Brent Sir, Thank you. But I don't wish to get up to speed or study something I'm not interested in.
Nor do I expect I should try to teach you anything about my previous humble occupation, say starting with the formular for Lift and working through the sums to determine the lift of a particular aircraft wing.

I hope I havent lead you and Elsdude up the garden path, but I was just interested in a simple explanation and example of the benifit of using stats. when us dummies are quite happy looking at (as you say) average group sizes.

Given all the variables I just can't see why one can't do a few, and that will do.
After all Saeed isn't writing a scientific paper here.
Regards John L.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Esldude:
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.

QUOTE]

Esldude, It's not that I don't want to learn anything, I don't want to clutter up my brain with unnecessary rubbish, when a few groups is all I require.
Now we all know I'm not very bright, but your reading comprehension is way below par.
Nowhere did I say couples were told to have 2.1 children. But what happens in the real world when stats. are used, is that a young couple for instance can pick up a broucher at a clinic and it will maybe state that the average family (by statics) will have 2.1 children.
It's quite common, you ort get out more.

Now as that is quite rediculus in the real world, you see why (some) people have a go at you stat. people. (Just in fun, mind)

But it leads to me to worry what you lads will come up with, relating to group sizes.
Whereas us dummies can understand groups, even if some send you into apoplexy.
Hang in there and keep up the good work.
John L.

Gentlemen,

Here is an explanation one of the boys here had about "statistix" as he wrote it!

"Saeed shoots groups and tells us what he got"

"Statisticians tell what groups we are likely to get, but we never do"

"I prefer Saeed's method. As it sort's of reminds me of Jane Fonda in Barbarela, when she said "she MUCH prefers it the old fashioned way! when she met the cave man!"

If your idea of useful comparison is to shoot enough to tell what you got, and keeping it few enough that it can in no way give an indication of what is what in the future, well I don't see why you would do it. But you have come up with a fine, relatively useless methodology. Give yourself a pat on the back if your aim was great effort, time and expense for not much of anything.

JAL, the reason you can't just shoot a few groups is they vary in size. So a few doesn't tell you enough. My post with the 25 groups should have explained that.

If you are trying to imply you worked designing aircraft, and you honestly can't get the hang of this on groups, then I can only hope I never fly upon the wings you designed.

And finally, I have to say, I agree with you when you say you are a dummy. As ignorance is said to be bliss, I won't attempt to disturb you.

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
JAL, the reason you can't just shoot a few groups is they vary in size. So a few doesn't tell you enough. My post with the 25 groups should have explained that.

If you are trying to imply you worked designing aircraft, and you honestly can't get the hang of this on groups, then I can only hope I never fly upon the wings you designed.

And finally, I have to say, I agree with you when you say you are a dummy. As ignorance is said to be bliss, I won't attempt to disturb you.

I suggest you read about the Wright Brothers. They managed to fly, when all the so called "sientists" were burning the midnight oil to prove it could not be done

Name one scientist, trying to prove you could not fly in the days of the Wright brothers. There may have been some who thought it not possible. But not trying to prove it not possible.

You are making the same mistake that often happens. Someone explains how you need to do something a little different because it is known not to work. You jump to the conclusion they are out against you. Not wanting you to succeed. And that isn't the case. Instead, they are trying to get you not to waste your time, but employ it usefully.

I wish you could shoot one group, and know all you needed to know. With rimfire ammo, it just isn't so. You aren't doing anything new or groundbreaking Saeed. You are making an old mistake made by many.

If for some reason you only wish to shoot groups and measure them, you can while getting useful results. You simply need to shoot more groups than three. Shoot nine 5 shot groups at 100 yards. Still 45 shots. And it will be much more useful info.

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
said to be bliss, I won't attempt to disturb you.

Ah, Bliss at last.

John L>

JAL,
I can see you have a comprehesion problem. But I find it so interesting that so many shooters that just can't resist the opportunity to slam statistics that the cannot hope to understand, fall back on the machismo of claiming expertise in the mathematics of aerodynamics. Not that it has beans to do with anything being discussed here, but interesting nonetheless - a correlation even - but that's just statistics.

Saeed,
I'm sorry I mistook you for a serious shooter rather than simply an overly enthusiastic plinker. I got it now though. I am sorry I let you waste my time, but I've got it now.

Have fun.

Brent

quote:

Originally posted by Brent:
fall back on the machismo of claiming expertise in the mathematics of aerodynamics. Not that it has beans to do with anything being discussed here,
Brent

Well I'm not the only one a bit thick apparently. I was obviously just comparing my lack of interest in studying your forte, as you may be in learning anything I happen to know.

