Pellet Damage Effect on Accuracy

[Mcameron]

Before you start conducting research, learn how to shoot.

You're putting the cart before the horse

i must say this is one of the few things you can say to me that i would have actually taken offense to.......

and just for you....just for you, i went out and shot this:



but allow me to put a few things into perspective...
1.) the rifle i was using for the test is not a 10 meter rifle and by all accounts is not the easiest to shoot

2.) i dont practice 10m shooting exclusively, im not on a team, and i dont formally compete.

so to expect me to shoot as well as those who do and to expect me to be putting up 1 hole groups is not only ridiculous.....its insane.

so you can say im not the best shot and you can say i need to practice...

....but dont you dare say i dont know how to shoot.



"when the precision of the group is low, the statistical error becomes too big to draw logical conclusions."

and if i had only shot one target, that would be true...however i shot over a sample of 10 targets, and all of the targets in the "clean" group shot significantly higher than the "damaged" groups. the higher sample size reduces the statistical error of my shooting.

now i have never once claimed this is the end all be all answer.... i know my shooting isnt perfect and im not gonna pretend that it didnt have an effect on the out come, however to claim that my findings are useless because there are not 1 hole groups is absurd.

i left a detailed procedure for a reason, if you disagree with what i have done i thoroughly encourage you to redo the experiment for your self and post your findings.

[Rover]

Hoping to shed a little more light than heat on this thread:

http://www.beeman.com/inacc.htm

You may find somehelp there.

[22big]

Interesting, I like the test you have done. The summamries indicated a 9% degradation in grouping for damaged pellets. I will not use the term accuracy since the targets showed spreads significantly.

The main interest for me to read about was the standard deviation, perhaps there was not a mention of reading 3 sigma which covers almost 100% of your shots' distribution. There were many feedbacks about 1 hole group verses spread. Pay no attention to that, since you did not show the capability of performing such task either rifle used or skill of shooting. However, your shot groups means significantly in performance search of damaged pellets verses normal pellets.

9% is a base line. My read says do not shoot the damaged pellets for scoring. One more thing, you may shoot really tight groups for the study, but what instrument can you measure and report the variations. People are not familiar in seeing big spread diameters for bench testing. What if you reported these groups were shot with standing position, then the feedback many be different. Perhaps, not as harsh will be my guess.

There are many interesting reads on stat. study. All tests mean something within the condition and sample population.

Thank you for sharing the study, 9% degradtion in grouping.....

[Guest]

Before you start conducting research, learn how to shoot.

You're putting the cart before the horse

i must say this is one of the few things you can say to me that i would have actually taken offense to.......

and just for you....just for you, i went out and shot this:

That card's nothing to boast about pal. Thats the sort of card by 10 year old would shoot, with a rifle 4x times his age.

As I said; cart before horse.

[Mcameron]

That card's nothing to boast about pal. Thats the sort of card by 10 year old would shoot, with a rifle 4x times his age.

As I said; cart before horse.

wow buddy, your cool.....if you want to openly criticize my shooting....at least be a man enough to log into your account and not post anonymously....

[Richard H]

Don't know what all the arguments about, he was clear about his methodology, if you agree with it fine if not just disregard it. There really is no reason to attack anyone over it.

Must say this forum has gotten nastier and nastier. I really wish the anonymous posting would end.

[Mcameron]

im just curious, by what standards is our anonymous friend shooting at where a 5 shot 0.25" group is " nothing special"......


i would like to thank all those who at least gave constructive criticism and to those who are mature enough to not overtly bash a fellow shooter.

[NB]

Shooting rather well today so I did a little experiment. 5 shots good pellets followed by 5 shoots profoundly damaged pellets.(repeated 3 times) My scores where 44, 43, 44,44, 42, 44. I could call all my shots.I was shooting my Morini pistol. I am no longer worried about shooting a bad pellet for all the ones I shot I really squashed. I only wish I had done it blindly but was in a hurry to go to bed.....NB.

