Advanced Marksmanship The Measure of a Man and His Rifle

[Lowlight]

So in the "Precision AR" thread, it was discussed that in order to gauge a rifle and shooter you need a 20 shot group? I get this argument goes back 100 years as people always want more. But if we go back in time when Sniper's Hide was in its infancy, I tried enacting a 5 shot minimum on groups posted because of the older debate 3 rounds vs 5 rounds. Now we have 20 rounds thrown into the mix so what is necessary to be able to speak on the subject. If a person asks for an approximate value on a particular rifle system how do you respond?

Fast forward, we have the Kraft Data thread and target. Where we test an individual with 12 shots from 4 positions. 3 shots each position, grouping on paper for a score. Chris came up with this target to test people from various positions in order to help with competition shooting.

We used to say, 3 shots test the rifle, 5 shots test the shooter. So what does 20 do besides add more weight to the sample size? Sure a rifle barrel can have stress and walk after X number of shots. A shooter can get distracted or fatigued in shooting a 20 shot string and throw a few, so what is the end result of having 20 shots at 200 yards for record in order to speak on a subject?

Why 20 at 200, is it because someone likes that location at their personal range? I agree with the difference between groups at 100 and 200 is normally very noticeable, if you can do 1/2" at 100 odds are you are doing 1.5" at 200 unless you practice. 200 is a different animal from some shooters. But why this standard that nobody has ever followed, not once?

The question becomes, What are we really testing, Me, the rifle, or the Ammo... or all three? If I bought an AI AT rifle, and shoot factory ammo, what should I expect? AI doesn't really have an accuracy guarantee, they did, but it's like 1.25" when you translate it. So if I drop down and shoot a group of 5 rounds and measure 1/2" while I understand it's a meaningless single number, doesn't say, yes I can work with this rifle ? Don't people usually grown into a system, get a tiny bit better over time, refine the ammo, techniques, etc. So where and when do we use this accuracy standard to figure out what a rifle is doing ?

Do we really need to ?

Is there is a host of companies lying to us about the standard to expect out of their rifle? Why do we need 20 shots at 200, who are we speaking to, me or someone else. If my brain is happy with 5, why do I need 20 to prove my rifle fit? I am generally curious about the mindset here. Is it you are tired of "everyone" saying I shoot 1 MOA all day long with boring consistency? I get that, but then again, I know when to stop listening to people and can usually gauge performance by a combination of their words.

Where do you stand, I tried saying 5 shot group minimum, never happened, is this a case if you claim accuracy you better be able to show 20 at 200 or are those people unrealistic? If that is your requirement you do it, but do we need to hold shooters to a new standard ?

Tell me the target, I will make it, I am creating some new updated paper targets to post, so why not

 

[diverdon]

Perhaps some just want more time b4 changing paper, or switching to steel. I wonder if there's not a few who want 19 to hide their cold bore shot.

 

[Lowlight]

Serious question, because if someone asks, "which is more accurate" and people post a 5 shot group demonstrating sub MOA Performance, is that to be dismissed, because it's not 5 x 5 on paper ?

What is the measure, where do we set the standard, what is the standard ?

or even more important does it vary,

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

O man this thread topic can get pretty deep, not so much on the 20 at 200 thing but the "nail on the head" of what is being tested.

Testing purely rifles is different method/approach.
Testing purely ammunition is different method/approach.
Testing purely scope is different method/approach.
Testing the combination of all the moving parts including the shooter is different method/approach.

So is there a standard that matters?? I do not think there is a standard that can be replicated from one person to another.

Edited To Add:
For example--Mfg A test their rifle in a 25k dollar testing setup and "guarantee" half moa as to Mfg B test their rifle from RRS Tripod and "guarantee" half moa....which is more accurate to the shooter?

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[Lowlight]

I have extra bandwidth, there was a special for XMAS

I agree, so if we are looking at buying a new rifle, and we want to post online and crow about it, what should the standard be?

I agree we are individuals, my standards are different than others, companies maybe they need to be held to a different standard, not that very many would bother, so if that is the case, why bring it up?

 

[Fig]

100 yds makes sense because it’s more the rifle and less the marksman and the environmentals.

My thinking Is that a three or five shot group doesn’t statistically tell you anything. Any over the counter rifle with over the counter ammunition can produce a good looking three or a five shot group out of a few boxes of ammo.

