Stop all that prep, oh and seating tests are bullshit, love Hornady

[Aftermath]

Too much jump/pressure 300 WSM

I’m not a reloading expert and only load for accuracy don’t give (2) shits about speed. I load to the length my rifle likes and then learn dope of the load by shooting. I do use a book/net for charge parameter.. I’ve been recently questioned on a rifle of mine. Logic vs what the rifle is telling...

www.snipershide.com

Seating Depth is this too much?

I’m new to reloading any advice would help. 6.5 Creedmoor 140g Nosler, using H4350 up to 40.8g. Am I just asking for pressure issues seating the bullet this deep?

www.snipershide.com

What seating depth is actually doing...actual node or just pass/fail?

Not sure where to begin...but jump testing is something we all see a lot, and it typically the discussion goes back to bullet timing/barrel vibrations/etc...along those lines. one thing that has always hung in my mind is "forgiving" bullets...how are bullets "forgiving" if the whole idea of...

www.snipershide.com

 

[straightshooter1]

Hmm, one paper, from 1965... I guess it's settled then.

Don't let the truth get in the way of what you believe.

I see. Because it's old invalidates the data. I guess people should think likewise about 120 year old E=mc^2.

Did you even read around page 58 where that graph is?

I found this report after years of trying to find something that explained why my velocities were decreasing as I seated my bullets deeper. I had always expected velocity to increase due to reduce case volume and didn't think blowby had so much effect.

 

[Ronn]

I’d like to see Hornady do some large volume accuracy testing of their brass vs Alpha, Lapua, Peterson, et al. Let’s establish their brass is consistent enough to resolve the minutiae, before we use it to evaluate techniques.

That’s exactly what I was thinking… The one common denominator in all their testing is hornady brass, what if all these “large sample” groups are the result from the inconsistent case capacity of their brass.

 

[Im2bent]

You don't think they are using a control?

 

[LR1845]

I haven't listened to the podcast... but I also don't think seating depth matters (what matters is them all ending up the same). Use a legit sample size and you'll see the same thing.

Guys can use small sample sizes to form opinions and make decisions if they want, but then they're just seeing what they want to see.

So what your saying is you can throw a random charge and seat a bullet at what ever depth and that load is going to shoot a small group?

 

[hero's machine]

I can't wait for next week's episode,

"Density altitude is for conspiracy theorists".

 

[Chris1972]

All the shit talking about Hornady, mine included, I’m loving the 166 A-Tips @ 2784 out of my 7-08 AI.

Maybe their statements are correct but need to be correlated against the same test with factory ammo.


I did do some 30 round testing on CCI 200s vs White River Energetics and it’s a damn fact that a larger sample size shows my shit is not as great as my 3-5 round information says it is.

 

[918v]

So what your saying is you can throw a random charge and seat a bullet at what ever depth and that load is going to shoot a small group?

In theory… if you have enough neck length, shank length and freebore. In practice you might run out of neck length, shank or freebore.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

I see. Because it's old invalidates the data. I guess people should think likewise about 120 year old E=mc^2.

Did you even read around page 58 where that graph is?

I found this report after years of trying to find something that explained why my velocities were decreasing as I seated my bullets deeper. I had always expected velocity to increase due to reduce case volume and didn't think blowby had so much effect.
View attachment 8473233

I think you two are arguing different things, pressure change vs precision change.

I think I had a study on an old hard drive from ARL about bullet setback and pressure changes in 249s... I'll try to see if I can find it. IIRC, It pretty much mirrored this data, pressure wise.

 

[Holliday]

I can't wait for next week's episode,

"Density altitude is for conspiracy theorists".

No freakin shit. Today’s gold- standard is tomorrow’s whacked-out fever dream here on the Hide. Frankly, it’s mind numbing….

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

Well, considering most of you can't actually shoot a 1moa group anyways, statistically speaking, it probably makes sense to tell the average shooter to stop wasting so much time shooting poorly with very precise ammo.

