An accuracy test for Joe B

  • 6.3K Views
  • Last Post 11 March 2016
RicinYakima posted this 03 February 2016

I'm glad Joe B. and John Alexander pushed me into doing this test, as I was “sure” the results would be different. Shot from just an OK rifle, with iron sights but representative of what a new Military Rifle shooter would use.  

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
RicinYakima posted this 03 February 2016

Here are the results shot over snow, but done in one afternoon so the conditions were the same.  

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 03 February 2016

These are the final emails. I think I will more carefully visually inspect, then weight sort!  

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 03 February 2016

Here is the 25 shot scanned composite group for nice weight sorted to o.1 grain bullets. I realize that the rifle isn't sighted in, but once I began, I didn't want to change the sight setting.  

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 03 February 2016

These are visually inspected to the highest I could see with 2X reading magnifier. Then the weights were selected to have 1/2% variation in each group.  

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 03 February 2016

These had a good form, full fill out and mixed weights plus had a flat filed onto the side of the middle drive band.  

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 03 February 2016

So, any interpretation of how you are going to sort your bullets before the next match? I know I'm going to keep the magnifier handy and screen bullet rigorously.

Attached Files

Pentz posted this 04 February 2016

Ric, did you file the flat on the same side of each bullet? ;-) At today's military match at Clark Rifles I had two 99s at 100 (won't mention 200 - differnt load).  I'd sorted my bullets visually and by weight, then mic'd each nose.  Any bullet with any defect, such as frosting, an eliptical nose or other observable variance was relegated to barrel-warming duty.  If I'd get out and practice now....

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 04 February 2016

Pentz, RD in South Dakota always tells me “those who practice the most are the luckiest". Ric  

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 04 February 2016

      Ric,

  Nice work.  Thanks for taking the time to do a well designed and well executed experiment. I hope others will follow your lead and examine other factors by actually doing some shooting.   However, I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.  In dusting off your magnifier and preparing to screen bullets rigorously I think you are jumping the gun in a big way. Using the average of the five 5-shot groups, the apparent decrease in accuracy from your inspected and weigh sorted bullets (W) caused by filing off .8 grain (F) was .129” or 4 percent. This is much too small a difference to be much more than a weak hint that the filing really did degrade accuracy.  It would take quite a few more groups to confirm that the difference was most likely real.   To back up my argument look at the decrease in accuracy (.217” or 8 percent) apparently caused by weigh sorting the bullets (going from W to M.) a practice that most cast bullet shooters firmly believe improves accuracy. I don't believe that weigh sorting bullets makes them shoot worse and I doubt that you do either. However, the evidence that that amazing thing is true is twice as strong as the evidence that the substantial defects hurt accuracy.   The, maybe unpleasant, fact is that if you were to repeat the experiment there is a pretty good chance that the results would show the reverse -- that weigh sorting bullets improves accuracy a little and that filing off .8 grain also improves accuracy a bit. Five groups are simply not enough groups to reliably show that such small differences are probably real. In other words, neither of the tiny differences found with only five groups are significant and are unreliable evidence for making decisions.

John

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 04 February 2016

ric ... thanks for your great efforts ... these certainly are interesting ..... and do make us try to read something into the results ...

if nothing else thanks for letting me know that* somebody * is out shooting ... my hands stop working about 10 feet outside my front door here at the moment ..


especially here, i think sd of impacts would be more informational than extreme group size .... but since the human brain is amazing ... and you scanned in your 25 shot groups ... a quick glance shows that there is not a significant difference in the targets ... dang it i was hoping that those flats would give a 3 foot group .... now i still don't know why a respectable load sometimes throws a few a long long way from center ...

oh, i would still like to see mean radius numbers ...

ken

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 04 February 2016

John,

The only conclusion I have is that five 5-shot groups are meaningless, except for the very grosses of differences. However, completeness of form, good fill out, seems to at least equal to matching weights. Therefore, I will look more closely under the magnifier when sorting bullets, just for luck :)!

Ken,

I have all the targets, nice and pressed flat. Somewhere I have Townsend Whelan's description of how to do mean radius calculations. It is supposed to be 25 degrees colder and clouds blowing over from the coast this weekend. Maybe I will try to work out mean radii on the 25 shot groups. The issue will be the weighted group as there as so many double and triple hits in one hole.

Ric

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 04 February 2016

Ric: Great work.  If you don't have what amounts to statistical proof, then, at the very least, you have an exceptionally good Observational Study! Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 04 February 2016

Bill, I think you are right, and Joe B. agrees. I look at the 25 shot scans side by side on the computer screen and say “Which loading do I take to the match?". Also a picture of the range the day I did these. Don't think you would be there.  