I’ve taken classes and gone to clinics with both civilian and military rifle instructors, and I can’t recall a single one who said your rifle had to shoot better than a minute. So for me, if you make that claim (which almost everyone does), I want to see a decent sample size. Something an A-bolt and a box of Core-Lokts can’t do.

But ultimately I think we’re looking at the whole question backwards. The question shouldn’t be, “How big/small is your 3/5/20 shot group.” A question with a much more meaningful and practical answer is, “How many shots can your rifle shoot under a minute before you get a flier”?

Fundamentals and consistency...this is what matters. This is a meaningful question. We shouldn’t be saying it‘s a 1 moa or A 3/4 moa rifle. We should be saying it’s a 30, a 50 or a 200 shot rifle. I.e. it will hold under a minute for that many shots...

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

I personally and professionally am all for standards as it provides a baseline for reproduction of results.

Like the old BR saying of if your rifle will shoot that record group once it will shoot it all the time. It is not the rifles fault if you do not.

IMO it is hard to standardize something on the end user level until the manufacturers of the industry actually standardize it on their level.

Definitely monitoring this thread!!

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[Lowlight]

I think a progressive dot drill is a better measure

1 round per, with the dots getting progressively smaller,

1st row is 1"
2nd row is 3/4"
3rd row is 1/2"
4th is 1/4"

3 out of 5 per row is a success, and don't necessarily put a label on it, just state a fact, I can do 3 out of 5 hits at 1/2, 1 at 1/4 etc its a bit easier manage

 

[slowworm]

I think a progressive dot drill is a better measure

The question is still a better measure of what? The entire system, including the shooter? The gets to the heart of what Theis is asking as well.

I'm a crappy marksman, so I try to take myself out of the equation as much as possible when testing a rifle by using a sled. I want to know what a reasonable threshold of performance is. When I am practicing and not testing, I judge my performance against that established baseline. As of today, all my bolt action rifles (except some of my old C&R rifles) outshoot my abilities, so I know buying a GAP is a not going to gain me anything.

So is it the rifle or the system we want to test? I would argue that for this, we want to test the entire system including the shooter. So as well as a specifying the dot drill, you have to, for example, also shoot it prone off a bipod with maybe a rear bag to it to count. At the end of the day, if I want to defeat a target, I don't do it off a bench with a sled weighted down with bags of shot.

J.

 

[Lowlight]

That is the problem is most are crappy shooters, yet they still want to show off,

The point about the shooter is valid, every measure we have includes the shooter, very few have access to the right equipment to test things without one. Even a standard lead sled type set up can include shooter variations.

So how does the Everyday Shooter, demonstrate my rifle is worthy, or I think this rifle is better than that rifle because I can do Y with it... If a poster asks, as in the other thread what should they expect out of a particular rifle system how do you answer it ?

How do we translate, what should I expect in terms of precision to something that is controlled by a person?

 

[Lowlight]

I think it's the visual people are after ...

20 at 200 sounds impressive, it's a big visual.

So the key is, people, want to just look at something and say, yes that works. I think that is why the Kraft Drill and Target resonates, it's quick and easy. You do 3 shots from 4 positions, you do it on one target and that target gives you an instant visual.

That is what I think people respond to, the "look" more than the process. When we consider what types of targets people lean towards, the more visual the better.

 

[ma smith]

20x20 just looks like $40 of hole in a $.05 piece of paper

 

[TxWelder35]

It’s going to be hard to be able to quantify a meaningful test to demonstrate what a rifle is capable of. Short have having fixtures with completely identical (not mass produced) ammo, and an exact same chambering is going to be next to impossible to have a baseline to measure what a rifle is capable of.

my Savage 12 LRP in 260, with the factory barrel, I couldn’t make it do any better than 2” with the old Prime ammo. With Berger 136s it would be pretty consistent at 3/4”. FGMM was right around 1”. This is all at 100.

buddy with a bartlein barrel one 260 will shoot those 136s in 1/2”, and Remington core lokts at 2”.

once you get into the higher end guns I think it becomes more what you and your ammo are capable of and less of what the gun is capable of. Just because that bartlien barre shoots core lokts at 2moa doesn’t mean it’s a shit gun/barrel

 

[Lowlight]

I tend to like walk out drills too, at least on steel where you start short and work your way out until you miss, but that is a different measurement

I agree, it's an expensive hole in the paper that can be done in other ways to maximize the effort. The way it was presented in the other thread with details has value to the individual, but not everyone needs that level of information.