Machismo is it? In mathematics? you MUST be joking. That's geek stuff. And nowhere did I claim expertise in anything, maths or wing design.
For your and Elsdude's own info, the formular for Lift, and the "workings" was required knowledge in exams I passed back in about "64.
And by '65 I'd probably forgotten most of it, as it was as irrelevant as Stats for groups. (Or more so maybe, I'll give you that.)

And any time you waisted was your fault, as Saeed made his position quite clear (seemed to me anyway) right at the start.

And as for Eledude, Stats. would prove that no wing I've designed has ever let anyone down.
See ya, John L.

quote:

Originally posted by Brent:
JAL,
I can see you have a comprehesion problem. But I find it so interesting that so many shooters that just can't resist the opportunity to slam statistics that the cannot hope to understand, fall back on the machismo of claiming expertise in the mathematics of aerodynamics. Not that it has beans to do with anything being discussed here, but interesting nonetheless - a correlation even - but that's just statistics.

Saeed,
I'm sorry I mistook you for a serious shooter rather than simply an overly enthusiastic plinker. I got it now though. I am sorry I let you waste my time, but I've got it now.

Have fun.

Brent

Yes Einstein, we look forward to your next discovery.

In the meantime, the rest of us shooters will enjoy what we do best

Not for Saeed or JAL.

But anyone who is interested this is a rather in depth though useful page on determing ammo accuracy differences.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:7NWHQLns7UIJ:ktsam...acy+statistics&hl=en

One useful piece of info related to Saeed's test is a chart far down the page. If you decide to shoot three 5-shot groups, one ammo must average either 47% smaller or 154% greater than the ammo it is compared to for us to have 90% confidence in there being an accuracy difference.

To be 95% sure there is a difference those numbers become 21% and 179%.

I am afraid if you don't have at least a very basic idea about statistics this is tough going here. But it isn't voo doo.

What this means just looking at the long table of results for the BR50 is that none of the results pass the 95% level of confidence. Only a few of the very worst results and best make 90% confidence levels. Many rounds fired, for very little result in picking accurate ammo.

Also, if ten groups had been fired, the range for 90% confidence levels are only between 110% and 90% difference in compared ammos. Quite a difference in the usefulness of any results.

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
But it isn't voo doo.

No? Is it bloviating?

quote:

Originally posted by Brent:
Saeed,
I'm sorry I mistook you for a serious shooter rather than simply an overly enthusiastic plinker. I got it now though. I am sorry I let you waste my time, but I've got it now.

Have fun.

Brent

Brent, Saeed not a serious shooter?
Have you seen the videos? (the champions)

You read the first post and the part about this being 22 RIMFIRES, right?
I own several quality target 22’s (including an Anschutz) and I have shot all at ranges out to and beyond 100 yards with every ammo I could buy, beg or borrow. Being somewhat impatient and also frugal I usually shoot 1 or 2, 5 shot groups for any given gun/ammo combination.

I have gleaned much useful information from shooting only 1 or 2, 5 shot groups from the dozens of rimfire 22s I have owned over the last 10 years, including the expensive ones. And it doesn’t take 10, 5 shot groups to tell you this. 5 or 10 shots will usually suffice.

One thing I have learned whether it is gun or ammo, a turd is almost always a turd and a gem is almost always a gem.

JMHO.

Your actual experience may vary…

Flippy,
I LOVE that quote. Fantastic!

As for Saeed, yes, I have seen the videos. They are amusing. Saeed chooses to ridicule rather than consider. So, I stand by what I said.

If you learn a lot from 1 or 2 5-shot groups you are either dealing with ammos that are wildly different in accuracy or you could be fooling yourself almost as often as not.

Anyway, you can be frugal and learn more approaching shooting in a little different fashion.

I too shoot high dollar custom.22s with Lilja and Douglas barrels etc. I compete out to 200 yds with mine both offhand and benchrest. I want to know I'm using the very best ammo. The approach I outlined in that webpage does get me there unlike any other approach I have seen. It's not hocus-pocus. It's just plain proven methodology.

Thanks again for that quote. It is priceless.

Brent

I once was looking for better ammo in a Marlin 60. Tried a few different cheap ammo types. I opened a box of Remington Subsonic. My first group was 5 shots, 50 yards, for .23 inches. Guess some of you would have packed up and known you had found the Holy Grail. Unfortunately, the next several groups went between 1.25 and 1.75 inches.

It may be your humble opinion Flippy that you have learned much by shooting 1 or 2 groups. It is also demonstrably true that your opinion is incorrect in this case. You no doubt find it much easier to form firm opnions if you stop after a couple groups. But it isn't a good way to pick ammo types.

Brent, I am thinking of having shirts and hats made with that quote.