 

[CK1.0]

So what your saying is you can throw a random charge and seat a bullet at what ever depth and that load is going to shoot a small group?

More or less… yes.

There are speed ranges that different cartridges seem to run best in (probably tied to aerodynamic performance?), but generally, like with something like 6mm for example, anywhere from ~2750-2950fps will work, and seating a bullet so its bearing surface is above the neck/shoulder (and even that is up for debate AFAIC), is usually all it takes (along with a good barrel and good components of course).

Honestly, I don’t care whether anyone agrees with me or not, especially since many guys treat this shit more like religion than anything scientific or fact-based. But ever since I started dropping every single charge I shoot to within a kernel of the next, I started noticing that a lot of the reloading stuff guys throw around as “fact” is BS.

AFAICT, what matters is that every round comes out as close to the same as the next, trying to be a kick-ass ammo factory is really the goal IMHO… and flatly, most can’t do that.

Try it, and if you can remain unbiased, you’ll see it too.

 

[LR1845]

In theory… if you have enough neck length, shank length and freebore. In practice you might run out of neck length, shank or freebore.

What? none of that should matter if your not playing with setting depth or am I miss something?

 

[supercorndogs]

More or less… yes.

There are speed ranges that different cartridges seem to run best in (probably tied to aerodynamic performance?), but generally, like with something like 6mm for example, anywhere from ~2750-2950fps will work, and seating a bullet so its bearing surface is above the neck/shoulder (and even that is up for debate AFAIC), is usually all it takes (along with a good barrel and good components of course).

Honestly, I don’t care whether anyone agrees with me or not, especially since many guys treat this shit more like religion than anything scientific or fact-based. But ever since I started dropping every single charge I shoot to within a kernel of the next, I started noticing that a lot of the reloading stuff guys throw around as “fact” is BS.

AFAICT, what matters is that every round comes out as close to the same as the next, trying to be a kick-ass ammo factory is really the goal IMHO… and flatly, most can’t do that.

Try it, and if you can remain unbiased, you’ll see it too.

You keep talking about "science." Then proving you don't have a clue about the science.

Have you ever considered the possibility you don't shoot well enough and dont have enough data to prove what stuff doesn't work...

 

[CK1.0]

You keep talking about "science." Then proving you don't have a clue about the science.

Have you ever considered the possibility you don't shoot well enough and dont have enough data to prove what stuff doesn't work...

Obviously you feel threatened or else you wouldn’t spit the same old BS you always do anytime me or anyone else challenges your deeply held religious reloading beliefs.

It must be hard for guys like you to realize that all this “expertise” you thought you had is most likely BS, but sorry, it is what it is.

 

[918v]

What? none of that should matter if your not playing with setting depth or am I miss something?

You’re missing something.

You can tune a fixed powder charge using seating depth but the degree to which you can tune is limited by neck length, freebore length, and bullet shank length.

 

[Im2bent]

You keep talking about "science." Then proving you don't have a clue about the science.

Have you ever considered the possibility you don't shoot well enough and dont have enough data to prove what stuff doesn't work...

Well it's Hornady saying this in the video so you're saying they don't have enough data and can't shoot?

 

[LR1845]

You’re missing something.

You can tune a fixed powder charge using seating depth but the degree to which you can tune is limited by neck length, freebore length, and bullet shank length.

I thought thats what you meant but just wanted to be clear.

 

[Ledzep]

That’s exactly what I was thinking… The one common denominator in all their testing is hornady brass, what if all these “large sample” groups are the result from the inconsistent case capacity of their brass.

Of course!!! Now it all makes sense. Those guys would never have thought to check that!

 

[straightshooter1]

Of course!!! Now it all makes sense. Those guys would never have thought to check that!

View attachment 8473643

What's particularly interesting to me is the target. Those Lapua shots measure 1.248" ES, .596 MOA; Mean Radius: .363", .173 MOA. Hornady's measured 1.059 ES, .506 MOA; Mean Radius: .292", .139 MOA. Hornady wins on target results.

