Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dahermit
I wrote a computer program once that would put five round spots (bullet holes), within a designated area (1"x 1") to simulate a rifle that could shoot 1 inch groups, and print each spot, as if it were a bullet strike, albeit completely random as to location within the designated area. Running the program and seeing how much just random chance effected the result and how frequently really good "three shot groups" would result in a phenomenal group only to be ruined by additional shots, It became apparent to me that shooting three-shot groups was just too likely to result in "false positives". That is why Benchrest Competitions always use five shots...such competitions and competitors have no interest in small groups that have a high likelihood of just being chance.
|
I believe that, and have no problem with it. Randomness is hard to measure when you can account for all the variables. I use a 3-shot group to show what DOES NOT work. If I'm playing with loads and I shoot some 3-shot groups, the ones that fall in two inches are immediately discarded. Those don't work.
Three shot groups are just a way of narrowing the field. Now, before everyone gets their panties in a wad, this time of year, I pick my hunting rifle for the year and start shooting one-shot groups. I want to know, to a dead certainty, where that first shot is going. I know that the second shot will fall close to it, but I want to really measure that cold-bore shot. Because, if I do the cold-bore shot correctly, I don't need another shot.