|
|
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,161
Campfire Regular
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,161 |
I was attempting to explain to a buddy today how some shady gun builders offering accuracy guarantees might do so by stacking multiple targets on top of each other until they get a good 3 shot group they can tear off and show. I was struggling to explain how exactly they do this, but I remember reading an article years ago about it. Anyone know what I'm talking about? And can you explain it or know of a link that explains the process? I wasn't doing a good job of explaining it, and I'm probably not now, but hopefully someone knows what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,757
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,757 |
It would be pretty easy. Just stack up three targets with the edges ever so slightly misaligned from each other. Shoot one bullet through the pile. Presto, a tiny “3 shot group” on the back one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 21,790
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 21,790 |
????????
If I'm was gonna do that,
I'd shoot at 25 and claim 100.
Crooked is crooked.
Parents who say they have good kids..Usually don't!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,751
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,751 |
It would be pretty easy. Just stack up three targets with the edges ever so slightly misaligned from each other. Shoot one bullet through the pile. Presto, a tiny “3 shot group” on the back one. Do what? Can you explain this a little better? Three targets stacked up and shot once should leave one hole in each of three targets. Where foes three holes come from?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,087
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,087 |
Whew, I thought I was the only one that wasn't seeing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,722
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,722 |
????????
If I'm was gonna do that,
I'd shoot at 25 and claim 100.
Crooked is crooked. Haha no kidding. These guys are really over thinking it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 9,112
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 9,112 |
When I do a re-barrel for a picky customer like BSA 1917 and Gnoahhh, I just moves the target in to about 6 yards, which avoids flame scorching the target. I can get some nice groups like that.
Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,036
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,036 |
It would be pretty easy. Just stack up three targets with the edges ever so slightly misaligned from each other. Shoot one bullet through the pile. Presto, a tiny “3 shot group” on the back one. Do what? Can you explain this a little better? Three targets stacked up and shot once should leave one hole in each of three targets. Where foes three holes come from? His imagination?
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style. You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole. BSA MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,036
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,036 |
When I do a re-barrel for a picky customer like BSA 1917 and Gnoahhh, I just moves the target in to about 6 yards, which avoids flame scorching the target. I can get some nice groups like that. Damn, that explains everything.. ha ha..
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style. You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole. BSA MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,780
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,780 |
I always called BS on cooper my long time hunting partner had a cooper in 223 AK that wouldn’t produce groups like the test targets
He called them for the
Load and go a vague answer now I figured they stacked targets with a bench rifle also.
After visiting cooper and seeing the inefficiency of ther operation ther was no way they were working up loads for every rifle and selling them for then 900 dollars
Years later I bought a slightly used cooper in then new 204. All be damned if it shot just like the target. So
Maybe so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,320
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,320 |
Whew, I thought I was the only one that wasn't seeing it. I'm with y'all. 🤔
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 639
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 639 |
Whew, I thought I was the only one that wasn't seeing it. I'm with y'all. 🤔 Yeah... Not sure how multiple targets, each with one hole in them is supposed to fool somebody?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,369
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,369 |
I can't see the purpose or even why one would want to do something like the OP suggests. If I wanted to show a good 3-shot group then I would just keep shooting 3 shot groups until one was shot that would meet the standard to be posted.
A better indicator to me of how a rifle groups is a series of five or more groups on the same target, whether they be 3 or 5 shot groups. Anytime I see a target that is a sample of only one group does not mean much to me. Oh, and please leave off the dime or penny that may, or may not, be covering the "flyer".
drover
223 Rem, my favorite cartridge - you can't argue with truckloads of dead PD's and gophers.
24hourcampfire.com - The site where there is a problem for every solution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,422
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,422 |
There WAS an article in Gun Digest in the 1990's(?) that had a similar context. It was titled something like, "What 15 shots can tell you.", or "What you can learn with 15 shots."
The shooter had multiple targets stacked and directly spaced behind each other at ( I think) 100 yards. I don't remember the exact "experiment design" or methodology, but it went something like this:
-the first target stayed in place for all 15 shots, showing a single 15 shot group size to measure.
-the second target-maybe 1-2 inches behind the first target, was changed every 5 shots-yielding three targets with 5 shots each to measure group size.
-the third target, again spaced 1-2" behind the second target (and ~ 4' behind the first target), was changed every three shots, yielding 5 targets having a 3 shot group to measure for group size..