 

[Maurygold]

Of course!!! Now it all makes sense. Those guys would never have thought to check that!

View attachment 8473643

this is most cooked testing i have ever seen. why do your bullets show such gross variance in weight and length?

you guys spend all that time on podcasts and can't manufacturer a quality bullet........ you have 0 representation in f class, benchrest and ELR. every precision sport competitor stays away from you.

youcould put out 100 more of these fake tests and people are still going to shoot the superior capstone products over hornady.

 

[supercorndogs]

Well it's Hornady saying this in the video so you're saying they don't have enough data and can't shoot?

I am pretty sure Hornady is not saying the stuff he has been saying. In fact I don't think they are saying what a lot guys think they are saying. I would venture a guess they are telling you if you can't shoot the diffrence quit wasting all your compenets. (especially in the context of shooting steel. We are genrally shooting at fairly large targets and not missing because our ammo is only shooting MOA).

The science shows there is likley a diffrence. To what extent is a matter of great debate. I think the lengths that top fclass and br shooters go is another big clue it isnt just so simple as load what ever skip all prep and get world class accuracy. But what would they know.

If I am looking for world class accuracy. I am not using Hornady anything. That's not really their market I don't think. I am not sure why guys would think they are on the cutting edge in that respect. I love Hornady. They have always made good affordable componenets for shooters.

I use lots of Hornady brass and bullets. Many thousands, lost count years ago. When i moved in 2018 my spent primer box was a 15 dollar USPS flat rate box and it was half full and about 95% of them were behind a hornady bullet. I am not a world class shooter. I dont particpate in f class or br. I am also not so green behind my ears. That I think all loads shoot the same and the only thing effecting 100y poi is velocity.

 

[JerkyFreak]

And therein lies the difference. You just want to hit a plate. I want to hit as close to the centre of the target for 15 consecutive shots. With Hornady products you can hit your plate, but not always close to the centre. With Lapua brass and berger bullets, if you don't hit the centre, you screwed up.

People that want precision use a good barrel, blue box brass and yellow box bullets, simple as that. Scopes, actions and triggers are all secondary to that.

 

[Holliday]

And therein lies the difference. You just want to hit a plate. I want to hit as close to the centre of the target for 15 consecutive shots. With Hornady products you can hit your plate, but not always close to the centre. With Lapua brass and berger bullets, if you don't hit the centre, you screwed up.

People that want precision use a good barrel, blue box brass and yellow box bullets, simple as that. Scopes, actions and triggers are all secondary to that.

How is Alpha brass stacking up against Lapua?

 

[JerkyFreak]

Don't have that this side of the Atlantic yet. When I can afford Alpha brass I may have an opinion about that.

 

[Ledzep]

So what your saying is you can throw a random charge and seat a bullet at what ever depth and that load is going to shoot a small group?

I think it would be foolish to say that outright.

However, I would do that with 4 different powders sooner than I would try 5 different charge weights of the same powder or 5 different seating depths .005" apart if I wasn't satisfied with the results of my first attempt.

ETA: It's kind of funny. lol how much misunderstanding and hate this subject gets... TURN THE COARSE KNOBS FIRST THEN TURN THE FINE KNOBS IF YOU CARE TO...

 

[Dogtown]

Honestly, I don’t care whether anyone agrees with me or not

Aw man, I care. Here, have a hug.

 

[Holliday]

Don't have that this side of the Atlantic yet. When I can afford Alpha brass I may have an opinion about that.

I like the brass and love the company. I can send an email question off to Tom and get a response same day, usually within the hour.

I used a lot of Lapua brass when I was shooting .308 but hell I can’t tell the difference. I know everyone considers theirs to be the gold standard.