[NB]

I was to tired to do the math. I subtracted 1 from 45 to get 44, It should have been ' 1 from 50 equals 49. I seldom shot 5 shots and wasnt thinking. So my post should have read 49,48 ,49, 49 , 47, 49. ..........49, 49, 47 being the good pellets. 48 ,49,49 being the really bad pellets. My point being a good pistol can either handle bad pellets at 10 meters or just reshapes them enough during loading so that loading a bad pellet doesnt really matter. If i felt like it (i do not) I would try it again at a much greater distance.......I for one was greatlysurprised by the results. 30 rounds tonight then off to bed ...NB

[robf]

and if i had only shot one target, that would be true...however i shot over a sample of 10 targets, and all of the targets in the "clean" group shot significantly higher than the "damaged" groups. the higher sample size reduces the statistical error of my shooting.

higher score yes, but that doesn't say much by itself.

look at the group that gave you 25, and the one that gave you 30, not much between the two. Look at the group that gave you a 36, and it's not as tight as the one that gave you a 35 down below, which is probably the best group.

Most of your groups show a left hand group bias.

The score is based upon your ability to put a shot through a 10, which you did more times using a damaged pellet than not, and not that often even in sighting.

If you look at the statistical variation away from the 10 using undamaged, and then apply that to the extremes of your groups in the damaged, you'll see that the shots that bust the scores could so well be the ones that made it good.

Same with the in wind test. Assuming your not wind doping, the best group is the bottom, because it shows little vertical displacement, which is what you should see in wind... which isn't consistent.

I put the group up as a place where i'd start to look for deviations from. I'm sure the benchrest boys would be improving on that, and over a greater group.

Not trying to cast any aspersions about your shooting more that what you have posted only demonstrates at best that now and then a shot can sway your scores.

Measure the group size and see what that tells you... as i said, the score is irrelevent because you're not zero'd, and the chances of hitting a lower score shot increase the further you are off. Ok, so the chances are the same across the test, but your test is swayed by 2-3 shots, which as your groups show, could go anywhere.

Group size and dispersion are a much better indicator.

Not trying to disuade you from experimenting, but you need a much better signal to noise ratio to draw conclusions, albeit that i agree and wont shoot damaged pellets... for FT at 55yds I even size and weight mine.

[jacques b gros]

Hate to throw a spanner in the works, but unless you carry this test out using
a machine rest the results will be meaning less.
Your undamaged pellet test should be giving you one hole groups.
A quality target pistol in a machine rest with match pellets will shoot a hole not exceeding two pellet diameters 9mm (usually less than 6mm).
If it is greater than this there is something wrong.
Also if the pistol uses a breech with a loading rod (ie Morini) the deformed pellet will be reformed/reshaped in the chamber when loaded.

End of discussion.

Besides, the main reason I used a shaker box in matches was the easiness of spotting defective or damaged pellets BEFORE the match.

[Waisted]

wow buddy, your cool.....if you want to openly criticize my shooting....at least be a man enough to log into your account and not post anonymously....

OK, since you insist, you shoot c**p with that gun. Got it? You are unable to conduct this scientific test with that setup in the first place, which is why no one is paying any attention to your results.

Do deformed pellets matter? Yes. Can the nature of the mis-hits be attributed to deformity type and / or degree of deformity? Absolutely. Can you provide empirical data with you shooting that gun? Not a chance. Sorry.

Here follows the PC version, just so that you know I can be PC when I'm not totally p****d off:

The thing is, there is noise in all folks who shoot. Some shooters have a lot of it, but after really quite a lot of practice the noise gets under control to some extent. You are probably not there yet, although it's hard to tell with that gun you are using.

Also, all guns have noise. Some guns have more noise than others. The really expensive ones have very little noise. Yours isn't like that!

Finally, pellets have noise. When it comes to Olympic finals, where the ten spot is further sub-divided into ten, absolutely any marks anywhere on the pellet will affect the chances of that pellet scoring 10.9, when shot by an Olympic competitor from of a rifle costing $4500. So all scuffed, dinged or otherwise imperfect pellets are absolutely discarded. Chowing down on a pellet skirt to give it some serious misshape, to see if that has an effect, is just stupid. Of course it has an effect! Whether or not YOU can see that effect depends on all the additions of all the other noises in your system.

Once you can regularly hit above 580 in offhand 10M .177 air rifle competitions, you and your equipment will be able to definitively answer all these questions about deformed pellets. But then you won't care, because you just will not be using deformed pellets in the first place.

[vin]

Hi Waisted,
You should educate yourself on statistical relevance.
Vin Livieratos

[peterz]

The size of Mr. McCameron's "5 shot group" seems to be more determined by tearing of the target paper rather than by well-grouped pellets. Looks like National Target Company's product.

Or, he simply put 5 shots in a circle, and the center fell out. In any event, that target card doesn't demonstrate much of anything.