Two approaches to CB accuracy

[felix]

Charles, your neck is still very much intact. You got it PERFECTLY. ... felix

[joeb33050]

Joe, the difference between perfection and the amount of variance from that perfection is called random chance by those who do not need to accomplish perfection. It is that simple. Zero error is perfection by definition. ... felix

I am unable to achieve perfection. Try as I may.
I think you're offering an opinion here, Felix; and certainly you're welcome to do so. We can all learn from others. Or most of us can.
If those who do ot need to accomplish perfection call ...... "random chance", what do those of us who need to accomplish perfection call it?
Are you among those who achieve perfection? Are you a perfection needer?
This has been wonderful, and I'm very glad that you're here to explain things to us, and decide for us. I can only assume that you have achieved perfection.
Respectfully and imperfectly yours;
joe b.

[Char-Gar]

I suspect that Joe is correct that all of this random vs. perfect stuff has more to do with world view and philosphy than science.

As I have said a number of times, I am not a science type. I am a religious type and in that context the words "perfect" and "human" are contridictions of terms.

There are many, many things about all of life we do not know. We do learn, and the things we don't know, grow fewer and fewer. However, when it is all said and done, we cannot move beyond the human. The created can never fully understand the workings of the creator.

Now, I don't attribute a bad group to an act of God, nor do I attribute it to some mystic randomness of the universe. I attribute a bad group to fallible human nature and knowledge.

There may be perfect math, but there will never be perfect human knowledge or action. No matter how far we advance, we can not become more than human.

So lack of perfection can be laid at the feet of uknown ramdom forces in the universe or it can be understood as just the limitations of being human.

When we use the term perfect, we have to be certain how we understand that term and to what is it being applied.

[joeb33050]

I like both the practical and the theoretical or philisophical or world view discussions.
However, it's time to get back to work.
The sense of the triggering post, and what may be the difference between the cookbook guys and the too-many-variables-to-control guys may be that there's no simple and easily understandable answer to questions such as these:

Rifle X has shot load y into about 1 1/2" 5 shot 100 yard groups for years. Yesterday I shot three groups with the identical lube and they averaged 2.1". Has accuracy decreased?

Rifle X has shot load y into about 1 1/2" 5 shot 100 yard groups for years. Yesterday I shot 5 groups using a different lube, they averaged 1.1". Is the new lube more accurate?


Rifle X has shot load y into about 1 1/2" 5 shot 100 yard groups for years. I changed the bullet, the alloy, the diameter, the powder and took off my lucky hat; and five groups at 100 yards averaged 1.5". Does this mean that nothing affects the accuracy of this rifle?

Now the answers lie hidden in the thicket of statistics, and I think that I can extract them. Statistics is boring, difficult to understand, way too complicated, laden with assumptions that if not met call conclusions into question, and uses greek letters that I can't remember how to pronounce. That's my opinion, and I'm a cheerer for statistics.

To find a way to answer questions like these, certain things must be operating.

You must accept the notion that group sizes are affected by random variation-wherever it comes from, and that regardless of how closely we control the variables, group size will hardly ever be, and never average, zero.

Then ROUND groups are acceptable, sets of groups that show common non-round shapes are not. This is a subjective matter.

You must keep records of group sizes. If you don't have records, there's no way to apply statistics.

With these three operating it may be possible to work out the answer or procedure or table.

In the book there are several ways to answer these questions using what may be too confusing an explanation.

I'd be interested in comments and other questions about them group sizes, while I try to work this thing out.
Thanks to all for the help so far;
joe brennan

[mag_01]

----- Very interesting post --- A lot of discussion with a good deal of information --- Not every thing written in stone is in itself true -- But in whole A definite in-site into the problems of our world of -- CAST --- Every ones input is important -- More post of this type get us to thinking ( and this is a good thing) and in a way enabling better results on our score card (targets -- Mag_01

[felix]

If the group is not ROUND, then the load is not optimized for that gun system at that particular moment when the group was fired. No exceptions. ... felix

[sundog]

Felix, about the round groups. Dave Scott documented that writing about Virgil King's 'adventure' in the Houston Warehouse. Horizontal to vertical stringing by adjusting charge and seating depth (and neck tension). The sweet spot. Ah, to only have the resources....

[felix]

Yep, Corky, it boils down to ignition characteristics to get everything started on the right foot. Emphasis is placed on the plural version of the word characteristic. ... felix

[Char-Gar]

I would "amen" the notion of round groups....providing the rifle is capable of giving round groups with any load. If a rifle won't deliver round groups then the problem will be found with the rifle and not the load. Bedding problem, barrel warping as it get's hot and those sort of things.

So, in order for round groups to have load significance, the rifle must be capable of producing round groups to start with.

This would seem to be pretty basic stuff, but over the years, I have known many shooters to chase the holy grail of the right load without sucess when the problem was with the rifle all along.

