So, why 6x5 and not 5x5? The magazine guys often do a 5x5. A 5x5 seems to be a decent statistical sample size; more is better, I get it. So what's the reason for a 6x5?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Silly question: why 6x5 and not 5x5?
- Thread starter sparkyv
- Start date
It'd be nice to be able to do 2 of them per box of ammo.
Why shoot groups and miss where y'er aiming? 
Isn't the purpose of a rifle to hit what you aim at?
Try a Grid, 2 sets of 25 on one target, easy to do, right?
Or 5 sets of 10, or ten sets of five, up to you.
One shot per aimpoint, can you hit it, or not?
www.snipershide.com
Don't offer excuses, are you up to the challenge?
Sub-moa all day long, right? Maybe? Hmmmm?
Isn't the purpose of a rifle to hit what you aim at?
Try a Grid, 2 sets of 25 on one target, easy to do, right?
Or 5 sets of 10, or ten sets of five, up to you.
One shot per aimpoint, can you hit it, or not?
The Grid
I've spent the last three years shooting groups. 50 shots at a time, 100 and 200 yards and documenting the results. I noticed something that annoys me, groups don't satisfy Rule #1....Hit what you aim at. The group may be tight, but the center of the group wanders relative to the point of aim...
www.snipershide.com
Don't offer excuses, are you up to the challenge?
Sub-moa all day long, right? Maybe? Hmmmm?
Last edited:
I don't shoot many groups any more. With 8" Birchwood Casey targets, there are a lot of aim points. Diamond tips, bullseyes, and every other place that lines cross or touch.
I sort of copied this target below and customized it for my needs. It addresses these comments, but the 5x5 would work out better, IMO.
6x5=30 which from a statistical analysis perspective is the smallest sample size to be valid. https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_rationale_behind_the_magic_number_30_in_statistics
As your link explains, there is nothing magical about 30 and it’s not a binary matter of valid versus invalid, just at what point is the uncertainty acceptable. For shooting it will depend on the variance of the data or in this case the accuracy of the system.
If the aimpoint is hit, one point (or ten or whatever). If the aimpoint is missed -- by how much doesn't matter -- zero points. No ambiguity. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Would many sporters or non-BR rigs stand a chance to do well? Probably not. Lower levels of satisfaction? Probably.
Even with good ammo, few non-BR rigs can be very successful in a hit vs. miss format. Of course, if the grid is scored by measure of how close to the aimpoint missing shots actually are, then there may be increased levels of satisfaction. Then it becomes somewhat similar to shooting BR, which is scored.
Satisfaction in shooting for smallest groups with a sporter? Probably. It's very simple and straightforward.
_______________________________________
Regarding 5X5 or 5X6, clearly there's something to be said for using a single box of .22LR ammo and doing two 5X5 targets. Of course 5X5 is always handier than 5X6 but without a standard that's used to qualify in the first place -- like 5X5 to achieve a minimum size -- then it doesn't matter how many groups are required.
Indeed, perhaps a better standard would be something like 5X5 in which each of the groups has to achieve a minimum size, say 1 MOA or .5" at 50. Two 5X5 targets per box of ammo, with each group having a standard to meet.
I get enough one shot per target shooting ARA and ABRA. I like to shoot groups sometimes jut to see what the ammo can do and the 6x5 thread is really convenient for record keeping and fun.
Can't say I haven't shot more than my share of groups.....way more.
But that nagging annoyance of group "drift" has pointed out I was ignoring Rule #1.
My groups weren't impacting in the same spot relative to where I was aiming.
Sure, I was making some nice bugholes, but they had nothing to do with skill
and everything to do with the random convergence of compensating errors.
But that nagging annoyance of group "drift" has pointed out I was ignoring Rule #1.
My groups weren't impacting in the same spot relative to where I was aiming.
Sure, I was making some nice bugholes, but they had nothing to do with skill
and everything to do with the random convergence of compensating errors.
Can't say I haven't shot more than my share of groups.....way more.
But that nagging annoyance of group "drift" has pointed out I was ignoring Rule #1.
My groups weren't impacting in the same spot relative to where I was aiming.