I think people are generally lazy, not necessarily bad, but not good for promoting extra because someone not you wants to see more before listening to what you have to say.

 

[Namekagon]

Will we get to see data from the Kraft drill here on the forum? I'm interested in data such as "X% of shooters shot X moa from Standing, X moa from sitting, X moa from kneeling, X moa from prone." When evaluating just your own shooting skill, that data would be a great benchmark for comparison.

 

[Dthomas3523]

I think some sort of target with progressively smaller dots with central aiming points and a grid is in order.

If we are testing both accuracy *and* precision.....and are looking at practical real life purpose. Shouldn’t we be testing the *entire* system? By that, I mean both the rifle/optic and the shooter.

If so, the ability to hit exactly what we want, on command should be measured. The animal (2 or 4 legged) or steel doesn’t give six shits from Sunday if you can shoot a .2 moa group today at 2 o’clock on the dot and tomorrow another .2 moa group at 7 o’clock.

What matters is you can put that bullet as close to humanly possible to that dot every single time

I propose a 100yd target that has 2moa circles with a T or cross in it. All the way down to a .moa dot. Keep the T in it until it’s no longer needed to have a center aiming point. The target also needs .1 mil grid. Light lines for the grid. Bold for the circles and T/cross.

2 moa
1.75
1.5
1.25
1
.75
.5
.25
.2
.1

A fresh range trip is started with a two target test. The first target (10 shots) is done without zero or warm up (assuming you had rifle zero’d previously) and you aim at the center and only center of each circle/dot. Don’t adjust for wind or your zero being off. 10 shots. 1 at each. You should be able to see a pattern and see where your zero really is. You can also use the grids to plot all 10 shots later. We are purely measuring:
A: the system/shooter’s zero
B: precision/accuracy of the system/shooter

The next target (10 shots) is done after you take the info from the first 10 and either tweak your zero or adjust if for some reason it’s super high wind and pushing you off .1 or so. The goal is now to use everything at your disposal to hit the center of the circles/dots. Hold off, dial turrets, etc. We are now testing

The ability of the shooter to use the information about his rifle/conditions/themselves to successfully engage a target.

 

[Hoyt7mm]

I doubt we can ever agree to a standard. IMO round count would be partially dependent on what the intended use of the rifle is. You had a guest on a podcast I think later in 2019 and he talked about validating everything on paper with a round count you would expect to see per your purpose.
That really resonated with me and has helped confidence in both myself and my rifle.
Personally, I think a sliding standard might be more useful based on rifle and purpose.
3 rd group for a hunting rifle
5 for a hobby precision rifle
10 for typical comp rifles (prs/nrl type matches)
20 for F-Class or similar?

Personally, I think the SH 100 challenge drill gives you a great standard to judge off of.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Each trip, pick a position. Whatever you want. And label the target. Write down any and all notes relevant.

Over time, you’ll see all kinds of patterns.

 

[Skg_Mre_Lght]

I've always looked at it as a whole system. A Ferrari F1 car is an amazing piece of equipment. Without a driver it's an amazing art piece, with a bad drive its a burning mass of carbon fiber after it hits a wall. It's a system, none of it works if a piece is missing, including the driver. An F22 is an awesome machine, unless I'm in the seat. A fighter pilot won't be able to pilot Jerry Miculek's pistol anywhere close to what he does with it.

I have personally never cared what a machine is capable of. What can you make it do? What can I make it do? That's a really cool guitar, what can you do with it?

The most accurate gun in the world is an inanimate object without some kind of human interaction. Five shot groups are fine, ten shot groups are fine. What can you make it do?

The internet is full of shit talking, self promoting experts that have found an outlet for their Dunning-Kruger views. People shit on everyone for everything. If it isn't the Poors, it's the Competition Shooters, or the same box of bullets hunters, or the mall ninjas. Deep down we all know what accuracy should look like. Anyone that has shot 100 rounds in their life can look at a five or ten shot group and tell if the system is accurate or not.

Anyway, I'm bored, and quarantined, so I thought I would throw a bunch of thoughts against the wall to see what would stick.

 

[W54/XM-388]

Another question on accuracy of the entire system is nice groups aside,
Can you pull out the rifle after sitting in the safe for a few months, take it to the range, line it up and hit the exact point of aim with the first shot?
Then additional shots, will they also be at that same exact point of aim?