 

[tinker]

I know is all the reloading gear I’ve bought could have bought me a few life times of factory ammo. I do not believe Hornady is trying to convert people away from reloading. There’s just too much money to be made. I do not think anyone from Hornady has ill intent. They’re pretty stand up guys for the perspectives we’ve been presented. I think Miles and Jayden are trying to sprinkle a little reality for some reloaders. We all have to admit, it’s a little exhausting listing off every single caveat and repeating “it depends.” All they’re doing is making content out of it which is marketing at its core. Brining a message to customers or potential adopters.

They are for sure just doing marketing. But I wonder if the moronic things they claim such as seating depth not making a difference, I wonder if they realize how dumb they look. I am not laughing with them, but at them. Making claims like that along with other things like small sample sizes not mattering etc etc just shows how much they really don't know....other than marketing. But they did get people talking....

I sometimes think they are trying to say things in a clickbait fashion just for attention. Much like a weirdo running around walmart in a pink tutu (had to look up how to spell that).

 

[supercorndogs]

They are for sure just doing marketing. But I wonder if the moronic things they claim such as seating depth not making a difference, I wonder if they realize how dumb they look. I am not laughing with them, but at them. Making claims like that along with other things like small sample sizes not mattering etc etc just shows how much they really don't know....other than marketing. But they did get people talking....

I sometimes think they are trying to say things in a clickbait fashion just for attention. Much like a weirdo running around walmart in a pink tutu (had to look up how to spell that).

I think people might be putting words in their mouths.

 

[tinker]

1/2 MOA give or take is doable. Most of my PRS barrels are doing 0.5-0.7 MOA for 20-30 shot strings in an indoor accuracy tunnel. Slightly better out of the rail gun fixture. Donate a box once and shoot a 20 shot group at 100yd and you might be surprised how poorly your ".1's-.3's all day long" setup actually performs. A surprising number of people who think they have stellar setups are at or above that 1 MOA mark because the testing they do for developing a load is insufficient. I know that because I've pressed people to do it in a 200yd indoor tunnel.

Until you grasp the concept that the dispersion pattern your rifle produces (regardless of how good or bad it shoots) is a probability profile that is (if everything is put together correctly) a random radial event, then it will sound like I'm making excuses for poor performance. After you come to terms with the concept of probability density functions and apply some basic statistics to the process it will sound more like real life.

When you repeat the same load development methods everyone claims to find "nodes" with such that each variable change consists of 20-50 shots, the peaks and valleys and sinusoidal behavior of the results dramatically reduces-- to the point that when you take that good statistical data and run it through hit probability calculators you see basically negligible changes between the data sets.

The main points of the podcast were that when you increase powder charge in .2gr increments and adjust seating depth you see very minimal performance changes (repeated this test with multiple calibers/loads/bullets etc.. many times). The things that make big changes are bullets, barrels, and powder. I can control what I say, not what you hear.

I guess your "definition" of minimal is much different than mine. Most of my guns don't shoot .1-.3 most shoot .4-.5 all day. But that is only achievable with ammo that is tuned to the rifle with my "small sample". If I could stop sending flyers I could likely get smaller groups. But even with flyers I still shoot sub 1/2 moa.

I have shot ten shot groups with very little difference.

and I don't do PRS. They young guys can all run and get tired. I am starting a new league where we shoot from a couch that mis motorized. It will have a swingarm to bring the rifle in, and we have cold beer and a ceiling fan and possibly a portable A/C unit and maybe a TV.

 

[tinker]

I think people might be putting words in their mouths.

They said something to the effect of "seating tests are pointless, just load to mag length because you are wasting time and energy"

I could be paraphrasing.

 

[straightshooter1]

How is Alpha brass stacking up against Lapua?

I'm new to Alpha brass as I only purchased some just a couple months ago to give them a try. The first thing I do when I get a new batch of brass is to take measurements to see what I'm dealing with. In the pic below you can see how those measurement compare.

The one things that really did surprise me was how consistent the case volumes, as well as the corresponding cases weights, are for this particular box of .308 brass. It was better than any of the Lapua's I've had. . . better than anything else I've had to date. The primer pocket depths were the most consistent as well.

