SD

[dixieppc]

Magical thinking. ES IS NOT PREDICTIVE. SD is. ES tells you something about the group you shot, past tense, nothing about what the next group will look like. SD contains the information you want. If you compare the outliers (if there are any) to the SD, then that can, at best, tell you you have a problem (I.E. that your distribution is not normal, which it should be).

Precisely! I do my **initial** load work up in my backyard with a chronograph. The SD derived from the chronograph numbers give me an indication of where the elusive sweet spot and outer nodes probably live. I then take that Chrono/SD information and load rounds for group testing at longer distances at the range.

In closing, most everyone that I have spoken to **lately** that have achieved records consistently, did both their **initial** hardware workup and load development scientifically. It's akin to NASCAR racing. Not that many years ago you could race and be competitive by doing it from the seat of your pants. All you needed was horsepower and guts. Now, you haven't got a hope unless you embrace technology and science. That's why all NASCAR teams now have R&D departments.

My R&D department starts in my back yard at 10 yards with a Chronograph and ends on the range shooting groups progressively farther and farther out. Will that lead me to a world record or put any more wood on my wall? Probably not because I'm just getting too old and my days of glory have faded like my flag. I'm physically not as well tuned as my toys are anymore. But the statistics let me know the possibilities.

Regards.....

 

[CharlieNC]

Dixie it sounds like we are in the same boat! I'm 65 and shot my first match this Summer, 300 yd F-class; thrilled to finish in the middle of the pack with 581 using my self-customized Savage in 223. I will be working over the next few months to modify my 6BR to shoot as many F-class matches as I can in 2015, and want to move out to 600yd with it.

 

[BenchShooter]

Dixie,
I have not been in this game as long as you have undoubtedly but in the few short years that I have I have seen a move more and more toward a scientific approach to this. It seems that with each passing year groups are getting smaller and scores are getting higher. Even IBS is talking about making their 600 yard target smaller because too many people are getting perfect scores.

I'll admit that some of this can be attributed to the fact that the quality of manufactured components in this game are getting better. But I believe the biggest reason is that most informed shooters are starting to approach this game more, as you suggest, scientifically. Your NASCAR analogy is a perfect example.

I was talking with a shooter this past fall at a match that has been playing this game since the late seventies, early eighties, can't remember which. He said that back in those days you couldn't afford this new fangled machine called a chronograph much less find access to one. So you had to shoot literally hundreds of test rounds to achieve the same results that you can today using science and statistics with far fewer rounds down the barrel.

This doesn't mean that you no longer have to test with groups. What it does mean is that by the time you do start testing with groups you are already 90 percent to your honey spot through science and statistics. You then shoot a few groups at distance to confirm or tighten up what science and statistics have already told you.

Dana