times. Average group size for each of these ten group tests ranged from .58 to .67 inches. Shot outdoors just before dark when calm. Indoors probably would have been more consistent.

However, any given consecutive 3 groups ranged from .32 to .89 inches. Nearly a 3 to 1 range. Any 3 groups simply tells me very little. The 10 groups begin to show consistency which when combined with the standard deviations shows clearly which ammo is better. But also that rimfire ammo on any given shot is much less consistent than centerfire in general.

Esldude, Sir, or Doctor? Im glad we got away from my under-education. ( I was going to point out that in a previous post you mentioned a range of 25 yards) (but now I won't mention it) Don't know about Saeed, statistics etc.
but I'm interested in prusing the figures in a general way. Now I can see you are a man that likes his figures to line up nicely, but I'm just interested to see figures that show that, gee, T22's arn't bad, and lookie here CCI are close to or better than Tenex.
In other words if you see a brand that went rather well in Saeeds test, and won't shoot worth a damn in your own sporter, well it's probably not dud ammo, and you'd feel OK about flogging it off to a friend. Or even a statistican.
Regards John L.

I give up.

Saeed's test doesn't tell me anything much in a general way. There are things in the world that cannot be understood in a general way without also being inaccurate in that understanding. Rimfire ammo results are probably one of those. Pretending it were otherwise just promotes misunderstanding.

If this test shows CCI close to Tenex, during these particular 3 groupings, I don't know it is close. It is almost as likely to have been lucky CCI results versus unlucky Tenex.

In any case, it is Saeed's test for him to do as he pleases.

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
I give up.

If this test shows CCI close to Tenex, during these particular 3 groupings, I don't know it is close. It is almost as likely to have been lucky CCI results versus unlucky Tenex.

.

But lets remain basiclly accurate, so far I believe is's 3 groupings, by 3 ranges, TWICE.
(IE two different rifles.) Some luck.
JL.

There are lies, then damn lies and then the worst of all "statistics".

If that be the case, then there are liars, damn liars and Statistitions.

Liars simply "Lie", Statistitions on the otherhand go on to prove that their lie is "The Truth"...

Bob

And RJM goes way out of his way to prove he is an idiot.

Brent

Saeed
You do not have access to one of the take down Browning 22 semi-automatics, do you?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Gentlemen,

We have a number of rifles, and quite a lot of different ammo here. So This is going to be a major undertaking.

All tests will be shot in our indoor shooting tunnel. And I think for simplicity, I will have a seperate table for each rifle, with results at 50, 75 and 100 yards. This way we will at least have an idea of how each make and type of ammo shoots in that particular rifle.

I will let you know how things develop.

I have had very good success with Fiocchi 22LR M320 ammo. I bought a Remington 541S several years ago and it has a fully adjustable trigger and extremely tight head spacing. It is so tight that standard ammo will sometimes fire when I close the bolt since it is very tight. When I tried the Fiocchi they all chambered perfectly due to good quality control. At 50 yds I can shoot until a 1" dot is completely wiped out.
One day while I was letting one of my centerfires cool down I started shooting the 100 yd target noticed some unbroken skeet laying on the backstop and I started shooting those and then the pieces. I did not adjust the scope to do this either. The trick is this. I use a 3-9x scope with a duplex. At 100 yds the top of the bottom post luckily is dead zero.
Have fun and keep us posted.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
Saeed
You do not have access to one of the take down Browning 22 semi-automatics, do you?

Yep, and we will include it in the test too.

Real world experience is what we call this test.

We will leave all the scientific stuff to our more learned friends

Science is about as real world as one can get. It is precisely about determining what is real natural phenomena and rooting out what is not real. Read the definition below taken from a dictionary. One may gleefully grin, and ignore this. But it only compounds one's ignorance, and the ill conceived activities that result from that refusal of understanding.


science:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Real world experience is what we call this test.

We will leave all the scientific stuff to our more learned friends

Bummer Saeed. Bummer indeed. I had hopped you were willing to consider rather than ridicule.

Unfortunately, you really don't know what the real world is when dealing with stochastic processes without stats. Just the way it is.

But have a good one anyway.

Brent

quote:

Originally posted by Brent:

I had hopped you were willing to consider rather than ridicule.

Brent

Well I think the ridicule is all going Saeed's way from you and elsdude.
Quote from Elsdude "help you to fool yourself."
Again, "compounds one's ignorance".
And your quote above.
I believe Saeed has made it quite clear what HE wants/is doing, so if you don't like it, why don't you and elsdude go somewhere else and play with your slide rules and 'puter programs?
Us poorly educated only understand groups.