That consistency showed up when I fire formed them. I fired 80 consecutive rounds and got and SD of 6.2 with an ES of 29 for the 80 rounds. . . best I ever got out of virgin brass. I did have to chamfer and deburr the case mouths before loading though, which was the only thing I did to the cases before loading.

Note: these are all virgin brass measurements:

 

[LR1845]

I think it would be foolish to say that outright.

However, I would do that with 4 different powders sooner than I would try 5 different charge weights of the same powder or 5 different seating depths .005" apart if I wasn't satisfied with the results of my first attempt.

ETA: It's kind of funny. lol how much misunderstanding and hate this subject gets... TURN THE COARSE KNOBS FIRST THEN TURN THE FINE KNOBS IF YOU CARE TO...

No hate from me I know how to make a rifle shoot.

 

[Holliday]

I'm new to Alpha brass as I only purchased some just a couple months ago to give them a try. The first thing I do when I get a new batch of brass is to take measurements to see what I'm dealing with. In the pic below you can see how those measurement compare.

The one things that really did surprise me was how consistent the case volumes, as well as the corresponding cases weights, were for this particular box of .308 brass. It was better than any of the Lapua's I've had. . . better than anything else I've had to date. The primer pocket depths were the most consistent as well.

That consistency showed up when I fire formed them. I fired 80 consecutive rounds and got and SD of 6.2 with an ES of 29 for the 80 rounds. . . best I ever got out of virgin brass. I did have to chamfer and deburr the case mouths before loading though, which was the only thing I did to the cases before loading.

Note: these are all virgin brass measurements:
View attachment 8473903

Good stuff. Thanks for taking the time to do that and post the results!

 

[Holliday]

I'm new to Alpha brass as I only purchased some just a couple months ago to give them a try. The first thing I do when I get a new batch of brass is to take measurements to see what I'm dealing with. In the pic below you can see how those measurement compare.

The one things that really did surprise me was how consistent the case volumes, as well as the corresponding cases weights, were for this particular box of .308 brass. It was better than any of the Lapua's I've had. . . better than anything else I've had to date. The primer pocket depths were the most consistent as well.

That consistency showed up when I fire formed them. I fired 80 consecutive rounds and got and SD of 6.2 with an ES of 29 for the 80 rounds. . . best I ever got out of virgin brass. I did have to chamfer and deburr the case mouths before loading though, which was the only thing I did to the cases before loading.

Note: these are all virgin brass measurements:
View attachment 8473903

Question: what is the -V? Is that 5 pcs measured? Thx

 

[Ledzep]

No hate from me I know how to make a rifle shoot.

Not directed at you, just in general with these threads.

 

[LR1845]

Not directed at you, just in general with these threads.

Yep I get it and why I normally avoid posting in these threads.

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

So, I'll tell everyone my reloading procedure.

I de-prime, ultrasonic, rinse, oven, trim, size, load..

Here is my load development:

Find max mag length, subtract .20, open the hornady manual, find an even number charge weight around 80% of max charge, load 10 bullets. Shoot ten bullets, enjoy sub moa accuracy.

The only bullets I've ever tried that this system didn't work on were berger VLD. I almost shot out a barrel trying to get VLD's to shoot. I hate them.

I learned this as a 200 step process, and now I use 10% of the steps. I'm not a benchrest shooter, I just shoot critters, but if the point is that you don't have to do that much to get reasonable accuracy, I promise, you don't.

 

[straightshooter1]

Question: what is the -V? Is that 5 pcs measured? Thx

"V" is for virgin. I also measure after firing and designate as "F". 15 pcs measured.

In case you or anyone else is wondering, I use pin gauges to measure ID's and web thickness. Note too, when I measure web thickness, I always deburr the flash holes with a 21st Century deburring tool so that I get a good thickness measurement.