[felix]

Absolutely, Charles, without question. ... felix

[joeb33050]

If the group is not ROUND, then the load is not optimized for that gun system at that particular moment when the group was fired. No exceptions. ... felix

What does "optimized" mean to you, Felix?

A set of groups, not one but a few, that are fired with the same load/same conditions, that are not round, are probably a sign that there are TWO accuracy affecting processes going on. One is the normal random variation, the second could be wind-causing L/R or U/D variation; or IGNITION, generally causing U'D variation.
But it's pretty subjective at the threshold.
One group of a set with a wide shopt or great relative dispersion may be a sign that something funny is going on.

ONE group can and will be out-of-round just by pure chance, and is not a sign, unless it's WAY out of round.
Round groups, in the Statistical Process Control jargon, are said to be "in control".
joe brennan

[Maven]

I think joe b. is correct about the "cookbook" v. the multiple variable approach to CB accuracy (as defined & measured by the user), but I don't think these 2 positions are mutually exclusive. E.g., if you have a .30-06 and a CB that fits it, wouldn't you start with or at least consider starting with C.E. Harris' "universal load" of 13gr. of Red Dot or 16gr. of Hercules/Alliant 2400 or a combination found in a Lyman, Lee, or RCBS reloading manual? If accuracy was only so-so, wouldn't you consider changing one variable, e.g., powder charge, at a time to see if it makes a difference. Even if accuracy (target, not hunting) was very good-to-excellent, wouldn't you try to change one thing at a time to wring the last bit of performance/accuracy/"perfection" from the rifle? Moreover, if you did these things, kept careful records and found, by inspection, your targets were somehow different, how would you know whether it was due to the change you made or to random variation aka chance? If you were motivated enough to continue your experiment so that you accumulated data for say 100 5-shot groups (using your chosen or proven load), you could (a) pretty much rule out human error and (b) perform a simple statistical analysis to demonstrate whether changing a given factor produced meaningful (rather than random or chance) & repeatable results. Finally, if you were trying to maximize accuracy with a given rifle, load & CB, etc., I assume you wouldn't shoot in a howling gale or blizzard, wouldn't leave your loaded rounds in the hot sun or encased in ice, etc., but would choose reasonably calm days that were temperate enough so that you wouldn't shiver. Then too statistical analysis doesn't assume that you'll spend the rest of your days gathering enough data to make meaningful claims or to refute other claims: That's what probability & inferential statistics are for. Beyond that, what's the problem with the statistical approach?

As for statistics, what they do and how we can apply them to our hobby/sport, doesn't require a Ph.D as there are, as joe b. suggested, several excellent books & articles about them. First and foremost is the excellent article, "Statistics for Handloaders" by Dennis Marshall* in the NRA's book, "Handloading" (1981). The other is a non-mathematical discussion of statistics in an out-of-print book, "The Nature of Statistics" by W. Allen Wallis & Harry V. Roberts (The Free Press, 1965). Used book dealers/Amazon can get this for you if you're interested. Even the recent best seller, "Freakonomics" shows how statistics can be honestly** used to support or refute given claims.

In sum, I don't think there are an infinite number of variables that affect whatever we choose to define as CB accuracy. I also think many of them are known, knowable and quantifiable (but not necessarily by me!) and apply to the great majority of rifles and maybe handguns as well. Why are we pretending this is as difficult as Einstein's theory of Special Relativity?



*A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, I used to teach Sociology and spent at least 1 week each semester (15 wks.) discusssing scientific methodology, fallacious logic and statistics (both descriptive and analytical), as did my colleagues in Psychology. Once I discovered Marshall's article, I recommended it to them and my students as an eminently readable introduction to the subject.


**I find the assertion that "figures lie and liars figure" to be uniformed at best, and highly disrespectful if not insulting to those who have developed, perfected and applied statisitcs so as to improve the human condition.

[sundog]

If the equipment (rifle, sight, bench, bags, etc.) is capable under good conditions, and you are not shooting small round groups at a hundred then one of two things need adjustment, you or the load..., or both.

If the equipment is not capable, then you're just wasting ammunition (unless you discover the problem), or you have to accept the results. If you continue shooting with a diagnosed equipment problem, then you ARE wasting ammo, and time that you could be using to fix the problem.

[Char-Gar]

Corky... You da man!!! I know far to many shooters who are on the "accuracy hunt" with crappy rifles, crappy equipment and crappy skills!

[montana_charlie]

Hmm...It looks like (maybe) you guys are staring to concentrate on the topic.

You have discussed, argued, and philosophied about crappy scopes, weather, worn out barrels, poor eyesigfht, and everything but "CB accuracy".

I have assumed (while reading along) that CB accuracy means 'accuracy with cast bullets', so all of that other stuff should be considered as 'presumed good'. If you're half blind, shooting a worn out rifle that won't even handle jacketed bullets, and shooting in a hurricane...what does a cast bullet have to do with anything?

The question has been boiled down to the ammunition, itself...or the thread would have a different title.