 

[Lowlight]

Chris is making a graph for the Kraft stuff he is getting a lot more participation so the numbers will be nice,

He did send me this:

So it's coming to together for him

 

[Lowlight]

I think we are in a good position for 2021 to try to build something that will work for a lot of people

I know it will take a ton of time to catch on, and many will not do it, however

Maybe it's worth taking the time, since everyone is stuck at home and it will only get worse with this 100 days of nothing crap, we try to build something, and it doesn't have to be 1 thing, it can be several things

A Dot Target
100 Yard
200 Yard
3 X 3
5 X 5

We have the time and nothing better to do, as an example, I have been working on the Kraft target a bit,

 

[pmclaine]

The expectations here far exceed the average Guy standard.

My local range has some good shooters but most are happy to hit 8 inch Shoot-n-Cs at 100 yards with no rounds touching.

USMC hands out a rifle considered acceptable at 4 MOA, provides ball ammo, uses targets greater than MOA, provides a week of training the whole time telling you you are the best in the world and in order to get the cool badge you have to shoot 88%. I may be dating myself with that standard but that was the goal back than and Iron crosses and pizza boxes outnumbered crossed rifles. That tested shooter more than gear.

Make the standard too tough you could discourage people from joining the sport.

The idea is to have something achievable without the shooter thinking they have to spend a boat load on gear which they may never be able to afford.

What's the intent of the standard?

Solid information on performance of shooter and gear, bragging rights, a means to expose a faker?

What are the performance requirements to achieve success in a chosen sport?

In PRS it seems targets are bigger than MOA.....is it necessary to achieve 3/5 on the 1/4 MOA dots? Do you discourage a shooter if they can't achieve a standard sponsored shooters get for results.

I haven't had a shooting class yet that ends with a "final exam". Everyone gets a certificate and the individual has to self assess if they succeeded or failed...most important thing I guess is did they learn something?

I think it would be great if after a class there was some sort of exam but places are loathe to do that because it's for pay and they don't want to discourage customers, it's for education more than performance, the goal is to grow the number of customers/shooting enthusiasts.

I like your dot drill target. Lining up individual shots is tough and it avoids the degrading aim point if you do it well.

Thing is I'd start with some easily achievable dots based on distance and assuming environment not a factor.

Let new guys be 5/5 on a 3 inch circle at 100. At my club casual shooters can't achieve that but someone interested enough to come here or completing a class should be able to.

Shooters are your business. You have a much better understanding of where realistic skill assessments are and what shooter self assessments are. Im guessing both don't often align.

If this is something you want to use in class it has to be encouraging while not being too easily achievable so that there is no sense of accomplishment.

I look forward to whatever target you come up with.

Im going to go up in the attic and find my pizza box from boot camp. Guessing the crossed rifles will be put in storage.

 

[Dthomas3523]

I don’t think you make a “standard.”

You make something progressive and you let a bell curve tell you what the standard is.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

I like the progressive dot concept as it can be utilized for both industry and end user.

We can test rifle with tuned ammunition in firing fixture and indoor range.
We can test rifle with factory ammunition in firing fixture and indoor range.
All the way down to--
Testing all moving parts, shooter included in every firing position and support system available. Just mark the progressive dot target with whatever testing condition it was done with..just like we do with environmentals.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[Lowlight]

That is totally realistic,

Shooters are nowhere near as good as they think, we see it in class and it's one of the reasons for the Fundamental Eval, we treat it like a "humbler", being able to drop down on command and fire a group for record with two instructors writing down every move you make. It's intimating for a reason, to Humble before class.

I like the idea of creating a variety of targets to solve a variety of problems.

the easier we make it to shoot and access the more participation you get,

I think the visual side of things is important too, targets matters,

I was playing with this for the Kraft stuff, practice dots that show your work and then scoring

I like the Diamonds better, but I was being impatient in PS so circles were quicker

For maybe a progressive target that is a 3 x 3 I can modify this:

Make each target smaller,

Orange, Diamonds etc, seem to be the most popular, so small modifications are easy - before you go off on tangents we can change anything, the idea is creating a paper package that shooters can access and use

 

[Deleted member 113831]

200 yards is because at 100 yards it can be like reading tea leaves.

Example: One of the guys I shoot with is a serious varminter. Like 30,000 rnds a year serious. He shoots very small calibers from custom rail guns and his guns will literally shoot the intersections of the grid lines on the target at 100 yards. Any groups he shoots are just a bigger hole.