 

[Gtscotty]

Figured I'd listen to the video before railing against it, and it seemed to me that they intentionally limited their conclusions to a pretty specific subset of rifle types, use cases and components as opposed to making overly broad claims. Specifically they seem to be talking just about:

- Heavy match rifles with truck axle barrels
- Modern cartridge designs with certain throat and leade geometries (6.5 CM, 6ARC, 6 Dasher, PRCs)
- Hornady components and specifically Hornady match bullets
- Known optimal powders in generally known ranges
- PRS type gun games

Within those limited confines their claims seem fairly reasonable. The pay brief lip service to hunting rifles with thick fluted steel or carbon barrels and PRC type cartridges, but also mention that thinner barrels, older cartridges and factory barrels can be finickier (my read is benefit more from load work). Also they mention that F-class shooters may see more relative benefit from turning the finer knobs.

All that, caveats included seems credible and jives with my experience. Most of the time I feel I've seen larger benefits from trying different seating depths or load ranges, it's been with factory hunting rifles in something like '06, .270, .243, 6.5x55, etc or off nominal powders.

 

[supercorndogs]

Well said. That would be the "context" I keep talking about people missing.

The entire thing reminds me of looking for my first pickup. But dad I said. This one has a rebuilt engine. He said, who built it? Anyone can get the parts, look at the manuel, misunderstand what they read and put them together wrong.

Anyone can get online and confidently give you bad information. It's usually not malicious. They usually just don't know what they don't know. They always cinfidently proclaim comptencey. Trying to lead them in the right direction is like trying to have a discusion with an obstnant 2 year old.

 

[Barelstroker]

The worst part about their podcast is listening to Seth act like he knows what he’s talking about. Bro just says random terms and prays they stick.

And yes you’re allowed to use small samples. The whole point of statistics is to account for the uncertainty in small samples.

Are you referring to "small sample size" in reference to a much larger population number or, are you refereeing to the "small sample size"
envisaged by the 3 shot group gonzo's around here.
I hope it's the former & not the latter.

 

[Barelstroker]

1/2 MOA give or take is doable. Most of my PRS barrels are doing 0.5-0.7 MOA for 20-30 shot strings in an indoor accuracy tunnel. Slightly better out of the rail gun fixture. Donate a box once and shoot a 20 shot group at 100yd and you might be surprised how poorly your ".1's-.3's all day long" setup actually performs. A surprising number of people who think they have stellar setups are at or above that 1 MOA mark because the testing they do for developing a load is insufficient. I know that because I've pressed people to do it in a 200yd indoor tunnel.

Until you grasp the concept that the dispersion pattern your rifle produces (regardless of how good or bad it shoots) is a probability profile that is (if everything is put together correctly) a random radial event, then it will sound like I'm making excuses for poor performance. After you come to terms with the concept of probability density functions and apply some basic statistics to the process it will sound more like real life.

When you repeat the same load development methods everyone claims to find "nodes" with such that each variable change consists of 20-50 shots, the peaks and valleys and sinusoidal behavior of the results dramatically reduces-- to the point that when you take that good statistical data and run it through hit probability calculators you see basically negligible changes between the data sets.

The main points of the podcast were that when you increase powder charge in .2gr increments and adjust seating depth you see very minimal performance changes (repeated this test with multiple calibers/loads/bullets etc.. many times). The things that make big changes are bullets, barrels, and powder. I can control what I say, not what you hear.

You lost 99% of them in the orange then, you admit to realizing this in the red.

 

[JB.IC]

Are you referring to "small sample size" in reference to a much larger population number or, are you refereeing to the "small sample size"
envisaged by the 3 shot group gonzo's around here.
I hope it's the former & not the latter.

Small sample size in terms of the population. Statistics allows for using small sample sizes regardless if the population is infinite or finite. The entire point of statistics is to use smaller samples than the population. But depending on say effect size or experimental error, y’all might not like the interval width that is estimated or small power. None-the-less, it is possible to use small sample sizes and gain insight. We do it all the time in industry.