Attached Files

Scearcy posted this 04 February 2016

I have been calculating mean radii for a rifle and load test which has been keeping me busy the last 2 months. I don't have scanning software so it is labor intensive.  The results have been interesting and a little confusing.  To date I have completed the calculations on 280 shots which were compiled from 56 five shot groups aggregated as 14 twenty shot groups. Each 20 shots represent a different load.  The two things that have been revelations for me are first that the differences in MR are mostly very small.  I have not had a MR less than .45” or greater than .57” in all that data.  Second the loads array in a different order based on 20 shot MR than they do based on the 4 group agg that makes up the 20 shots.  It is possible to get “donuts” which still have a fairly good agg. BTW according to Wm Davis Jr's work on circular distributions, 4 five shot groups should give you the actual load/rifle potential +/- 17%.  As was mentioned above, it takes a large number of groups to prove the difference between two pretty similar loads. I am not a scientist or an engineer so lets call all of these numbers observations by a math geek. 

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 04 February 2016

<user=50>RicinYakima wrote: John, The only conclusion I have is that five 5-shot groups are meaningless, except for the very grosses of differences. However, completeness of form, good fill out, seems to at least equal to matching weights. Therefore, I will look more closely under the magnifier when sorting bullets, just for luck ! Ric I certainly concur with Ric, 5 shot groups are meaningless.  I have been conducting extensive testing of high RPM cast bullet loads in various cartridges in various rifles with several different cast bullets.  I have been using 10 shot groups as the norm at 100, 200 and 300 yards.  In each and every instance the visually inspected and then weight sorted bullets always shot more accurately when side by side comparisons are done with non visual/weight sorted or just visual inspection bullets with the same load in the same rifle.  The difference in accuracy is much more prominent at 200 and especially at 300 yards.  A load that is developed and is found acceptably “accurate” at 100 yards is all to often presumed to be also as accurate at 200 yards.  Many times that is the case but many times it is not.  All too often the 200 accuracy is abysmal compared to the lessor range 100 yard accuracy.  There is a reason for those “not” cases but I'll not get into that here.  Suffice to say if you are going to shoot matches at 200 yards then load testing should be done at that range.  In doing so we find loads developed for 200 yard accuracy and then used at the 100 yard range the moa accuracy will almost invariably accuracy to be as good if not better than it was at 200 yards.    An example of a recent test; I usually cast between 400 and 500 bullets at a session using a 4 cavity mould.  After visual inspection where any defect/flaw is cause for rejection That usually eliminates 20% +/-.  I then weight sort into .1 gr increments.  I use .1 gr increments to judge the “bell curve” of the weights is consistent with that bullet cast of that alloy.   If the visual and weight sorted selected bullet bell curve is as expected I then do the following; I reject the very few at the top end that are “over weight".  I also reject those that are under weight.  With #2 alloy in the 30 XCB bullet (NOE 310-165-FN) I was usually ending up with about 60% of the bullets cast as being acceptable for HV (2900 fps) longer range shooting (300 yards).    I also have found that segregating and shooting bullets in .1 gr incremental lots was not showing any accuracy improvement at 100 yards over shooting bullets with a weight range of 157.8 - 158.5 gr.  Previous to this and another series of recent testing I had been using bullets of that weight range because they performed very well at 100 yards and appeared to do as well at 200 yards.  However, at 300 yards there would be 1 or 2 and sometimes 3 flyers in every 10 shot test group that opened the group up from what should have been around a 3.2 - 4” group to a 4 - 5+” group.  Obviously something was still wrong with a small % of those bullets.  Time to find out what.   I then loaded up eight 10 shot test strings of the same load with the only variation being the bullets in each test string were equal in weight to .1 gr.  The eight 10 shot tests each increased the bullet weight .1 gr from 157.8 gr to 158.5 gr.  The rifle used is my 30x60 XCB rifle with a Broughton 31” barrel with a 16” twist.  By CBS rules it would fall into the “Heavy Rifle” category. At the completion of the eight 10 shot test strings at 300 yards I measured the groups and graphed the results for a better “visual” of what was happening.  As we see it was the bullets at the lighter weight end that was causing the “inaccuracy.  The bullets of 158.0 - 158.5 gr weight essentially gave equivalent accuracy.   That raised the next question; How would a "lot” of bullets with a weight variation of 158.0 - 158.5 gr shoot?  Well, in a previous linear group dispersion test a few days before  the bullets of 158.0 - 158.5 gr demonstrated linear dispersion from 100 to 300 yards.  Also after the test explained here another linear group expansion test was done at 100, 200 and 300 yards again using the mixed weight “lot” of 158.0 - 158.5 gr bullets.  The results also demonstrated linear group dispersion.  Those are shown in the RPM Threshold thread.  If we look at the CBA match results for Heavy Rifle in the 2015 Nationals we find the moa average for the 9 shooters for two 10 shot groups at 200 yards was 1.373.  Looking at the graph below we find the moa average for six 10 shot groups at 300 yards to be 1.2.  Test after test I have done, especially at 200 and 300 yards demonstrates conclusively the visual and weight sorting are indeed beneficial to accuracy.   LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 04 February 2016