Unlike you, I don't compete, I just have fun. I have shot high dollar ammo and el cheapo ammo, and some high dollar ammo just makes your wallet thinner. The point I was trying to convey was if the first 1 or 2, 5 shot groups suck, no matter how much ammo you waste it isn't going to get any better.

The most important word you can learn in ammo selection (or load developement) is "NEXT."
If the first few groups are good, chances are the combo is good. Now remember I don't shoot "benchrest" with my 22s, but I DO like to hit what I aim at.

I have had fliers with 22 rimfire ammo that costs as much as .223 match ammo. Way too much to shoot for fun.
And 22 rimfires are meant to have fun with IMO.

BTW, I strongly encourage anyone not against the idea of analyzing your results to try Brent's two shot method. It is an ingenious way to get some usable results with not too many shots. And having to only concentrate on two shots is so easy. Measuring them is easy too.

Also, whether you realize it or not, when you shoot more than one group and average the results you are doing a statistical analysis. Why some are so resistent to any other method I find puzzling.

Flippy - if you make the shirts, I'll take an XL (in black if there is a choice)

You could probably sell a million of them to AR readers.

Brent

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
I once was looking for better ammo in a Marlin 60. Tried a few different cheap ammo types. I opened a box of Remington Subsonic. My first group was 5 shots, 50 yards, for .23 inches. Guess some of you would have packed up and known you had found the Holy Grail. Unfortunately, the next several groups went between 1.25 and 1.75 inches.

It may be your humble opinion Flippy that you have learned much by shooting 1 or 2 groups. It is also demonstrably true that your opinion is incorrect in this case. You no doubt find it much easier to form firm opnions if you stop after a couple groups. But it isn't a good way to pick ammo types.

quote:

Unfortunately, the next several groups went between 1.25 and 1.75 inches.

Let me see if I have this straight. First group .23" Second group 1.25"
What is the most important word in ammo selection and load development?
NEXT!!!

Like I said, 1 OR 2 groups usually will tell you all you need to know.

But tell me how much ammo do you usually shoot before you say, "that's a keeper!"?
$50 worth. $100? 200?
And how much TIME do you spend doing this testing? 2 hours? 3 hours? 5 hours?

No matter how much time you spend testing ammo, how much you spend on ammo, or how many thousands you spend on your firearm, it is a still a FREAKING 22!

I have had "fliers" with ammo costing as much as match grade centerfire ammo.

Like I said, "Your experience may vary..."

But in this example however, it did not.

Brent I was seriously considering it.

Flippy, I'm seriously offering to buy one. I bet you would get a whole heap of similar offers as well.

And you will save money if you use stats to pick your best ammunition. It doesn't take all day. In fact, it takes much LESS time as well as money to get a much better answer. Read the webpage. Let money, less time, better results. What's to loose except a little time spent learning how it's done?

Brent

Flippy, you said one or two groups. How do you know when to stop with one. If it is bad? Your next several may be good. Or the reverse.

I shoot ten 5 shot groups. Is that so many, does it take so long?

JAL,

In answer to you question, No.

Gentlemen,

Years ago, I built myself a custom rifle chambered for the 416 Rigby Improved.

The rifle did not have to be a tack driver, but I was hoping that it would shoot into an inch or less.

I loaded 3 rounds with the 400 grain Trophy Bonded Bear Claw bullet, and fired them.

I looked through the spotting scope, and saw all three holes clustered very close together.

I took those same three cases, re-sized, primed and charged them with the same load - 105 grains of H4381,and loaded them with 400 grain Barnes Super Solid bullets, and fired them at the same target.



This is the target.

I stopped my load development right there, and decided these are teh two loads this rifle is going to have for the rest of its life!

May be I should have shot a few more, just to make sure "statistically" my group was what I should be getting

The big difference Saeed is centerfire versus rimfire. In the centerfire you could make sure the headspace, load and everything else stays the same. You are talking apples and oranges here. All to continue ignoring the simple truth that in your rimfire tests you need more groups or a different methodology.

Use Brent's method. You can shoot at 50 and 100 yards. Will take you 48 shots to do it. Putting the results into excel takes very little time or effort after you do it once to see how it works.

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
The big difference Saeed is centerfire versus rimfire. In the centerfire you could make sure the headspace, load and everything else stays the same. You are talking apples and oranges here. All to continue ignoring the simple truth that in your rimfire tests you need more groups or a different methodology.

Use Brent's method. You can shoot at 50 and 100 yards. Will take you 48 shots to do it. Putting the results into excel takes very little time or effort after you do it once to see how it works.

So now you are saying that no matter what does, there is no such thing as CONSISTENT rim fire ammo??!!

Thank you, a true statement indeed!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
And as I have learnt a long time ago, the best rim fire ammo one can find cannot hold a candle to a good reloaded center fire.

