Most stats books don't directly address this kind of thing. To be fair, the analysis gets quite complex if you don't assume that the underlying distribution is circular Normal, and to my knowledge there simply are no reliable methods available to analyze small samples if you also give up the...
A few notes on the Grubbs Test:
we need remarkably few assumptions for the test to be valid -- only that the horizontal dispersion of shots within a given group follows a normal distribution and, independently, the vertical dispersion is also normal. They don't have to be the same (i.e., the...
Closing the loop on this:
I was able to get my hands on a copy of Frank Grubbs's 1964 Statistical Measures of Accuracy for Riflemen and Missile Engineers, which is extensively referenced in shooting statistics works but out of print and quite difficult to find. Thankfully the Interlibrary Loan...
Fit is paramount (and unfortunately very specific to each person's individual anatomy)
Thankfully, as you seem to have discovered already, hunting packs hold their value quite well especially before getting covered in blood. So there's not too much risk in buying, trying, and selling if you...
I don't mean to say I'd mix the ammo - just that I might repeat the test with a different kind of ammo to see if the results are any different.
I also have an ulterior motive for 20-shot groups, since I've also been researching how to measure the statistical significance of the difference...
Hey folks!
Within the next few weeks (+/- depending on work stuffs) I'll be doing a side-by-side test to see if replacing my factory non-accustock with an accufit accustock makes my Savage 16 LWH more accurate. It's going to be fairly simple (20 rounds with the old stock v 20 rounds with the...
+1 for permethrin, in case anyone still wasn't convinced :).
One caveat: once it's dry, permethrin is harmless to pets, but the liquid form is highly toxic to cats, so if you have them just make sure they don't have access to your gear while it's drying. Conversely, you can spray it directly...
It matters because the mean radius has a well-established interpretation in the shooting world, as it defines the Circular Error Probable and the military and many other research bodies have established ways of inferring your likelihood of hitting your target based on previous measurements of...
Are you saying that, given a big enough n, the average size of n 2-shot groups gives you the same number as the mean radius of a single group of size 2n??
A big part of what I'm trying to say is that these two methods (calculating average radius and calculating the average distance between two-shot groups) absolutely do not accomplish the same thing, unless by "same thing" you mean that both are measures of precision. Sure, they're both that, but...
Returning to this: it doesn't matter how many groups you shoot. Groups with fewer shots will always average smaller sizes than groups with more shots. If you shoot more groups and take the average, you'll get a better average, but you'll still only be measuring the average size of your n-shot...
Apologies if I was tearing down a straw man.
The issue I'm getting at, which from what I can tell is widely misunderstood in the shooting world, is this:
We shoot practice/testing groups in order to try and figure out how confident we can be that we'll hit our target when push comes to shove...