LMG wrote: RicinYakima wrote: John,

The only conclusion I have is that five 5-shot groups are meaningless, except for the very grosses of differences. However, completeness of form, good fill out, seems to at least equal to matching weights. Therefore, I will look more closely under the magnifier when sorting bullets, just for luck :)!

Ric I certainly concur with Ric, 5 shot groups are meaningless.  That's not what he said. ONE set of five 5 shot groups doesn't prove anything, but can suggest a lot. When I screwed a new-to-me 22-250 barrel on an action and shot it with a load that shoots averages under 2", and it shoots a 3.071” average, that ain't meaningless. Repeated sets of 5 shot groups will get us closer to proof. I have been conducting extensive testing of high RPM cast bullet loads in various cartridges in various rifles with several different cast bullets.  I have been using 10 shot groups as the norm at 100, 200 and 300 yards.  In each and every instance the visually inspected and then weight sorted bullets always shot more accurately when side by side comparisons are done with non visual/weight sorted or just visual inspection bullets with the same load in the same rifle.  The difference in accuracy is much more prominent at 200 and especially at 300 yards.  Show us the groups, or at least tell us the numbers. Allegations unsupported by data neither prove nor demonstrate anything. A load that is developed and is found acceptably “accurate” at 100 yards is all to often presumed to be also as accurate at 200 yards.  Many times that is the case but many times it is not. Larry, where is the data? How many rifles, what calibers, how many groups? In 55 years of shooting I can remember only ONE case where a rifle shot well at 100 yards and not well, with the same load, at 200 yards. This was a H&R Buffalo Classic 45-70 that shot ~ maybe 1.25” AVERAGES at 100 and did poorly at 200. I always suspected that it was on the ragged edge at 100, and that some development would have brought it around. I've heard the tune about 100 yards accuracy falling apart at 200 yards,  never saw another case. The ASSRA guys like to talk about the 100 yard setup that goes to pieces at 200 yards. I asked for years if anyone saw it with a ~ 200 grain bullet in 32-40 and ~ 14.5/IMR4227. No stories, and never heard one of them claim it.

 All too often the 200 accuracy is abysmal compared to the lessor range 100 yard accuracy.  There is a reason for those “not” cases but I'll not get into that here.  Suffice to say if you are going to shoot matches at 200 yards then load testing should be done at that range.  In doing so we find loads developed for 200 yard accuracy and then used at the 100 yard range the moa accuracy will almost invariably accuracy to be as good if not better than it was at 200 yards.    An example of a recent test; I usually cast between 400 and 500 bullets at a session using a 4 cavity mould.  After visual inspection where any defect/flaw is cause for rejection That usually eliminates 20% +/-.  I then weight sort into .1 gr increments.  I use .1 gr increments to judge the “bell curve” of the weights is consistent with that bullet cast of that alloy.   If the visual and weight sorted selected bullet bell curve is as expected I then do the following; I reject the very few at the top end that are “over weight".  I also reject those that are under weight. What does this mean? Do you reject all below the average? What low weight bullets do you reject? What are the average weights from each cavity? Do you segregate by cavity? Bullets cast in different cavities have different average weights. I have data showing this.

