I've been using the free, open source . In theory, radial standard deviation is the “best” yardstick of accuracy.
<a href=)
oct2515zps5pzsiakg.jpg&rdquo">http://i487.photobucket.com/albums/rr235/mountainmolds/tc352oct2515zps5pzsiakg.jpg” />
You can run Taran on the web so no need to install it on your computer, though you can if you prefer.
Most people prefer to measure groups the old fashioned way and that is fine, it's just that you can get more data per shot if you use mean radius or radial standard deviation, and the results are not affected as much by “fliers."
Attached Files
looks interesting ... i can't seem to find it ... got a link ?
ken
Attached Files
Hmmm ..... the link I posted seems corrupted. I'll try again.
Attached Files
I've been using computers since 1967. We input data by a form of torture called punch cards and I think the computers were powered a mule on a by treadmill in back. Over the years I have grown to hate them. Maybe it isn't just your strength that declines with old age. But Taran is too interesting not to look into. Thanks. John
Attached Files
My motivation is to be able to “prove” something without firing 100 shots.
But even with mean radius, RSD, etc., it's still tough to “prove” a small improvement with less than 40 - 50 shots. There's lots of variables and some days I simply shoot better than other days. :D
Attached Files
Right. Some things just are.
To be fairly sure of a small difference in accuracy between two loads required a lot of shots whether we admit it or not.
Shooters who think they are finding the optimum load, sweet spot, ladder whatever it is, etc. by shooting a string of 5 shot groups are kidding themselves.
John
Attached Files