But at 200 yards, he gets to see exactly how the barrels are stringing and whether the groups are truly round or not. 200 yards gives more information without really having to consider environmentals in the equation.

 

[Skg_Mre_Lght]

I don’t think you make a “standard.”

You make something progressive and you let a bell curve tell you what the standard is.

Agreed. Standards have a place for sure, but all humans aren't equal. That's why I'm a fan of personal goals, and making yourself better over time.

I don't have the time or budget of some Shooters, and what I do have is huge compared to some. I set personal goals to become better at something everytime I take something to task. I may plateau, but I know that if I stick with it I will see incremental gains. They may be small when compared to others, but when competing against myself, I win everytime I make an improvement.

 

[Lowlight]

200 is a better test for sure, but we cant' cater to the fringes, look at that Kraft target again, people are not shooting that tight, we are not benchrest central where the majority will be under average size, the majority of practical shooters is bigger as been noted.

200 is great, but a single group at 200 can demonstrate the difference, very few new shooters now don't practice can maintain the accuracy even going from 100 to 200. I use this tool in most classes, we always throw in paper at distance to show how the growth on average is not 1 = 1, but 1 = 1.5 in terms of the angle,

200 is a separate animal and I guarantee to not discourage shooters you need an 6" target at least.

 

[Dthomas3523]

I think 100 is the go to test.

Then make targets for longer distance for those interested in learning more about themselves and their rifle.

 

[hafejd30]

I really like the idea of testing the entire system. From multiple positions. I think the 5 shot sample size is perfect for testing accuracy and the Kraft drill tests the rifle and shooters ability.

That standard comes down to the use of the rifle.

Prs/hunting would benefit greatly from Kraft drills. Where these multiple positions would be relevant. In this case I see 20 rounds into one hole to not be as great of a measure as hitting multiple targets at multiple distances from different positions. In this case hit % would be the goal

Likewise the Fclass type crowd would benefit more from the 20 shots. In this case you would fire a group that represents exactly what you shoot in competition. As these guns are always shot from the same position every time

For me personally it’s,

- 3 shots for a hunting rifle. Where the first and second shot consistency are more important than the 8th or 9th shot

- 5 shots for accuracy representation of a long range/target/hunting rifle

- 20 shots would be my only go to for my fclass rifle. Where shot 1 is just a important as shot 20. All fired from the same position with only weather variables or shooter fatigue to come into play if all else is equal

 

[Dthomas3523]

This is why I prefer single shots on each circle/dot. Shows what the system that includes shooter is capable of when doing the only thing that matters. Putting bullet where you want.

I also prefer single shots to zero rifle. I don’t consider it zero’d until it can do it on command.

You can also add in stuff like getting heart rate up to certain beats and doing it. If you want to push yourself

 

[Near miss]

I am very excited to try those targets.
I will probably hit the first 2, the rest is open for bets. I was interested in the Precision AR thread because I recently bought my first semi, HK and am still learning to shoot it so that I would dare to admit it was mine.

I am still doing ammo testing, which of I will publish info about when finished, but as I was shooting my best ammo, Lapua 69s, I noticed that my shooting was poor. With 2 shot groups collated into one, 1 shot was out of 0.8 moa making it 1.2moa with second group having clear vertical trending.. So I came to hide to pick up some information.

For me the thread was interesting as I really want to know how big portion of guns are really 1moa.

And it diverted into a topic of how many shots can you rely on to make assumption that the rifle really is 1moa.

Even a stock 10/22 can make sub moa 5 shot card at 100. But I am not sure if any 10/22 can make it with 20 shots.

This is what I was chasing. LL, You are a professional and know what kind of grouping you can expect from yourself and the gun, but what is your opinion when Jake, 14yo, that goes by the nickname 22LRdude, posts his 10/22 target and claims his ticket into the fictional 1moa club? Making us think 'Oh those 10/22s with CCIs surely are shooters!'

I am far too involved in these threads for my skill level, but that said I have not done really anything else but been asking questions.

 

[TxWelder35]

I like the idea of the progressive dots. That’s a very put up or shut up drill. 6 dots 2”, 1.5”, 1”, .75”, .5”, .25”

the point of my earlier posts was that is Very difficult to say what just the rifle is capable of. Different ammo alone can make a giant difference.

so it’s not about really what the rifle is capable of. It is indeed the whole system. The rifle, the ammo, the scope, human.

what also would be interesting to help test a scope, as I haven’t seen this addressed yet, is have a dot at say the very bottom left hand corner, of the paper to aim at. Then have another dot at the top right that is for example exactly 3.5 mils up and 2 mils right. Dial it into your scope and see if it tracks true.

