Define a 1MOA rifle

[borbal]

But then how is shooting a 20 round group any different than shooting 7 3-round groups (20 doesn't go exactly into 3 but you get what I mean) assuming you're allowing the barrel to not overheat and keeping all other variables the same?

If you are measuring the group size by the "extreme spread" method - that is, the distance between the two furthest shots from each other in the group - then it matters a lot.

In three shot groups, only one shot in each group is not contributing to some information about the group size. But with so few shots, you do not know much about the group centre. The group might be a tight group but there is a significant chance it is three outlier shots in a much larger possible group.

In a 20 shot group, 18 shots contribute no information at all about the group size - but they do give you a much better idea where the group centre is. So it is a balance that has to the struck between knowing where the gun is actually shooting and how big the dispersion on the group is.

It turns out that the most efficient number of shots in a group to minimise the number of shots fired for a given confidence level of the group size is 7 shots in each group.

 

[billgatese30]

I think we are diverging into two arguments here, one is short term capability (i.e. A single group) and long term capability, over the life of the barrel.

Short term capability, a subgroup of n=>30 should be statistically capable of defining the potential for sub 1MOA. However long term, we should be plotting each group shot on a XBar/R or XBar/S chart and looking at the predicted proportion of out of specification events. This would also allow you to see groups opening up over time to let you decide when to rebarrel the rifle. However I don't think even a lot of top shots will go to the length of calculating Cp and Pp of their groups over time.

 

[Tim.243]

I think we are diverging into two arguments here, one is short term capability (i.e. A single group) and long term capability, over the life of the barrel.

Short term capability, a subgroup of n=>30 should be statistically capable of defining the potential for sub 1MOA. However long term, we should be plotting each group shot on a XBar/R or XBar/S chart and looking at the predicted proportion of out of specification events. This would also allow you to see groups opening up over time to let you decide when to rebarrel the rifle. However I don't think even a lot of top shots will go to the length of calculating Cp and Pp of their groups over time.

Yes theory and practical...

 

[billgatese30]

Yes theory and practical...

Practical if you are a target shooter and can get electronic results from your target. Useless for shooting deer/vermin

This is why I said earlier there's always a point with statistics discussions where we need to ensure we don't disappear up our bum and we need to accept what is close enough given the real world context. For instance, minute of deer/fox/rabbit I wouldn't care if I was 0.99 MOA or 0.102 MOA. On paper targets measured by eye I wouldn't care either as chances are it would be as good as the same. On electronic targets for an Olympic gold however, I might be as that might make a real world difference to my score by dropping a 10.1 down to a 9.9.

 

[Tim.243]

Practical if you are a target shooter and can get electronic results from your target. Useless for shooting deer/vermin

This is why I said earlier there's always a point with statistics discussions where we need to ensure we don't disappear up our bum and we need to accept what is close enough given the real world context. For instance, minute of deer/fox/rabbit I wouldn't care if I was 0.99 MOA or 0.102 MOA. On paper targets measured by eye I wouldn't care either as chances are it would be as good as the same. On electronic targets for an Olympic gold however, I might be as that might make a real world difference to my score by dropping a 10.1 down to a 9.9.

Quite, a miss is a miss in any form, for me in foxing is going back for a last fox in harvest after I have got back to the truck cooking, see one more go back a few hundred yds wanting to get a 5th or 6th on only to miss lol
Best to go home and come back

 

[hw101]

I’d use a 95% confidence interval.
Using Conh definition I don’t think any rifle could be called 1 moa as you could miss with the next shot.

That’s like saying a Ferrari can’t go 130mph because it could break down at any second? You can only go off of previous data.

I had asked nun hunter unless you are now his spokes person lol

Tim - why do you feel the need to be antagonistic all the time? Of all the people on the thread, discussion has remained polite and respectful until you are involved. We should all be friends here.

 

[bowji john]

According to the modern ‘Day of the Jackal’ film it is a 3850m head shot at a moving target

 

[Stalker62]

According to the modern ‘Day of the Jackal’ film it is a 3850m head shot at a moving target

I am trying to watch this.

I am struggling.

Shame; the original film was a belter...

 

[Tim.243]

That’s like saying a Ferrari can’t go 130mph because it could break down at any sec

That’s like saying a Ferrari can’t go 130mph because it could break down at any second? You can only go off of previous data.

Tim - why do you feel the need to be antagonistic all the time? Of all the people on the thread, discussion has remained polite and respectful until you are involved. We should all be friends here.

After reading your PM reply you now see other members dirty linen which is often glossed over.

 

[Mungo]

I am trying to watch this.

I am struggling.

Shame; the original film was a belter...

View attachment 392330

Wasn’t there also a very mediocre Bruce Willis movie sometime in the late 90s?

 

[triggertrix]

Wasn’t there also a very mediocre Bruce Willis movie sometime in the late 90s?

Quite a few

 

[Utectok]

A bit off topic but interesting assumption regarding rifle weight and accuracy?

 

[jthyttin]

A bit off topic but interesting assumption regarding rifle weight and accuracy?

Watching the video it's quite obvious. They show two shots fired, first one is very clear flinch and second one is also a flinch.

While the "analysis" is far from solid (basically the sample is too small and bad quality), I find it easy to believe that heavier rifle is easier to shoot from supported position (everything else being equal).