-there may have been another target to get two 10-shot group sizes-but don't remember.
The point of the article was to simply address if there was a statistical difference in group size between a single 3-shot group (compared to an average (?) of 5, 3-shot groups) , vs. a single 5-shot group (compared to an average of 3, 5-shot groups, vs. one or two 10-shot groups vs a single 15-shot group. I don't remember the conclusion of the experiment. There was not a hint of intent to "trick" or "intent to glean any advantage of reporting a "tweaked" group size." The intent of the article was simply, "this technique CAN be done, and here's how I did it." I remember it being done in the interest of science and statistical probability (with a certain level of statistical confidence, (ie "6 sigma analysis"), and not a means to find a way to "cheat" or falsely report a tighter-than-achieved group size.
So, "Yes" there was an article in a "major" firearms publication that covered the OP's overall concept-but with a different intent.
"Behavior accepted is behavior repeated."
"Strive to be underestimated."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 32,080
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 32,080 |
Whew, I thought I was the only one that wasn't seeing it. I'm with y'all. 🤔 Yeah... Not sure how multiple targets, each with one hole in them is supposed to fool somebody? . Just cut the holes out (and ONLY the holes!) and paste them on a pristine target. Ask me about other shooting tips.
The only true cost of having a dog is its death.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,831
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,831 |
Kimber.....A decent example of whatever
MOA Standard......it holds no water and is hardly a guarantee
Plus
Their test range is 50 yards
Maker of the Frankenstud Sling Keeper
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,161
Campfire Regular
|
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,161 |
There WAS an article in Gun Digest in the 1990's(?) that had a similar context. It was titled something like, "What 15 shots can tell you.", or "What you can learn with 15 shots."
The shooter had multiple targets stacked and directly spaced behind each other at ( I think) 100 yards. I don't remember the exact "experiment design" or methodology, but it went something like this:
-the first target stayed in place for all 15 shots, showing a single 15 shot group size to measure.
-the second target-maybe 1-2 inches behind the first target, was changed every 5 shots-yielding three targets with 5 shots each to measure group size.
-the third target, again spaced 1-2" behind the second target (and ~ 4' behind the first target), was changed every three shots, yielding 5 targets having a 3 shot group to measure for group size..
-there may have been another target to get two 10-shot group sizes-but don't remember.
I believe the point of the article was to simple address if there was a statistical difference in group size between a single 3-shot group (compared to an aggregate, or average (?) of 5, 3-shot groups) , vs. a single 5-shot group (compared to an aggregate or maybe average of 3, 5-shot groups, vs. one or two 10-shot groups vs a single 15-shot group. I don't remember the conclusion of the experiment. There was not a hint of intent to "trick" or "intent to glean any advantage of reporting a "tweaked" group size." The intent of the article was simply, "this technique CAN be done, and here's how I did it." I remember it being done in the interest of science and statistical probability (with a certain level of statistical confidence, (ie "6 sigma analysis"), and not a means to find a way to "cheat" or falsely report a tighter-than-achieved group size.
So, "Yes" there was an article in a "major" firearms publication that covered the OP's overall concept-but with a different intent or focus. Ah-ha! I knew I remembered something! Thanks! And yes, I wasn’t implying that any manufacturers use any similar tactics with intent to deceive, I sure hope they don’t, but they could…
Last edited by SDHNTR; 01/14/23.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 21,790
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 21,790 |
Whew, I thought I was the only one that wasn't seeing it. I'm with y'all. 🤔 Yeah... Not sure how multiple targets, each with one hole in them is supposed to fool somebody? 😵💫 Me too!
Parents who say they have good kids..Usually don't!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,235
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,235 |
Wait…couldn’t you just snag photos of someone else’s targets and claim them for your own? Seemed to work on deer pretty well for a fella a while back! Guess this would be the same kind of delusional desperation for acceptance or attention. 😳 Sheesh!
Livin ain’t killed me yet, but it’s workin on it!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,379
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,379 |
Or do like some fellows did for our 24HCF Poatal Matches - take a pencil and just poke holes in the target. Not a joke, I scored one match and it was obvious that some actually did that.
Yes, Poatal is spelled correctly, or correctly incorrectly as the case may be.
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery.
Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
|
|
|
|
|
583 members (12savage, 1lessdog, 1936M71, 16penny, 01Foreman400, 160user, 57 invisible),
2,535
guests, and
1,287
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,679
Posts18,474,934
Members73,941
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
