Eric Cortina and Hornady

[wkdickinson]

The question is, would it be worth it just to get hen-pecked to death by the mob? Probably not.

Good point, and very concerning!

 

[J.d. Popkes]

^^^ Wish I could like that 100 times! I love the part about test for yourself! Not everything from one discipline is appropriate in another.

Testing everything for yourself is the best lesson. I’m guilty of it too but how many threads would be on here if everyone tested for themselves? Hey what powder/bullet/primer/jam/jump/twist/etc.

Trust but verify

 

[jackieschmidt]

^^^ Wish I could like that 100 times! I love the part about test for yourself! Not everything from one discipline is appropriate in another.

^^^^^
I can like this multiple times.

In Short Range, we have a lot of “follow the leader“. Too many get so wrapped up in “how (insert name)“ does it that the fail to see that there is more than one way to get there.

When I mentor someone as part of the NBRSA Mentor program, I emphasize that what my main objective is to get them headed in the right direction. Once they learn the basics of how the game is played and what I takes to be competitive, they can come up with their own ideas that are right for them in solving the accuracy equation.

 

[Wolfdog91]

The way this post went makes me happy I'm not a pro shooter, or some big name.... Jesus Christ, I just thought it was a cool podcast.....

 

[Capt. Oblivious]

The way this post went makes me happy I'm not a pro shooter, or some big name.... Jesus Christ, I just thought it was a cool podcast.....

11 pages further at least he got another 150 or so views on his video

 

[TC260]

The question is, would it be worth it just to get hen-pecked to death by the mob? Probably not.

Exactly! If professional ballisticians get this much grief for their work, it would be a straight up dog pile onto me for posting any data on it

Joking aside, I don't have any data from it an didn't set out to find any. On a whim I grabbed a 100 rounds on the way out the door of some ammo I'd loaded literally 30 years ago that needed to be burned up just to see what would happen.

Honestly, whatever people feel about any of these podcasts, I think anybody that has an interest in the subject should at least go out and try it once. It actually changed the way I look my own reloading. I'm not claiming it gave me any magical insight to anything, if anything it was the exact opposite. At the end I was looking at the initial 3 and 5 shot group and the 50 shot group and questioning whether I'm actually able to decipher anything about a system from a 5 shot group. Maybe even multiple groups. It was a real eye opener.

 

[Bill Norris]

Exactly! If professional ballisticians get this much grief for their work, it would be a straight up dog pile onto me for posting any data it

Joking aside, I don't have any data from it an didn't set out to find any. On a whim I grabbed a 100 rounds on the way out the door of some ammo I'd loaded literally 30 years ago that needed to be burned up just to see what would happen.

Honestly, whatever people feel about any of these podcasts, I think anybody that has an interest in the subject should at least go out and try it once. It actually changed the way I look my own reloading. I'm not claiming it gave me any magical insight to anything, if anything it was the exact opposite. At the end I was looking at the initial 3 and 5 shot group and the 50 shot group and questioning whether I'm actually able to decipher anything about a system from a 5 shot group. Maybe even multiple groups. It was a real eye opener.

I think if we learn to accept the fact that each time we go out to shoot we may and probably will learn something new or different than what we would call the norm if we are paying attention. Our ability to shoot our best, the location and atmospheric conditions, and the affects it has on the shooter, the rifle, and the ammo all comes into play even when using a tuner. And yes I believe tuners work. Precisely my reason for saying no matter what the test or where it was done under whatever conditions if the test was performed under completely different circumstances the outcome would be just as different and groups would look different as well. The only group of shooters that will come closer to duplicating exactly what happened on a given day and time is the BR shooters who load at the range just prior to shooting. And I bet if you ask them if exact duplication happens at every match you will get a resounding no. So with this in mind should we not expect to see different results from random test around the country performed by different shooters under different circumstances ?

