• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Measuring groups

In my opinion, which doesn't hold much water, anyone attempting to argue with Lazer, could find a better and more productive use of that time.
 
I'm with Joe Salt, OD - BD.. I would gather that Butch doesn't think the OD is represented well so he may be looking for a alternative method? Would you measure a opponent with the method in question?




Ray
 
EddieHarren said:
In my opinion, which doesn't hold much water, anyone attempting to argue with Lazer, could find a better and more productive use of that time.
I fell out of my chair laughing at this. I like how you think.
 
Syncrowave said:
Joe Salt said:
I always measured the widest part of the group then subtract the diameter of the bullet.
Isn't that the way everybody does it?
I subtract one hole diameter as represented by a bullet shot to the side of groups. With my cheap targets, bullet holes rarely if ever match cal.
 
EddieHarren said:
In my opinion, which doesn't hold much water, anyone attempting to argue with Lazer, could find a better and more productive use of that time.

Ain't that the truth. The time I spent on his original "challenge" post would have been more productive in an attempt to urinate into the wind. Good shooter though....he may just have his "challenge" locked up as last time I checked he's winning the agg ::)
 
mikecr said:
I subtract one hole diameter as represented by a bullet shot to the side of groups. With my cheap targets, bullet holes rarely if ever match cal.
This is how I do it as well, measure a bullet hole on target. The black marks are usually smaller than the nominal caliber. This gives a more accurate center-to-center figure, but that also means a slightly bigger number. So if comparing to someone who is subtracting simply the caliber, you will come up with slightly bigger numbers for the exact same bullet placement. In other words, for a 'competition', they all should be measured the same way to level the playing field.
 
Ther was no reason to ever start an argument I am being completely honest and fair in the original challenge, and my entry.
 
Lazer said:
Ther was no reason to ever start an argument I am being completely honest and fair in the original challenge, and my entry.

This will be the last I have to say about this particular issue:

So, what you are saying is, is that people should take your word (post) as absolute gospel, completely ignoring what our their own experience tells them. You posted a group - someone disputed your stated group size. Happens all the time. Nobody disputed your honesty or fairness - they questioned your method. I've yet to see any "this is my group" thread that didn't create some level of debate. That's partly why I don't post my own groups - I really don't care what other people think of them. If someone were to question my ability, I'm happy to put it to the test at the next match I shoot.

Really, don't take this the wrong way, because I don't at all want to discourage you from continuing your thread or from participating on the forum - but, you'll need to develop a bit thicker skin if you are going to put stuff out there like that. I think you've mostly taken the feedback you've gotten pretty well. So don't get your back up now... :-)

You've got a forum full of shooters, some of which are truly high level, experienced individuals. This would be a pretty boring forum if all anyone did was "ohh and ahh" over someone's posted groups... :-)
 
mikecr said:
I subtract one hole diameter as represented by a bullet shot to the side of groups. With my cheap targets, bullet holes rarely if ever match cal.


Ah, now I see what you're saying. I never considered that the holes in the paper might not be the bullet diameter. Live and learn.
 
Lay a ruler across that group. Prove all the doubters wrong. Nothing to it.
 
2yv2qgm.jpg

Special delivery for butch lambert!
 
drumcorpschamp said:
Yep......not right to my eye. Looks like the scale shows the bullet holes at about 1/8" diameter.
Jerry
Looks the same to me, makes it a .462 I think. Which is good shooting, but not .359
Why not measure your bullet holes to get an accurate hole size.
 
On a 100 yd group target the distance between the circles is .250. The group in question covers slightly more than two circles ( .570-.580). when deducting the bullet diameter of .224 the group is about .350-.360. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Also, in response to why don't you measure the bullet holes? When measuring a group you don't measure a bullet hole. you measure to the outside of the smudge mark. The bullet hole could be anything depending on how the paper tears. Outside to outside of the smudge marks minus the bullet diameter and you have the group size. Group sizes can be deceiving to the eyes. That's why we measure them instead of having someone guess.
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,274
Messages
2,215,635
Members
79,518
Latest member
DixieDog
Back
Top