So...I am waiting for the real facts. And, if you can explain how a guy who keeps his bullets in a coffee can; and shakes them in a margarine tub to lube 'em; ever sends a bullet down the bore with square corners on the base and driving bands...I'd love to hear it.

And if those corners aren't square any more (or never were), is that the guy who likes to crow when his favorite rifle finally gets 'accurate' enough to make those 3-inch 50 yard groups?

CM

[crabo]

I just read something that made sense to me,

"So...I am waiting for the real facts. And, if you can explain how a guy who keeps his bullets in a coffee can; and shakes them in a margarine tub to lube 'em; ever sends a bullet down the bore with square corners on the base and driving bands...I'd love to hear it."

I remember reading one of LA Silouette Club articles where someone was searching for the ultimate cast bullet load, and he talked about putting his cast bullets in a divided cartridge box with one stacked on top of another so they didn't get damaged. Anyone considering treatment of the bullet, once it is cast, lubed, how it is handled and stored, as part of the equation? How anal should someone be?

How about some synthesis here. Anyone want to summerize any conclusions that 3 pages of discussion has shaken out?

Crabo

[joeb33050]

I just read something that made sense to me,

"So...I am waiting for the real facts. And, if you can explain how a guy who keeps his bullets in a coffee can; and shakes them in a margarine tub to lube 'em; ever sends a bullet down the bore with square corners on the base and driving bands...I'd love to hear it."

I remember reading one of LA Silouette Club articles where someone was searching for the ultimate cast bullet load, and he talked about putting his cast bullets in a divided cartridge box with one stacked on top of another so they didn't get damaged. Anyone considering treatment of the bullet, once it is cast, lubed, how it is handled and stored, as part of the equation? How anal should someone be?

How about some synthesis here. Anyone want to summerize any conclusions that 3 pages of discussion has shaken out?

Crabo

This thread is about the questions in #44 above, and similar questions. It is about resolving or explaining the two sort-of-opposing views explained in my first post.
Understand that in the forum world some feel the dog-hydrant need, and must scent as many threads as possible, even if their contribution has little or nothing to do with the thread.
If I can work out the statistics, maybe this can come to a conclusion. Or maybe someone else could work out or on the statistics.
There's a lot of advice here, little actual help.
joe b.

[Bass Ackward]

If you don't want to fool with a lot of statistics, you can simply hand the rifle to someone else.

Anyone can shoot an accurate rifle if they are close to your physical stature. Take yourself out of the equation. What you will find through statistics is that " YOU " shoot lighter recoiling rounds more consistently which is another reason that long shooting strings of low velocity cast is the easiest to find accuracy with.

[porkchop bob]

There seems to be some confusion here. Let me try to clarify things. ...
Accuracy is easy, it's five shot 100 yard groups shot in reasonable conditions with 10 shots plus foulers in a 15 minute time period, or so. ...
Five shot groups vary in size. Averages of five (or 2 or 11) five shot groups vary in size. This because of the way the world works.
Group size = accuracy varies with zillions of variables, or so we're told. Wind and temperature and powder and charge and bullet and diameter and gas check seating and lube and quantity of lube and ..........
My question is simply this:" Can we, and if so how, can we differentiate between random variation and a changed variable in the load? As you can see, data will be required.

Respectfylly Yours;
joe brennan

Good morning Joe.

You are asking for data reporting results of a 5 shot strings, about 2 strings shot every 15 minutes. In an hour that is 40 shots or 2.5 hours for 20 strings totaling 100 shots. Lets call the 20 strings a run. Under these conditions 10 runs or 1,000 shots will take me a month or so to conduct. How many runs should we conduct before a change is made?

Can you provide an Excel schedule we can use to record this data and send the completed schedule back to you? Along with the schedule, tell us exactly what is required.

If nothing else happens, in 6 months I will become a better shooter and be more constant in my reloading routine.

Thanks, Bob

[sundog]

Joe, my dawg ain't never seen a far plug.

Now about your statistics. YOU crunch the numbers. At least for me, they mean nothing. YOU are the one who asked.

I shoot well enough that I can generally tell within the first 10 shots if something is going to work, whether that would be 2 MOA or sub 1/2 MOA.

Here's just one example. I've been competing in hundred yard bolt action military bench matches for well over ten years - missed maybe two or three. That's 10 yrs x 12 mos x 50 record rounds per match in all sorts of wx conditions from extremes of near zero, completely iced over (one of my smallest groups ever) to well over a hunert. And wind. LOTS of wind. That's roughly 6K rounds, almost all cast, fired in no more than 4 rifles. This does not include what my grandson has done - add maybe another 1K. No numbers crunched, but I KNOW what works in this venue. AND what does not. All record rounds are fired on a center over the sighter. The endo of match composite with over 50 rounds tells a true story of equipment, ammo, and shooter.

Now, about that dog. With all due respect, you have not been listening.