Statistics

[J.d. Popkes]

Joe Dirt’s ol man has the right approach

 

[whatwind?]

Should develop a process and keep tweaking the process until,it works

 

[lawman29]

600 rounds and no statistics.....

How many rounds till a barrel shoots good

I recently replaced my Lilja barrel with a Hart barrel. I have a Rem 700 action and a Jewel trigger. It is a 22-250. This is my third custom barrel. Is it normal for it to take up to 600 rounds until it shoots good. By that I mean under 1/2". This barrel was shooting at 3/4 or more until I...

forum.accurateshooter.com

 

[MagnumW]

Guys like Litz try to prove the World is flat by trying to make average rifles and ammo shoot great. I can change my load and turn my rifle from a .5 moa to a 1 moa everytime , proof that tuning matters. If you start with a 1 moa load it may change to a .5 or 1.5 moa load and it just looks like its all random noise confusing Litz type analysis.

 

[JLT]

This guy wasn't using statistics or anecdotal experience the right way, so he doesn't represent either side of the arguments well.

He is what we call a victim of paralysis by analysis.


This^
Large defense/aerospace companies have thousands of engineers and scientists who are examples of folks who cannot engineer their way out of a wet paper bag.
They can do some things, but they cannot be used to lead a team or be counted on to make decisions by themselves in the real world.
It isn't because they faked their diploma, it is because mother nature is cruel and some folks are just not good at managing chaotic topics. Many can do the math and pass academic tests, but it doesn't mean they can manage risk.

Even if we limit the discussion to LRBR, there are folks who you can try to help that will just never win a match or even place well against their peers. Just be polite and help when and if you can, but also learn to recognize what we call time bandits or they will suck you dry and waste your time.

If they don't have the shooting background and don't spend their time on the range in weather, they will never be able to use the advice they are given. Let them be.

My advice is... Don't get to focused on bashing math. The math and statistics are not to blame. If we put the wrong driver in a capable race car and they wreck it, that isn't always the fault of the car.

Any fool with a computer can run statistics, but it doesn't mean they understand how to drive down risk or make a decision. The F500 companies went bonkers pushing concepts like 6-Sigma and produced thousands of so called "experts", and the vast majority of them can't manage to make a decision to save their own necks.

If you have the talent to drive the rifle and read wind, you can probably learn to tune a group without a formal credential in math or science. At the same time, beware the folks who can also do the math cause they are dangerous.

The only thing I would add to this comment is 'Amen'!

 

[Brians356]

Its tough for shooters that want precision and accuracy but dont have the experience.

Experience is most quickly gathered through your ears, at least in the beginning.

My first decent accuracy rifle was a stock 700 VS in 223 with the HS Precision stock. Soon I had a pile of Winchester fired cases. I was determined to handload, and bought an RCBS Master kit on sale. The kindly, experienced rangemaster at the county range said "Look, kid, just start like this: Rem 7-1/2 primer, 53-gr MatchKing, and H335 powder. Get a neck sizer die and a Hornady OAL guage. Weigh every charge. Seat the bullets just off the lands." Almost immediately it seemed I was shooting little cloverleaf holes and busting every desert ground squirrel in sight out to 200+ yards.
-

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I think somewhere in here it was asked how I find what powder I want to use in short order. If its a new cartridge to me I will get on quickload and find powders that look suitable. If I have 3 or 4 I will load a single shot ladder with each powder. I run it up to max that QL showed. In about 1/2% increments or a little coarser. I only want to see it come in and out of a node, so I cover about 4.5%. Those are just ball park figures, on a sporter barrel I do a little less to keep heat down. Shoot them at distance. You will see how that ladder forms. Theres a few shapes you can deal with but I like to see a narrow ladder that climbs, stops, and climbs again. I dont like to see the holes walk down the target, I dont like width in the ladder, I dont like a big round blob, and I dont like so see the shot bounce up and down. Basically a narrow predictable flow of shots. Your mapping out the barrels harmonics is all your doing here. If you did this at 100yds I would not do it in ladder format but in a sine wave target format. You would want to see a nice predictable wave pattern. Normally out of the handful of powders you test one will stand out with a much better shape than the others. Very fast and it has worked out very well for me.

