Average group size

Ed talks about its usefulness.

One Response to “Average group size”

  1. Lyle says:

    There are too many variables – the small selection of factory ammo that was brought along, the shooter, the time between shots, the hurry the shooter was in that day. Median verses mean average group size is splitting hairs.

    How about shooting one, twenty shot group, two minutes between shots, and just showing us a picture of the target? Something like that? You could use your most favorite, pet rifle as a control between groups with the test rifle. Lets see what you as a shooter can do under your most ideal conditions before we judge the test rifle.

    Then I’ll read your review with a 50 pound bag of rock salt handy, so I can take several big grains of salt between reading each paragraph.

    Spend a month with the new rifle, and a well-stocked reloading bench, at a desert retreat, and we’ll see how well you can do with it afterward. I don’t know how many reviews I’ve read wherein the author says he had to quit ’cause the range was closing, or it was getting dark, or some such, or he didn’t bring enough ammo, but he was “sure” he could do better if he’d actually had some time to shoot.

    We rarely see a review that involves more than a day, or less, at the range, yet in my own experience I’ve started getting a cursory idea of the system’s capability after three or four range sessions.

    Hell; I’ve seen accuracy charts that don’t even state the distance from the shooter to the target. Do we assume 100 yards? Then there are the frequent typos and grammatical errors. If the basic writing wasn’t carefully edited, how much trust should we place in the numbers?

    A really comprehensive review would cost thousands of dollars in time and supplies. I don’t know what the writers are getting paid for an article these days.