 

[TC260]

I think if we learn to accept the fact that each time we go out to shoot we may and probably will learn something new or different than what we would call the norm if we are paying attention. Our ability to shoot our best, the location and atmospheric conditions, and the affects it has on the shooter, the rifle, and the ammo all comes into play even when using a tuner. And yes I believe tuners work. Precisely my reason for saying no matter what the test or where it was done under whatever conditions if the test was performed under completely different circumstances the outcome would be just as different and groups would look different as well. The only group of shooters that will come closer to duplicating exactly what happened on a given day and time is the BR shooters who load at the range just prior to shooting. And I bet if you ask them if exact duplication happens at every match you will get a resounding no. So with this in mind should we not expect to see different results from random test around the country performed by different shooters under different circumstances ?

I don't quite understand your question but I can humbly say that after that little experiment I kinda feel like I don't have answers for anything right now. Seriously. I've been reloading for 30 years and if I'm being intellectually honest about it, it feels like half of what I knew about reloading just went out the window. Internet forums are supposed to be where everybody has all the answers and I'm standing here saying I don't know shit anymore

 

[wkdickinson]

I don't quite understand your question but I can humbly say that after that little experiment I kinda feel like I don't have answers for anything right now. Seriously. I've been reloading for 30 years and if I'm being intellectually honest about it, it feels like half of what I knew about reloading just went out the window. Internet forums are supposed to be where everybody has all the answers and I'm standing here saying I don't know shit anymore

LOL. join the club!

 

[CharlieNC]

I think everybody understands you do not shoot the same group size every time, and the more groups you shoot will eventually give an occasional wallet group and an occasional what the hell happened group. And groups with more shots are larger. And there is a reason every time, not that stastically it just happens.

 

[RabbitSlayer]

Holy smokes I heard the Hornady podcast and Brian Litz interview had people fired up! I found them really interesting. For the folks that have never taken stats, there is an episode of NOVA about stats. I can't remember if it touches on the concepts discussed in the podcasts. I do remember it covers the big takeaways from intro to stats in a very straightforward easy to understand way. I know it covers population sampling. That may be a little different, but it is still applicable to the problem of small sample sizes when shooting 3 or 5 shot groups. It's free on YT, and I highly recommend it.

 

[gpoldblue]

Holy smokes I heard the Hornady podcast and Brian Litz interview had people fired up! I found them really interesting. For the folks that have never taken stats, there is an episode of NOVA about stats. I can't remember if it touches on the concepts discussed in the podcasts. I do remember it covers the big takeaways from intro to stats in a very straightforward easy to understand way. I know it covers population sampling. That may be a little different, but it is still applicable to the problem of small sample sizes when shooting 3 or 5 shot groups. It's free on YT, and I highly recommend it.

The only stats that matter are what's on the scoreboard.....as Joe Friday used to say..."the fact's mam,just the facts".

 

[Bill Norris]

TC260 said​

So those 3 groups that ranged from .198 to .325 are only 3 data points on the bell curve of group sizes. If you continued firing groups you'd start to see the bell curve fill in to the point that there would be an extreme large group and an extreme small group. It's theoretically possible but practically impossible for 3 random groups to represent the extreme small, extreme large, and the mean group size for that system.

My question here is what about the groups that were fired before and after these 3 groups? Do they not form a bell curve ? Dating back from 03/21 and searching the records of the rifle, there are no groups fired from this rifle that measure larger than .383 for 10-shots on any developed load whether it be 3 5 or 10 shot group. The smallest group from the rifle to date is .010 for 3-shots.

 

[K22]

Recently discovered 75 Vmax bullets for my 243 Win's. Please Hornady, don't stop making them.

 

[Brians356]

Recently discovered 75 Vmax bullets for my 243 Win's. Please Hornady, don't stop making them.

If you buy enough of them, they'll make them.
-

 

[Murray Brook]

Recently discovered 75 Vmax bullets for my 243 Win's. Please Hornady, don't stop making them.

I wouldn't worry too much about Hornady. In this shortage we are going through 2 companies have stepped up for us, Hornady and Vih powder.

 

[K22]

If you buy enough of them, they'll make them.
-

I'll try my best.