 

[Darkside-Six]

I think a progressive dot drill is a better measure

1 round per, with the dots getting progressively smaller,

1st row is 1"
2nd row is 3/4"
3rd row is 1/2"
4th is 1/4"

3 out of 5 per row is a success, and don't necessarily put a label on it, just state a fact, I can do 3 out of 5 hits at 1/2, 1 at 1/4 etc its a bit easier manage

this!!
I think this is a solid measure, at least for me personally.
I stopped shooting groups years ago. Only time I really do it anymore is on load development or truing at distance. Biggest thing I focus on for accuracy is hitting very small targets with first round impacts. over and over and over.
I’ve never shot a 20 round group and have never had the interest, nor saw the point. I have on occasion done 10, but only for the sake of I had a few extra rounds to burn during my range trip and wanted to get them all fired so I can prep them all together.
Now I can’t stack 10 on top of each other through the same hole at 100, but they are close enough that after 5-6 the center is so blown out that your point of aim is going to be off or your just sending rounds through a hole in the paper. I personally just don’t see the point.

I think with rifles, we are far enough along now that even with most off the shelf guns they can keep very good accuracy, even with factory ammo that the rifle itself can shoot better than most of us are capable of, so it boils down to shooter abilities and what the shooter can do with the rifle.

as far as “standard”. I have my own and don’t much care about anything else.
I really like the Kraft drill that Chris put out and plan on shooting it soon, but I think that’s more on shooter abilities.
I like that you’re putting out different targets. I remember when the dot drill came out a few years ago and there was a lot of engagement with it. Looking forward to seeing what else you’ve got in store.

 

[Lowlight]

Okay so we like:

More than one option

100 yards preferred - although 200 an option should be offered in writing.

3 x 3 variant

5 x 5 variant

Kraft Drill variant

Progressive Dot Target(s)

That about right...

 

[TxWelder35]

Okay so we like:

More than one option

100 yards preferred - although 200 an option should be offered in writing.

3 x 3 variant

5 x 5 variant

Kraft Drill variant

Progressive Dot Target(s)

That about right...

What do you think about have targets exact mil distances apart to test scope tracking?

 

[Lowlight]

An 8 x 11 sheet of paper is too small to test tracking, the errors have to stack up enough to see them, and that usually means 20 MOA of travel to see it.

If you just move the strikes around the edge of the paper, and back to zero you really checked nothing but return to zero, not tracking

That is why the Gun Writer stuff in magazines where they box test on a single sheet of paper is meaningless, does absolutely nothing in regards to how well it tracks. Most of the errors you will see are at the edges more so in the middle. With most scopes we test, we see .1 after moving 10 mils, so 36" shows .36"

 

[TxWelder35]

An 8 x 11 sheet of paper is too small to test tracking, the errors have to stack up enough to see them, and that usually means 20 MOA of travel to see it.

If you just move the strikes around the edge of the paper, and back to zero you really checked nothing but return to zero, not tracking

That is why the Gun Writer stuff in magazines where they box test on a single sheet of paper is meaningless, does absolutely nothing in regards to how well it tracks. Most of the errors you will see are at the edges more so in the middle. With most scopes we test, we see .1 after moving 10 mils, so 36" shows .36"

Gotcha

 

[Leftie]

This is a really interesting thread, and I think that @THEIS brought up a bunch of points earlier in the thread that are valid.

I want to focus in on something that @lowlight said that might actually get at another parallel factor - is the end goal to show someone's competency and consistency behind their rifle as a shooter/rifle combo, or is the primary purpose of what is being proposed supposed to be a "humbler"? I don't think that they are necessarily mutually exclusive.

Shooters are nowhere near as good as they think, we see it in class and it's one of the reasons for the Fundamental Eval, we treat it like a "humbler", being able to drop down on command and fire a group for record with two instructors writing down every move you make. It's intimating for a reason, to Humble before class.

I'm making the distinction because I think that there may be a big difference in what kind of test you choose to conduct in relation to the specific subject material of the course you are teaching to students.

If the goal is to challenge (or totally humble) participants prior to real learning beginning, shouldn't it also be somewhat course-material specific? Maybe I'm overthinking this...