Sure, I was making some nice bugholes, but they had nothing to do with skill
and everything to do with the random convergence of compensating errors.
I like 10 shot groups for target guns, 5 shot groups for varmint guns and 3 shot groups for big game guns.
Mike
Mike
This linked information gets close to why 6x5 is commonly used here, but by no means is it a statistically settled matter. But the info drives home from where n=30 comes, so thanks for that link, schmi015.
From the link:
"I am just quoting Corder, G. W., & Foreman, D. I. (2009, p.2). Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians: a step-by-step approach. New Jersey: Wiley & Sons.
'The minimum sample size for using a parametric statistical test varies among texts. For example, Pett (1997) and Salkind (2004) noted that most researchers suggest n>30. Warner (2008) encouraged considering n>20 as a minimum and n> 10 per group as an absolute minimum.'"
From the link:
"I am just quoting Corder, G. W., & Foreman, D. I. (2009, p.2). Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians: a step-by-step approach. New Jersey: Wiley & Sons.
'The minimum sample size for using a parametric statistical test varies among texts. For example, Pett (1997) and Salkind (2004) noted that most researchers suggest n>30. Warner (2008) encouraged considering n>20 as a minimum and n> 10 per group as an absolute minimum.'"
Groups are shot off point of impact due to not wanting to change aim point with bullet impacts. With a modern scope or even an old Unertl like I use it’s very easy to get it exactly right once done.Why shoot groups and miss where y'er aiming?
Isn't the purpose of a rifle to hit what you aim at?
Try a Grid, 2 sets of 25 on one target, easy to do, right?
Or 5 sets of 10, or ten sets of five, up to you.
One shot per aimpoint, can you hit it, or not?
Don't offer excuses, are you up to the challenge?The Grid
I've spent the last three years shooting groups. 50 shots at a time, 100 and 200 yards and documenting the results. I noticed something that annoys me, groups don't satisfy Rule #1....Hit what you aim at. The group may be tight, but the center of the group wanders relative to the point of aim...
Sub-moa all day long, right? Maybe? Hmmmm?
I like your post but you allow pessimistic thoughts to taint your data at times.
My squirrel rifles are sighted “squirrels eye high” at any given range data point. Is this one dialed in closely enough? Actually dropped it 1/4 MOA on 1/2” dot after group since I held bottom of dot.
Getting POI exact is a simple task once accuracy potential has been assessed and my gear is 70 years old.
No, your just letting it get you down.Can't say I haven't shot more than my share of groups.....way more.
But that nagging annoyance of group "drift" has pointed out I was ignoring Rule #1.
My groups weren't impacting in the same spot relative to where I was aiming.
Sure, I was making some nice bugholes, but they had nothing to do with skill
and everything to do with the random convergence of compensating errors.
As you know with a rimfire and iron sights changes in light and conditions affect POI.
To make good or great shots on game confidence is key. Get a good repeatable POI under various conditions. Get perfect data. Shoot with confidence.
Otherwise you are shooting with “The sum of all fears.”
Now, now RT....iron sights ain't happening....no how, no way.
I'm visually challenged....not only do I need glasses, so do my rifles.
I have no problem hitting what I aim at.
Seriously, out in the woods I rarely miss. I'm extremely confident of my abilities.
Why? When I take a shot, I'm close enough to leave powder burns on the pelt.
Any rifle can hit a dime every time, if'n ya' get close enough.
Next time y'er viewing results in the 6x5, look for what I call group "drift".
Notice how center of the group wanders relative to point of aim.
Sure, some very consistent trajectories showing there, but, they're only consistent for 5 shots.
The next cluster isn't falling in the same position relative to the aimpoint.
Wind and ammunition are working to shift those trajectories around point of aim.
The 30 shot aggregate is 2 or 3 times larger than the average groups.
Take spark's groups posted earlier...group sizes are pretty consisitent.
But look how they move up/down/left/right during the session.
Look where the actual aggregate spread is relative to point of aim.
2 to 2.5 times larger than average group size.
That's why I claim groups lie to me.
They make it look like I'm doing pretty good.
In actuality, I'm all over the place....which the Grid confirms.
That's why I gave up on groups as proof of consistent accuracy.
I'm failing to meet the requirement of Rule #1....hit what you aim at.