John L. (Yes yes I know,I'm an "idiot" like RJM, who at least has a sense of humour.)

JAL,
Don't you think Saeed can speak for himself?

Brent

Brent is better at being courteous perhaps than I in this thread. I do want to make it clear, I am not calling Saeed in general ignorant, foolish or any such.

However, certain things are such, in all reality, that one can procede with all the honest, fervent, and good intent possible. Yet only end up drawing either an incorrect conclusion or being unable to draw one at all. I don't like someone putting out honest effort to no avail. Yet without proper methods that can happen.

So let me ask this of JAL. Just suppose, that your groups are leading you astray. And by making a few changes in using those groups you can instead get good reliable info. And that someone knew how. Would you have them sit silent, and not say anything?

Not everyone knows everything. But if something you do know and understand can be shown to others to improve results, well I thought that one of the best things about forums like this. I know far more often than I could help others I have been on the receiving end of such.

Last time I was shooting at my local range, a deer hunter was trying to sight in off a bench. He, not knowing differently, put the very end of his barrel in the front rest. And was getting terribly erratic results. I politely explained to him, why that was a bad way to do it. And offered the alternative. His results improved a bunch, and things worked out better for him. Should I have abstained from doing so?

In this case, the current test series has a simple statistical flaw. I am sorry, but it does. It is one many make. Since the effort, time and expense is being expended, I would have thought it better to get more rigorous results.

My apology to Saeed if it seemed I was in some way denigrating him. But I can assure him that was never the intent.

I shoot 22 rim fire benchrest all our targets are at 100 yards. Wind is the big'st facter at 100. my old BSA that I compete with shoots sub 2" 5 shot groups. Thats a 50 year old rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by Brent:
JAL,
Don't you think Saeed can speak for himself?

Brent

Sure, I just thought he was probably too nice to criticise his "guest" critics.
And he has already spoken for himself but you and Elsdude wouldn't take no for an answer.
John L.

yeah, John L. I understand where you are coming from. I do not have a lot of hope, but if you get over your fear of things you don't understand and try to learn, you never know what might happen.

But I really don't care if you do or not. Those that want to learn to shoot the best possible loads, the best possible way for the best possible results that they can muster might invest a little in statistical approaches. You all do it informally and w/o precisison, so you might just as well learn to do it right. Think of it as something to check out, give it a try, investigate. It's just like trying anything else new.

A really really good start might be to check out the article in this thread. Serious shooters only I suppose.

http://www.benchrest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2058&page=1&pp=15

Sorry to bore you JAL. I understand that my posts trouble you a lot for some strange reason, but I guess you will just have to suffer.

Brent

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:

So let me ask this of JAL. Just suppose, that your groups are leading you astray. And by making a few changes in using those groups you can instead get good reliable info. And that someone knew how. Would you have them sit silent, and not say anything?

Yep, sure, up until the perp. said "no thanks I want to do it my way".
As for learning new tricks I'm all for it. So far I have'nt a clue what your on about. I didn't read the "go to info" as I thought it would be to academic for me to understand.

I can't even understand how your stats can change a group size? IE if as has happened,a better group at 100yds was obtained than a closer range, over 3x5 shot groups, how in layman terms can stats change that?

I'm in no way trying to be difficult but us dummies can be wary of a science that tells couples they will have (say) 2.1 children.

Well If you can keep it simple, I'm all ears.
But don't forget, as a sceptic, maybe it was
Walter who shot the out of phase group.

John L.

JAl, your asking for alot. You don't wish to bother yourself with learning anything. BTW, not aware of any science telling people to have 2.1 children. Nor will you find any such. But you want someone to painlessly, simply in a few paragraphes explain this. Again, unfortunately, not all things are simple. As for being a sceptic, get over it, real sceptics use statistics all the time. Nothing about it is voo doo black magic. But I will give it half a shot.

Okay, you have seen a bell curve I hope. If you plot a variable quantity, in this case, group sizes, they will cluster around some number in the peak of that curve. More of the samples usually will be near the middle, with more rare results at the high and low extremes.

Okay, so you want to know how accurate is this rifle and this ammo. You shoot one group. You do know more than before you shot it. However, out of all possible results is this one group close the the average in the middle of the curve? Is it near the very largest you are likely to get. Or near the very smallest this rifle/ammo combo will shoot. With one group, you have no idea other than it is within the range this rifle will shoot. If someone bet you $100 you couldn't shoot smaller in the next ten attempts, should you bet? Probably you should, but still little more than a guess. You may have shot the smallest possible group likely for that rifle, not to be repeated for a long time. You would have little confidence in making that bet.