 With #2 alloy in the 30 XCB bullet (NOE 310-165-FN) I was usually ending up with about 60% of the bullets cast as being acceptable for HV (2900 fps) longer range shooting (300 yards).  The standard deviation of bullet weights is around .15 grains. That means that 99% of the bullets cast, that pass the visual inspection, will weigh the average +/-.45 grains. An experienced caster should accept ~ 90-95% of the visually acceptable bullets, and the visually acceptable should be ~ 90% of those cast, so ~80% of the bullets cast should be acceptable. Are you mixing up weight by cavity with total lot weight? I also have found that segregating and shooting bullets in .1 gr incremental lots was not showing any accuracy improvement at 100 yards over shooting bullets with a weight range of 157.8 - 158.5 gr.  Previous to this and another series of recent testing I had been using bullets of that weight range because they performed very well at 100 yards and appeared to do as well at 200 yards.  However, at 300 yards there would be 1 or 2 and sometimes 3 flyers in every 10 shot test group that opened the group up from what should have been around a 3.2 - 4” group to a 4 - 5+” group.  Obviously something was still wrong with a small % of those bullets.  Time to find out what.   I then loaded up eight 10 shot test strings of the same load with the only variation being the bullets in each test string were equal in weight to .1 gr.  The eight 10 shot tests each increased the bullet weight .1 gr from 157.8 gr to 158.5 gr.  The rifle used is my 30x60 XCB rifle with a Broughton 31” barrel with a 16” twist.  By CBS rules it would fall into the “Heavy Rifle” category. At the completion of the eight 10 shot test strings at 300 yards I measured the groups and graphed the results for a better “visual” of what was happening.  As we see it was the bullets at the lighter weight end that was causing the “inaccuracy.  The bullets of 158.0 - 158.5 gr weight essentially gave equivalent accuracy. Nope. You've got one test of 8 ten shot groups. You've proved nothing and not even suggested much. Borderline meaningless. That raised the next question; How would a "lot” of bullets with a weight variation of 158.0 - 158.5 gr shoot?  Well, in a previous linear group dispersion test a few days before  the bullets of 158.0 - 158.5 gr demonstrated linear dispersion from 100 to 300 yards.  Also after the test explained here another linear group expansion test was done at 100, 200 and 300 yards again using the mixed weight “lot” of 158.0 - 158.5 gr bullets.  The results also demonstrated linear group dispersion.  Those are shown in the RPM Threshold thread.  If we look at the CBA match results for Heavy Rifle in the 2015 Nationals we find the moa average for the 9 shooters for two 10 shot groups at 200 yards was 1.373.  Looking at the graph below we find the moa average for six 10 shot groups at 300 yards to be 1.2.  Test after test I have done, especially at 200 and 300 yards demonstrates conclusively the visual and weight sorting are indeed beneficial to accuracy.  Larry, we need explanations of what you did, how you did it, and a look at the groups-or at least the group sizes. Otherwise what you'r giving us is opinions. That's fine, but don't confuse opinion with proof or even suggestion. LMG

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 04 February 2016

Joe B., Sorry, didn't mean to light a fire under you! But a new shooter who gets a rifle and shoots five 5-shot groups only has a suggestion of which load to choose. He will have to shoot a series of five 5 shot groups to narrow the field of possible loads. But if every group of the series is 50% larger, he can forget that combination. However, that may not be bad, as he can work on shooting skills and techniques at the same time. Ric

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 04 February 2016

RicinYakima wrote: Joe B., Sorry, didn't mean to light a fire under you! But a new shooter who gets a rifle and shoots five 5-shot groups only has a suggestion of which load to choose. He will have to shoot a series of five 5 shot groups to narrow the field of possible loads. But if every group of the series is 50% larger, he can forget that combination. However, that may not be bad, as he can work on shooting skills and techniques at the same time. Ric Ric; I agree. My invention of the 5 five shot group test (following my development of the inclined plane)is what I consider the MINIMUM set of groups to tell us or suggest something, and the MAXIMUM bearable number of groups/shots per test. Note: “I consider" Each shot has a certain amount of information. We can't extract more, it ain't in there. The relationship between average group size and number of shots per group is mathematical, not a matter of opinion. Those who staunchly defend the 5 shot or 10 shot or 2 shot group, or mean radius vs c-c distance vs group area vs best-4 of 5 groups shot are like guys who defend the mile, others who like 5280 feet, the 1760 yard crowd the 320 rod defenders and those at the end who contend that 320 poles are better than 320 rods. I like data. Data beats BS every time. And, I'm always right. joe b.  

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 04 February 2016

ric ... remember that you can set up a spreadsheet ... excel ... to crunch the input numbers for you ....even a database or word processor usually has this ability .

one headache to set it up but then it gets fun .

hey maybe joeb or jim could lend us a template in excel to do that for all of us ...

groups are a fun game for a turkey shoot but until you keep shooting and the group doesn't get bigger ..... groups lie a lot ...

ken

oh, and for groups of 2 moa + you can read them to the nearest 1/10 inch ...

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 04 February 2016

oh i havent had my nap today but i think if you take a group and make a dot anywhere to the left and below the group ... then from that dot enter all the x co-ordinates and y co-ordinates in your spreadsheet ... and the no. of shots ....or have the spreadsheet count the entries gee whiz .... it will spit out the sd for x, the sd for y, and the mean radius . i think .

or there are a couple programs that do even more for you .

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Close