That's what rifles are for, right?
I'm visually challenged....not only do I need glasses, so do my rifles.
I have no problem hitting what I aim at.
Seriously, out in the woods I rarely miss. I'm extremely confident of my abilities.
Why? When I take a shot, I'm close enough to leave powder burns on the pelt.
Any rifle can hit a dime every time, if'n ya' get close enough.
Next time y'er viewing results in the 6x5, look for what I call group "drift".
Notice how center of the group wanders relative to point of aim.
Sure, some very consistent trajectories showing there, but, they're only consistent for 5 shots.
The next cluster isn't falling in the same position relative to the aimpoint.
Wind and ammunition are working to shift those trajectories around point of aim.
The 30 shot aggregate is 2 or 3 times larger than the average groups.
Take spark's groups posted earlier...group sizes are pretty consisitent.
But look how they move up/down/left/right during the session.
Look where the actual aggregate spread is relative to point of aim.
2 to 2.5 times larger than average group size.
That's why I claim groups lie to me.
They make it look like I'm doing pretty good.
In actuality, I'm all over the place....which the Grid confirms.
That's why I gave up on groups as proof of consistent accuracy.
I'm failing to meet the requirement of Rule #1....hit what you aim at.
That's what rifles are for, right?
Last edited:
That’s the nature of 22LR ammo. Overlay those groups after the fact, or shoot 10-30 at one time and they will show the same thing. Different ways to parse the data.Now, now RT....iron sights ain't happening....no how, no way.
I'm visually challenged....not only do I need glasses, so do my rifles.
I have no problem hitting what I aim at.
Seriously, out in the woods I rarely miss. I'm extremely confident of my abilities.
Why? When I take a shot, I'm close enough to leave powder burns on the pelt.
Any rifle can hit a dime every time, if'n ya' get close enough.
Next time y'er viewing results in the 6x5, look for what I call group "drift".
Notice how center of the group wanders relative to point of aim.
Sure, some very consistent trajectories showing there, but, they're only consistent for 5 shots.
The next cluster isn't falling in the same position relative to the aimpoint.
Wind and ammunition are working to shift those trajectories around point of aim.
The 30 shot aggregate is 2 or 3 times larger than the average groups.
Take spark's groups posted earlier...group sizes are pretty consisitent.
But look how they move up/down/left/right during the session.
Look where the actual aggregate spread is relative to point of aim.
2 to 2.5 times larger than average group size.
That's why I claim groups lie to me.
They make it look like I'm doing pretty good.
In actuality, I'm all over the place....which the Grid confirms.
That's why I gave up on groups as proof of consistent accuracy.
I'm failing to meet the requirement of Rule #1....hit what you aim at.
That's what rifles are for, right?
Indeed. While single five or ten shot groups are typically smaller than 30 shot groups, the overall group size of, say, six five-shot groups overlayed should match the size of the 30 shot group. Differences between the two may arise from moving the rifle six times versus once in each case.
In fact there's a mathematical relationship between group sizes and number of rounds used. For example, the expected average increase in group size for 10-shot groups over 5-shot groups is about 30%.
For more details, see Figure 7 and Table 1 here www.the-long-family.com/Group size statistical analysis.pdf
G, I've built aggregates both ways.
From 10 five shot groups and from 50 one dot-one shot targets.
Interestingly enough, end up with smaller aggregates from the one dot-one shot results.
Thinking that the extra attention used in hitting what you aim at, translates to tighter trajectories.
Maybe....
From 10 five shot groups and from 50 one dot-one shot targets.
Interestingly enough, end up with smaller aggregates from the one dot-one shot results.
Thinking that the extra attention used in hitting what you aim at, translates to tighter trajectories.
Maybe....
This is a concept about which I wondered.
By this reasoning, we should be shooting 6x6s!
By this reasoning, we should be shooting 6x6s!
If 5x5 is good, and 6x5 is better, then why not go all out and go 10x5?
I know why we do the 6x5, the first 20 shots warm up those clean cold bores.
One box of 50, 20 to season the rifling and adjust the scope to the ammo and conditions
then the remaining 30 to fire for effect.