Now if you shoot a second group, and it is about the same size you are feeling like maybe you know what this rifle shoots like. On the other hand, if the second group is three times as large, well, which really tells the tale? You shoot a third, and get something in between. You can average them, and this is the right thing to do. But again, if somebody made a bet for a certain group size, how confident are you for what you can do? Okay, now suppose you shot 100 groups. You know the largest, and smallest of that hundred. And the average with many results to average out the differences. If someone makes a bet for shooting a certain group size, you have enough results to be very confident of whether or not you should place the bet with them.

So how many groups before you can be very confident of knowing the likely range of results. One? I hope you know better than to answer yes. Two? Nope still not enough. Three? You will have biggest, smallest and in between. Still not very confidence building if you only have three. One thousand? Yeah, certainly with one thousand you have a good idea. So how many is enough, how many is too few? Well in most sets of data, without getting into why or how it is known, 30 is a good answer. With 30 you pretty well, and evenly fill in the bell curve mentioned above. You are highly likely to have a fairly fully developed curve of probably results. You can with reasonably high reliability say the largest and smallest results you will receive 95% of the time.

Now other reasons end up applying, and you can get pretty consistent results with 8-10 5 shot groups. I won't go into why. You either need to trust me or learn more. And think about it. If you had only shot 3 groups with a rifle ever, and I made a big money bet about the next group you shot, would you feel confident placing that bet? Bottom line is, you don't know enough from only 3 groups. Brent outlined a method further reducing the number of shots you need to confidently say one ammo is better than other in his 2 shot method.

And while it has been worked out by someone else, you really need to know little to use it. MS Excel will do all the work for you.
Make the shots, put the results in Excel, set up the analysis, which is a simple 3 step process. And the results are there for you.

More in a minute.

Okay, here is real world for you. Below are 25 five shot groups I actually in the real world shot. Good rifle, modest ammo, calm day, just before dark, and done at 25 yards to further reduce the effects of wind. Which groups fairly represent this rifle/ammo combination? The .04 inch group or the .57 inch group? Okay well which 3 consecutive groups? The three that average .11 inches? The overall average for these 25 groups was .26 inches. So I don't think .11 for three is a good indicator. How about the three groups that averaged .40 inches? Again, not very accurate.

Okay so 25 groups averaged .26 in this case. Take the first ten groups, they average, .26 inches also. The last ten groups average .22 inches. Any ten consecutive groups don't depart from that .26 inch average much. Yet using any 3 groups has far more variance. You simply can have pretty high confidence with 10 groups. Not so much with only 3 groups.

In the case where you got smaller groups at a longer range, chances are you simply through random variation, got three better than avereage groups at 100 yards, and 3 worse than average at the shorter distance. If you had used more groups, say 10, you likely wouldn't have had this unusual result.

Brent showed you a way to get good valid results with only 24 shots. Rather than the 50 shots of ten 5 shot groups. If you are already shooting 15 shots at three distances you are shooting 45 shots per ammo. Drop the 75 yard distance, shoot twelve 2-shot groups at 50 and 100 yards, you have only shot 48 shots. Yet you have good reliable results instead of 3 group results that aren't accurate or reliable enough to compare relative ammo accuracy.

Make any sense?


1 0.13
2 0.06
3 0.15
4 0.29
5 0.33
6 0.57
7 0.20
8 0.35
9 0.35
10 0.18
11 0.27
12 0.39
13 0.51
14 0.09
15 0.26
16 0.30
17 0.28
18 0.04
19 0.14
20 0.21
21 0.21
22 0.35
23 0.12
24 0.49
25 0.24

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
Make any sense?

Nope.
JL

JL,
Getting you up to speed may take you a bit of extra work. If you are not familiar with things like averages and how they are used, you are not likely to get much from this.

If you really want to learn a book that others have recommended (I have not read these personally) is "Statistics for Dummies" available from Amazon.com. They list a number of entry level stats books.

1. Statistics for Dummies -- by Deborah Rumsey; Paperback (Rate it)
Buy new: $13.59 -- Used & new from: $10.00
2. Complete Idiot's Guide to Statistics (The Complete Idiot's Guide) -- by Robert A. Donnelly Jr.; Paperback (Rate it)
Buy new: $12.89 -- Used & new from: $12.00
3. Statistics for the Utterly Confused (Utterly Confused Series) -- by Lloyd R. Jaisingh; Paperback (Rate it)
Buy new: $16.95 -- Used & new from

Brent