Accuracy Calculations - Points Lost to Inaccuracy

Chris Miceli wrote:It's worth it when you clean your first target and you want to be in the sport to win.

I shoot to win, my goals are to spank me some shooters on the line and as I progress I am chasing down classes and working my way through them.

Nothing wrong if you want to shot for fun or to socialize, I'm not happy with the match unless I am #1

mikemyers wrote:

Wobbley wrote:........I prefer a number of groups fired at least three and five is better.

I often use one backing board at the range, and put one target after another in the same place.  Sometimes I felt good about the results - until I looked at the backing board from the rear.  

Sorry for the interruptions - I'll go back to reading and learning.

Wobbley wrote:The issue with a backer target to get the aggregate group is that the gun setup is rarely the same.  If you do a center of impact comparison of the large group vs the shots in all the small groups they are seldom in the same place.  Sometimes they're way off.

mikemyers wrote:

Wobbley wrote:The issue with a backer target to get the aggregate group is that the gun setup is rarely the same.  If you do a center of impact comparison of the large group vs the shots in all the small groups they are seldom in the same place.  Sometimes they're way off.

OK, not that I disagree with what you wrote, but what is the purpose in learning how to shoot "tight groups" if you don't know where that group is going to be centered on the target?

(What you wrote makes me feel better about my individual targets than the backing board, but that really means there is something else I need to correct.....)

CR10X wrote:......The nut behind the gun makes the groups (or maybe patterns)......

mikemyers wrote:

CR10X wrote:......The nut behind the gun makes the groups (or maybe patterns)......

I assume we are talking about the "nut behind the gun" who may not pick the gun up exactly the same way each time, or position it in the hand exactly the same.  

I learned long ago that if I shot several rounds, stopped for a bit, and then shot more, my existing group remained more or less the same.  But, if I put the gun down on the table, and let go, and then picked it up again, there was a change.  This has nothing to do with my sights, and everything to do with me.  

(The best trick I learned, was to pick up the gun with my support hand, and feed it into the shooting hand.  That alone made a difference.)

Maybe it's mostly "practice", or maybe it's something I'm not even aware of yet.  I think it is relevant to this discussion, as someone buying a better gun, better also know how to hold it precisely every time they pick it up.

Or, to exaggerate, if someone was so good that they could put five shots through the same hole, consistently, what use is that if each group of five holes was in a different location on the target?    :-)

sharkdoctor,

I absolutely agree with your assertion that it's a shortcoming of the program that it assumes a completely random distribution of the point-of-impact within the circle of inaccuracy.  I seriously considered altering the weighting calculation to account for exactly what you're thinking... that many contributors to inaccuracy (such as the shooter's wobble area) will, statistically, be more likely to put shots in the middle of the circle, rather than at the fringes.  However, it turns out that in almost all cases, such a change to the weighting calculation doesn't make a big difference in the calculated score.  Why?  Primarily because (a) the ring or rings nearest the point-of-aim already dominate the weighted score, and (b) such a change reduces the effect of both extreme point gains and extreme point losses, which end up balancing each other.  Making the rings near the POA dominate the weighted score a bit more, simply doesn't change the weighted score very much. 

Keep in mind that, although the results are carefully calculated without any rounding ('cause I'm a scientist type), and shown to 2 decimal places in the results tables, the real value is much more generalized than that.  The value of the program is to tell you that (for example) a 1" increase in accuracy might yield, say, an 11-13 point improvement over the course of the 90 shots with that gun in a match.  If the "true" improvement (if more variables were accounted for in the program) is really 9 points or really 15 points is not super-critical in my mind.  The value of the program is knowing that it's not a 2 point improvement, and it's not an 80 point improvement.  Getting an order-of-magnitude understanding of the level of improvement is (in my mind) helpful.

As I mentioned in my response to Jon, I think the results absolutely support the assertion that, unless taken to extremes, improvements in shooter skill will improve scores much more than more accurate equipment will (which is a valuable conclusion in and of itself).  

But sometimes that improvement in skill is easier to say than do.  The practice / training effort for a marksman to improve from a 73 average to a 76 average is usually not that great.  In that situation, it's pretty easy to advise practice / training versus spending $1500 on better equipment to get such a 3-point improvement.  But, I think we can all agree that the practice / training effort to improve from a 93 average to a 96 average is very significant.  If (and I'm not saying that it could, but IF) spending $1500 on better equipment could buy you THAT 3-point improvement, I think quite a few experts would gladly spend the money.  So, it's my opinion that it very much depends on your situation.

Thank you for looking at what I did, and giving well-considered feedback.  I'm open to criticism and certainly agree with some of yours.

Dave

Chris Miceli wrote:Put your gun in the hands of a high master if he shoots near his average it should take you to his level

daflorc wrote:

I think your program, and the conclusions you've made, especially as explained in this quoted segment, are brilliant. Bravo! If you could somehow figure out how many points on average can be reasonably expected to be picked up over 90 rounds for those shooting in each classification by using a 1.5" gun vs a 3" gun, that would take your data into a more easily understood realm that we all could benefit from. For instance, 9-10 points for an Expert, 5-6 points for a Master, 3-4 points for a high master, etc.