Granted, this is based on my experience in a non-shooting teaching environment, having experienced that if a student of any subject can't relate the "humbling" activity even remotely to what they will be learning, then they will likely only become frustrated by it, which may be counterproductive to the real "learning" that you want them "primed" to accept.

 

[TriggerJerk!]

An interesting parallel discussion on measuring the precision and accuracy of groups:

The Truth and Nothing but the Truth

I'm not only a photographer, I'm an analyst by profession. I gravitate to hard core analysis when I shoot, even keeping a log of every shot and where it went. Anal is the prefix to analyst so sue me! After reading a a very recent and pretty comprehensive article over at PRB on statistical...

www.snipershide.com

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

What exactly are we trying to measure?
The rifle?
The ammo?
The shooter?
All 3 as a complete system?

 

[Lowlight]

Clearly it’s all three

however people don’t understand that any testing where a person shoots it by hand is testing all this not just the rifle, but they claim to want to gauge the rifles capabilities.

so while many can say, this rifle is good or bad you have to consider the context and the situation. If it’s not in a fixture it’s weighed towards the shooter,

 

[Crews]

Once you have shot a group to zero your rifle or confirm it, in my mind they become useless.

I am also all about the dots with 1 shot per. It's a truer measure of the man, and the tool. Perhaps the group size you determine with the zero could dictate the size of the dot?

 

[StrayDog]

These have been around a long time, can't remember if they came from NOMAD or not, but I use them and they've been helpful pointing out some weaknesses of mine.

 

[Lowlight]

I came with all the Dot Drill stuff, others just offered the targets

 

[Lowlight]

I am updating the Dot Drill target now a bit, playing around with it

Here is the progressive one I am working on, from a 20 or 21 dot drill to 25 dots so you have your 5 x 5

 

[CraigG1]

Hey all, so I'm probably the newest shooter posting on this thread. I have a question....so if you shoot 1 shot per dot .. in this exercise is it timed? or how does it apply setting your baseline for future measurement of improvement?

 

[Lowlight]

Trust me you won't hit them all, even if used all 1" dots you'll miss some

The dot drills are open, you can do it in a variety of ways, time is up you

We do the drill in class the following way,

1st row, slow fire, 1 round per
2nd row, support side, 1 round per - slow
3rd-row speed drill 1 round per 20 seconds total
4th row is the Up and Down Drill you start with rifle pointed to target, bolt open, mag in, you drop the standing and shoot 1 round per in a descending time limit, 15 seconds, 12, 10, 8, 6 seconds

You guys seriously lack imagination ...

This progressive target doesn't need to be timed, you'll suck anyway, just put 1 round per dot on the paper.

 

[CoryT]

It all depends on what you are trying to do with the data. A single 3 shot group is only what it is, you can't tell much of anything from 3 shots, except to say it does not appear to be accurate or precise. Even a single 5 shot group does not have any real value to predicting what the next group will be. Measuring group size by the typical extreme spread also has little real world value. It's easy and simple, but any ES measurement consists of exactly two data points. Two data points is a very small sample that has almost no value. what you will find is that as the population of events from which you draw the two points from gets larger, so will the ES. Welcome to a standard distribution bell curve.

If you want to evaluate precision and accuracy, you really want to use mean radius or circular error probable. These are much harder to measure, though there are software programs that will do the hard work. In order to get a value that has real meaning, that is, we can use it to predict future performance with some reasonable degree of success, you'll need twenty to fifty rounds to measure. As you increase the data set, the confidence level goes up. Twenty rounds is pretty good, about 90%, and at fifty rounds you get to some 98%. If we intend to evaluate the whole system, I'd prefer to shoot several five shot groups over time, then overlay the results to get a true measure of performance.

Humans are a huge variable component in the system. One five shot group can't even tell us if the rifle is zeroed.

The twenty single shots is a very good test, especially if those shots are fired over a course of several days. When I went up to the Smithy every day, I would go out back and shoot two shots from my test rifle each day, one in the AM and one before leaving in the PM. After two weeks, you have twenty shots that give you a VERY good indication of the actual group size, group center and average distance to the POA. This is not what I'd call convenient for most shooters to do, but it does produce very useful data. We are now testing the ability of the shooter and system to repeatedly acquire a position and engage a target. If you want to do consecutive shots, so as to make a five shot group, it would be wise to break the position and start fresh on the next shot.