Saeed, I never distputed the statement by you above. Because it clearly is true. There is more variability in rimfire ammo. And that is the very reason you need to test more carefully.

That does not mean you cannot make valid statements about relative consistency nor that you can never say one ammo is better than another. You can do all of that. It just takes a little more care to find that out. And the results with rimfire will vary more than centerfire.

Is there a consistent rimfire ammo that always shoots to the same hole? Nope. Then again neither is there such a centerfire ammo. It does come closer to that ideal. And some rimfire ammo comes closer than other rimfire ammo. Knowing that one wonders, what exactly did you expect to find in your testing?

Ya all,
Seems to me we have a difference in standards here, and no need to flame anyone. But it's been interesting.
I have no use for highly accurate target rifles or expensive ammo.

From experence (such as it is) in my sporter 22RF I pick a brand that is reasonable quality,readily available, and seems to suit the rifle.
After ammo that doesn't suit my rifle I find the prevailing weather the next problem, and lastly (I hope) my ability.
I belive even off a bench rest, my shooting technique (or lack of) will have quite an effect on group sizes.
Add in lack of zeel, stamina, mental toughness etc. and I feel shooting 2 shot groups or 10 at 5 shots and using Excell (is that a spreadsheet?) (I use to use a DOS Lotus 123 clone called AS EASY AS) would be like the old adage, garbage in garbage out.

And then my next group if I get the collywobbles, could be something else again.

Me burnt out? . . . Damn right.
John L.

Saeed,
I do have one statistic for you.
No matter what you do, you cannot make everybody happy.

Just keep testing.
Looking foward to the results with the take down Browning semi-auto.

quote:

No matter what you do, you cannot make everybody happy.

Boy, just ask Bush about that...

You fellas taking the statistical approach are absolutely correct. And since Saeed is doing the test, he is correct too. I ain't got time, money, guns or access to that array of ammo to do it either way, so I'm kinda sittin' here watchin' it unfold.

I do have one question for Saeed. Seldom pick on wildcat ideas, figuring that whatever blows your skirt up is just ducky... the .416 Rigby Improved...were ya bored that day? I sorta thought if you wanted to "improve" that one you just poured more powder in it, like Roy Weatherby(oh yeah, add a belt ) . Nice groupage by the way, I probably woulda stopped load developement right about then as well.

quote:

Originally posted by DigitalDan:

... the .416 Rigby Improved...were ya bored that day? I sorta thought if you wanted to "improve" that one you just poured more powder in it, like Roy Weatherby

Best characterization of the .416 Rigby I've seen.

quote:

Nice groupage by the way, I probably woulda stopped load developement right about then as well.

Agreed.

Sorry to walk in and ruin a really good pissing match,

But I was wondering if Saeed is planning on testing 22 Mag ammo at 100yds? It would seem the most practical test for 22 rimfires at 100 yds.

Besides that, I thought that the Remington 22 Mag ammo with the ballistic tip bullet was the ultimate, and for about 2 years, it was. But I bought a new box of it this fall, and the damned stuff won't shoot worth a damn.

I would like to know who makes the most consistant 22 Mag ammo from year to year. So far, it seems Winchester has been the most consistant, if not the most accurate.

But I have never used anything made outside of the United States for the 22 Mag. So, I am wondering.....

Saeed, if you would consider doing a test of 22 Mag ammo at 100 yds, I would be very appreciative.

If you don't have the time to conduct the test, perhaps you could hire me and fly me over to your Lab, and I would gladly do the "dirty work" for us all!!!

Mike,

We are limited in the number of different types of 22 Mag ammo.

I think we have some CCI Maximags, Winchester Super X and Federal.

As you have found yourself, each lot of ammo is different that the rest.

There is no ammo available locally, we get only the ones people bring over.

Some of the 22 ammo I am testing now we had here for many years.

Saeed,

I have had my best consistancy from lot to lot with Eley, RWS and Winchester for the .22 RF.

I have bunches of various brands and types, some are partially used boxes of .22 LR ammo, I would gladly donate to your project. The only problem would be getting them to you.

Walther KK200 data has been added.

Saeed
Take a break from them big target rifles and do a little testing with the take apart Browning semi-auto.

Yes,I think he's starting to flag a bit, lets get to the real rifles.

Some rifles prefer standard velosity and some High vel. etc. are twist rates the same, even for long barreled target rifles.??

Saeed,
Thanks for the doing the testing. I just bought my first target .22 and needed a place to start on ammo. I am using your data and finding that that your results are similar to mine.

I guess that is "statistics" or whatever you call it.

Thanks for doing this.

Now, how about a deal on the .416 with the good groups? Or, can I just send my .375 to you and Walter to tune up?