 

[Barelstroker]

Small sample size in terms of the population. Statistics allows for using small sample sizes regardless if the population is infinite or finite. The entire point of statistics is to use smaller samples than the population. But depending on say effect size or experimental error, y’all might not like the interval width that is estimated or small power. None-the-less, it is possible to use small sample sizes and gain insight. We do it all the time in industry.

So, with regard to arguable or even questionably adequate sample numbers within the realm of velocity average or mean radius. What would you submit should be considered a minimum sample number?

 

[Dead Eye Dick]

Getting back to group sizes and reloading prep. Yep, i do all those things at each reloading, and I am not a reloading hobbyist.

But back in the day, when I was younger and could shoot, I shoot many perfect scores with an XP-100 custom in 7TCU loading the rounds on a Dillion 550, checking every five loads for powder accuracy. Using those loads, the darned little gun, shooting Creedmoor could shoot 1” groups at 200 meters. Boy for the good ole days. Boy for loads of 15.5 grains of SR4759 shooting a 150 grain Serra MatchKing, in a barrel that GOD only knows how many thousands of rounds were shot through it. (Also thank you Shilen for making such a nice barrel). I purchased the handgun from a friend, and have put at least 5000 rounds through the barrel myself, and it was still shooting well under Sub MOA using rounds loaded with a progressive. (When I was steady enough and injury enough to still shoot decently)

Younger and fatter me. But I could actually shoot in those days. I still own that XP, it’s a good one.

A highlight of those days. I would be out shooting and our son could actually telephone me from his barracks in Qatar. We would be having a nice conversation while I was practicing. Since they always flew missions at night, his off time and our daytime would match. Further, I always marveled at FaceTime telephone calls when he was deployed overseas. In Vietnam, I was able to make one 2 minute telephone call home in my entire almost year long tour. That call was to tell my family when my actual DROS date was. Otherwise, it was letters with at least a two week delivery.

Two weeks to get a letter delivered. Tragically that led to many family members literally getting a letter from their dead son. Hard times it was.

 

[JB.IC]

So, with regard to arguable or even questionably adequate sample numbers within the realm of velocity average or mean radius. What would you submit should be considered a minimum sample number?

For group size, I would say 20 shots might be enough to gain some insight. But you recently liked a post I made where I modeled how many observations it took in a single simulation for each sample size to converge the group’s center on to the population’s center. It took a lot of observations. More than anyone would be willing to shoot. If you can’t get the sample to converge onto the population’s center, then I have a hard time imagining anything less than that would be reliable for estimating the group size. The different sample groups on target would simply “dance” around the population’s center and never show the true dispersion pattern.

As far as muzzle velocity average, as little as 5 shots would be enough to get a representative statistic. The sampling distribution of the mean (univariate) coverages quickly.

As far as MV SD, 25-30 observations since the distributions are skewed and have a harder time converging to the population parameter.

 

[Barelstroker]

For group size, I would say 20 shots might be enough to gain some insight. But you recently liked a post I made where I modeled how many observations it took in a single simulation for each sample size to converge the group’s center on to the population’s center. It took a lot of observations. More than anyone would be willing to shoot. If you can’t get the sample to converge onto the population’s center, then I have a hard time imagining anything less than that would be reliable for estimating the group size. The different sample groups on target would simply “dance” around the population’s center and never show the true dispersion pattern.

As far as muzzle velocity average, as little as 5 shots would be enough to get a representative statistic. The sampling distribution of the mean (univariate) coverages quickly.

As far as MV SD, 25-30 observations since the distributions are skewed and have a harder time converging to the population parameter.

Twenty shots aligns with my understanding & test results.
I don't mean to put you on the spot. I was rather confused by your previous comment about minimum sample numbers in statistics.
To be honest, you were referring to what I thought you were referring to but, I had to ask the question. One guys minimum can be completely different to another guys minimum.

 

[cas6969]

Their videos are like a cooking show... we made this pie this way and we made this other pie this other way, and I think they're just as good.

Can we taste the pie? No.
Can we at least see the pie?? Mm... no. But they taste almost the same to me and that's what matters.