I know why we do the 6x5, the first 20 shots warm up those clean cold bores.
One box of 50, 20 to season the rifling and adjust the scope to the ammo and conditions
then the remaining 30 to fire for effect.
I actually prefer shooting single round POA/POI type stuff which is why you don't see me posting a lot of targets in the 6X5. I have tried other course of fire threads over the years but none ever seemed to catch on.
I keep thinking about stopping the 6X5 to free up a little more time but the last year or so it's been kinda slow. If anyone wants to take it over or revamp it feel free, just let me know.
I keep thinking about stopping the 6X5 to free up a little more time but the last year or so it's been kinda slow. If anyone wants to take it over or revamp it feel free, just let me know.
Now, now RT....iron sights ain't happening....no how, no way.
I'm visually challenged....not only do I need glasses, so do my rifles.
I have no problem hitting what I aim at.
Seriously, out in the woods I rarely miss. I'm extremely confident of my abilities.
Why? When I take a shot, I'm close enough to leave powder burns on the pelt.
Any rifle can hit a dime every time, if'n ya' get close enough.
Next time y'er viewing results in the 6x5, look for what I call group "drift".
Notice how center of the group wanders relative to point of aim.
Sure, some very consistent trajectories showing there, but, they're only consistent for 5 shots.
The next cluster isn't falling in the same position relative to the aimpoint.
Wind and ammunition are working to shift those trajectories around point of aim.
The 30 shot aggregate is 2 or 3 times larger than the average groups.
Take spark's groups posted earlier...group sizes are pretty consisitent.
But look how they move up/down/left/right during the session.
Look where the actual aggregate spread is relative to point of aim.
2 to 2.5 times larger than average group size.
That's why I claim groups lie to me.
They make it look like I'm doing pretty good.
In actuality, I'm all over the place....which the Grid confirms.
That's why I gave up on groups as proof of consistent accuracy.
I'm failing to meet the requirement of Rule #1....hit what you aim at.
That's what rifles are for, right?
Hummm, i read the results slightly differently to you. I interpret each group as showing you the variance in the ammo (assuming no wind) while the different POI's of each group is showing you the difference in your NPOA. ie i interpret the groups (especially if they are 10 shots or more) as giving you a more statistically valid idea of your accuracy. A single shot at a POA is statistically non valid (did you miss because of a 'flier', wind or because your NPOA was off ?) A group of shots at the same POA gives some idea of which of the reasons it was.. I see a group as x shots that just happen to be at the same POA, but with less chance of changing my NPOA. On days when i'm in the grove and consistent with my NPOA the relationships between the groups and the bulls is pretty consistent. If they are moving around relative to the bulls then i know that I'm doing something wrong.
Good to hear from ya', B.
...relationships between the groups and the bulls is pretty consistent.
If they are moving around relative to the bulls then i know that I'm doing something wrong.
Yep. That's why I've taken up shooting the Grid.
My groups were wandering relative to point of aim.
Ammo, wind or me, something was changing to cause the group drift.
The one dot-one shot format is improving my results.
I'm forced to pay more attention to the wind/squeeze timing as well as cartridge quality.
...relationships between the groups and the bulls is pretty consistent.
If they are moving around relative to the bulls then i know that I'm doing something wrong.
Yep. That's why I've taken up shooting the Grid.
My groups were wandering relative to point of aim.
Ammo, wind or me, something was changing to cause the group drift.
The one dot-one shot format is improving my results.
I'm forced to pay more attention to the wind/squeeze timing as well as cartridge quality.
Honest answer... I was sick of people saying they shoot ".5moa all day long".... so I started a challenge back in 2013 (i think), where I pulled 6x5 out of thin air, and said... if you can do 6 groups X 5 shots each, on a single target, shot in a row, then I feel like you can shoot .5moa all day long with no cherry picked groups. Needless to say, not many could actually average .5 all day long. Can't believe it's been almost 10 years already! Christ!If 5x5 is good, and 6x5 is better, then why not go all out and go 10x5?
I know why we do the 6x5, the first 20 shots warm up those clean cold bores.
One box of 50, 20 to season the rifling and adjust the scope to the ammo and conditions
then the remaining 30 to fire for effect.
Similar threads