 

[c3d4b2]

Statistically speaking… If a guns average (mean) group size is .250 moa then over the course of its life it will shoot anywhere between .250 - 6SD and .250 + 6SD where SD is the abbreviation for standard deviation of the population mean. In this case we are measuring group size…. 67% of the time group size will be within +/- 1SD of the population mean where the population mean is the average of every group size fired from that firearm over that barrel’s life. The smaller the SD the narrower that spread. So to say that a gun has to shoot 1/2 min if it averages 1/4 min is really not statistically true without a lot more data. 1/2 moa max means 0 moa min on a perfectly normal data set - IE the data fits a Gaussian distribution perfectly (P value = 1)

Realistically there is enough erratic variation (shooter, accoutrements, atmospheric conditions, components, etc) to make the data non normal and therefore this model becomes extremely complicated as it doesn’t fit a normal distribution. Data will be more likely left or right skewed or potentially bi-modal in nature.

Crap I think I just talked myself into turning a new barrel and running a long term experiment.

Very good explanation

 

[JLT]

I just read this thread front-to-back and found the emphasis on applied statistics interesting.

I made a fine living for many years with applied mathematics and applied statistics as the main tools in the box, and I believe we need to be mindful that much of this discussion centers on over-laying observation with an academic framework, this framework being applied statistics. Inherent in the field of applied statistics, and often misunderstood and/or unspoken, is the FACT that 'answers' are imprecise, that there is always something in the universe of independent variables, identified and otherwise, that introduce unexplained variation.

Breaking a shot and sending a bullet on its way to its final destiny in the impact berm is a very complex physical system. The academic framework that is statistics came about to better understand the variability in observed outcomes of physical and natural systems. Observation came first. The residuals in a parameterized model are a tacit admission that the depth and breadth of the problem at hand is not fully understood - there is no 'random variation' in physical systems, only a lack of comprehensive understanding of the discrete mechanics and their interactions.

I'll bet I can reduce most of y'all to tears discussing arcana in the fields of mathematics and applied analytical methods but that doesn't make me a better shooter than the uncredentialed fellow that has been at the game for a while, testing and responding to observations in a disciplined manner. Observation came first. Without humility, the applied sciences can put one on the road to perdition.

Every single test environment we can think of cannot escape one very important element - the atmosphere. Whether we're talking about the long-range line at Raton or a tunnel in a manufacturer's testing facility, there is no such thing as a perfectly still gaseous system, and the dynamics cannot be directly observed. So, your guess is as good as mine.

I'm not one to argue with success. I'll continue to observe and listen to those that have practical knowledge and have applied that knowledge successfully. And the target and scorecard speak more loudly than anything else.

 

[Bill Norris]

I just read this thread front-to-back and found the emphasis on applied statistics interesting.

I made a fine living for many years with applied mathematics and applied statistics as the main tools in the box, and I believe we need to be mindful that much of this discussion centers on over-laying observation with an academic framework, this framework being applied statistics. Inherent in the field of applied statistics, and often misunderstood and/or unspoken, is the FACT that 'answers' are imprecise, that there is always something in the universe of independent variables, identified and otherwise, that introduce unexplained variation.

Breaking a shot and sending a bullet on its way to its final destiny in the impact berm is a very complex physical system. The academic framework that is statistics came about to better understand the variability in observed outcomes of physical and natural systems. Observation came first. The residuals in a parameterized model are a tacit admission that the depth and breadth of the problem at hand is not fully understood - there is no 'random variation' in physical systems, only a lack of comprehensive understanding of the discrete mechanics and their interactions.

I'll bet I can reduce most of y'all to tears discussing arcana in the fields of mathematics and applied analytical methods but that doesn't make me a better shooter than the uncredentialed fellow that has been at the game for a while, testing and responding to observations in a disciplined manner. Observation came first. Without humility, the applied sciences can put one on the road to perdition.

Every single test environment we can think of cannot escape one very important element - the atmosphere. Whether we're talking about the long-range line at Raton or a tunnel in a manufacturer's testing facility, there is no such thing as a perfectly still gaseous system, and the dynamics cannot be directly observed. So, your guess is as good as mine.

I'm not one to argue with success. I'll continue to observe and listen to those that have practical knowledge and have applied that knowledge successfully. And the target and scorecard speak more loudly than anything else.

This is definitely the best response I've read here and the point I have made many times in many different threads. Any test could be re-tested in any other locations under other climates and the outcome would most likely have a different result. This is exactly why I put no confidence in "statistical findings" As Erik Cortina says "Believe the Target"