 

[DLT]

I think somewhere in here it was asked how I find what powder I want to use in short order. If its a new cartridge to me I will get on quickload and find powders that look suitable. If I have 3 or 4 I will load a single shot ladder with each powder. I run it up to max that QL showed. In about 1/2% increments or a little coarser. I only want to see it come in and out of a node, so I cover about 4.5%. Those are just ball park figures, on a sporter barrel I do a little less to keep heat down. Shoot them at distance. You will see how that ladder forms. Theres a few shapes you can deal with but I like to see a narrow ladder that climbs, stops, and climbs again. I dont like to see the holes walk down the target, I dont like width in the ladder, I dont like a big round blob, and I dont like so see the shot bounce up and down. Basically a narrow predictable flow of shots. Your mapping out the barrels harmonics is all your doing here. If you did this at 100yds I would not do it in ladder format but in a sine wave target format. You would want to see a nice predictable wave pattern. Normally out of the handful of powders you test one will stand out with a much better shape than the others. Very fast and it has worked out very well for me.

You said you didn’t like to “see the holes walk down the target “ What Type pattern are you describing ? maybe post a picture ? Thanks

 

[Brians356]

@Alex Wheeler,

What's your static bullet jump for that single-shot ladder test?
-

 

[Alex Wheeler]

@Alex Wheeler,

What's your static bullet jump for that single-shot ladder test?
-

Varies from 10 to 20 off depending on bullet. If you had to pick one it would be 15 off. 6mm bench guns I start 6 in

 

[Alex Wheeler]

You said you didn’t like to “see the holes walk down the target “ What Type pattern are you describing ? maybe post a picture ? Thanks

It would look the same as walking up, just in a different order. I want them going up the paper as you go up in powder. Sometimes the shots will stop and dwell, may drop a little. Thats ok, I just dont like to see them drop much.

 

[DLT]

It would look the same as walking up, just in a different order. I want them going up the paper as you go up in powder. Sometimes the shots will stop and dwell, may drop a little. Thats ok, I just dont like to see them drop much.

I gotcha I understand, you don’t want to see a charge have much drop than the charge before it. Thanks

 

[grantre72]

I think somewhere in here it was asked how I find what powder I want to use in short order. If its a new cartridge to me I will get on quickload and find powders that look suitable. If I have 3 or 4 I will load a single shot ladder with each powder. I run it up to max that QL showed. In about 1/2% increments or a little coarser. I only want to see it come in and out of a node, so I cover about 4.5%. Those are just ball park figures, on a sporter barrel I do a little less to keep heat down. Shoot them at distance. You will see how that ladder forms. Theres a few shapes you can deal with but I like to see a narrow ladder that climbs, stops, and climbs again. I dont like to see the holes walk down the target, I dont like width in the ladder, I dont like a big round blob, and I dont like so see the shot bounce up and down. Basically a narrow predictable flow of shots. Your mapping out the barrels harmonics is all your doing here. If you did this at 100yds I would not do it in ladder format but in a sine wave target format. You would want to see a nice predictable wave pattern. Normally out of the handful of powders you test one will stand out with a much better shape than the others. Very fast and it has worked out very well for me.

Alex - may I ask what your criteria is for selecting which powder to go with - tightest flat spot? Thx.

 

[Dave M.]

The issue regarding this topic is people in the industry are trying to apply statistics used to find probabilities of randomness to processes that are not random plain and simple. Either they don't understand statics and probabilities as well as they believe they do or they are lying to viewers/followers.

Trying to add some levity to the conversation here, but why would one need to understand STATICS to be a great shooters, we aren’t building truss bridges here, are we?? Lol

 

[Dave M.]

Well this post went from 0-100 real quick...i'l just continue shooting and testing different powders,bullets ,neck tension,primers,seating depth,neck sizing,not neck sizing fl sizing,neck turning,not neck turning and don't forget this >>. View attachment 1440771

I have that exact one. Right now it’s on the shelf gathering dust and I’m going to see how many months of dust build up it takes before I can no longer read the writing on the wheel. I’m not sure why I doing this experiment anyway, because with only one data point, everyone is just going to say it’s not statistically significant anyway. Lol.
Dave

 

[FURMAN]

Trying to add some levity to the conversation here, but why would one need to understand STATICS to be a great shooters, we aren’t building truss bridges here, are we?? Lol

Exactly.

 

[seymour fish]

I think somewhere in here it was asked how I find what powder I want to use in short order. If its a new cartridge to me I will get on quickload and find powders that look suitable. If I have 3 or 4 I will load a single shot ladder with each powder. I run it up to max that QL showed. In about 1/2% increments or a little coarser. I only want to see it come in and out of a node, so I cover about 4.5%. Those are just ball park figures, on a sporter barrel I do a little less to keep heat down. Shoot them at distance. You will see how that ladder forms. Theres a few shapes you can deal with but I like to see a narrow ladder that climbs, stops, and climbs again. I dont like to see the holes walk down the target, I dont like width in the ladder, I dont like a big round blob, and I dont like so see the shot bounce up and down. Basically a narrow predictable flow of shots. Your mapping out the barrels harmonics is all your doing here. If you did this at 100yds I would not do it in ladder format but in a sine wave target format. You would want to see a nice predictable wave pattern. Normally out of the handful of powders you test one will stand out with a much better shape than the others. Very fast and it has worked out very well for me.

Alex, I do virtually the same, and look for the same vertical placement flow. The powder with the widest node is easy to find with this method, and highly desirable. You mention not liking a “blob”, which to me is the definition of a system with no built-in positive compensation. There are outliers such as some AI rifles, but in my experience quality well-built firearms where all variables have been minimized or eliminated (see Harold Vaughan formula for Variance) will tune this way, from br to spotter bbl hunting rifles, to semi-autos. It seems to me that the Hornady statisticians in particular have no concept of the variables involved and thus produce mountains of noise (statistical and absolute) from mountains of $$$, while learning nothing. Charlie Moore

 

[otnot]

When I’m finally perfect and can predict the weather conditions perfectly, I will probably start worrying about statistics and complicated load development. Until then, the weather and I are the biggest variables that I worry about. I enjoy long range plinking and not the how’s and why I can hit a target at 2,000 + yards.

 

[chkunz]

I want to stir the pot a little on this discussion. To ad another point of view to the discussion around statistics. Lately theres been a lot of talk about what is statistically relevant when it comes to testing things or tuning a rifle. Most of the stuff I have seen comes from people with a scientific background. I wanted to ad a point of view from a background of building rifles that have to win matches and shoot the smallest aggs possible.
In my opinion, we want to tune a barrel in the least statistically relevant way possible SO LONG as it produces results. If I could tune a barrel in 5 shots and go break a record and win matches consistently with that method it would be the best tuning method there is. But also the least likely to stand up to scientific scrutiny.
The reality is that none of my tuning methods, or any of the methods used by my customers to win or break records would be considered statistically relevant. It blows my mind when I read some of this stuff. We have to test powders, primers, neck tension, seating depth, tuner test, ext. There are ways to do this with only a small sampling. When I am starting with a new rifle and I want to try 3 or 4 different powders, it only takes about 10 shots to know if that barrel likes that powder or not. Same goes for primers. Group size is another thing. 3-5 shot groups are not relevant? I dont have enough fingers and toes to count the records that say they are. What are we trying to do? Tune a rifle or create data?
What I am trying to stop is the guy that calls and says he is struggling to tune his rifle, hes shot a ton of groups. Piled up plenty of statistically relevant data, but has only tried one powder, one bullet, and one primer, and now has his barrel 1/3 shot out because he would not make decisions based on a small sampling.

Alex, after 6 pages it may be too late to add anything constructive to your post but I will offer my view on you post. Statistical analysis is another tool in our toolbox. It is a valuable tool for those who understand the tool and how to use it. Few people have that capability. Many of the biggest critics of this tool do not understand the subject or how to use the tool. Many people comment as if they understand the tool when it is obvious they do not. Best wishes.

 

[Mulligan]

Alex, after 6 pages it may be too late to add anything constructive to your post but I will offer my view on you post. Statistical analysis is another tool in our toolbox. It is a valuable tool for those who understand the tool and how to use it. Few people have that capability. Many of the biggest critics of this tool do not understand the subject or how to use the tool. Many people comment as if they understand the tool when it is obvious they do not. Best wishes.

I agree completely.

Statistical analysis can be useful, however it is not mandatory to this sport.
That being said, the folks that finish at the top on a reoccurring basis, are professionals at hearing the signal amongst all the noise. Doesn't matter where they went to school or if they went to school, they get it.
CW