Defining “Average Group Size”
The guys and girls at Shooting Illustrated magazine have been debating what should be the definition of "Average Group Size". Ed explains the rationale for their decision.
5 Responses to “Defining “Average Group Size””
Sort The Responses Below: |
-
Pedrowrote on September 07th, 2010 at 7:01 pm Link To Comment |
I would think that most shooters would accept an “average group size” as nothing more than a ballpark figure.
Anyone who has been around firearms knows the number of variables that can affect a group size and factors in this information when assessing the “accuracy” of given firearm.
Target shooters tend to be pedantic when it comes to measuring groups and/or scoring shots, but IMO this tweaking definitions is taking it too far.
Just average it out; i.e. “we fired six groups of five at 100 metres with a 2.4 inch average”. Joe Sixpack will get a reasonable opinion from that info.
Please rate this comment:
0 
0 -
Gwrote on September 07th, 2010 at 6:24 am Link To Comment |
Speaking of group size..
Why 3-shot groups don’t tell the tale
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=5&t=323026The Trouble With 3-Shot Groups
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=279218Statistics Is Not A Dirty Word
http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammunition/st_statistics_200810/index2.htmlSniper’s Hide Group Shot Policy v2 2010
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1844909#Post1844909Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
SpudGunwrote on September 06th, 2010 at 11:34 pm Link To Comment |
1. When it comes to Gun Magazines, everyone knows that ‘average group sizes’ are directly proportional to the amount of advertising space paid for by firearm / ammunition manufacturers in said publications.
2. If you are a journalist for a Gun Magazine and you bring back targets showing 5+ inch groupings, everyone’s going to think you are a lousy shot, so best to play it safe and mock up some targets showing what a dead eye marksman you are.
3. Shooting Illustrated’s premise that we should only pay attention to ‘median group sizes’ as opposed to ‘average group sizes’ is an anathema, both are equally inaccurate. If you are juggling the data to support pre-conceived notions of accuracy, why bother with the median, just publish the best group size and be done with it.
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Peterwrote on September 06th, 2010 at 11:27 pm Link To Comment |
sp: Rationale, not rational.
Please rate this comment: 0 0-
Steveresponded to Peter on September 07th, 2010 at 12:15 am Link To Comment |
Peter, thanks
Please rate this comment: 0 0
-
Leave a Comment
-
Twitter
-
Email Subscription
-
Facebook
Top Posts
-
Categories
I would think that most shooters would accept an “average group size” as nothing more than a ballpark figure.
Anyone who has been around firearms knows the number of variables that can affect a group size and factors in this information when assessing the “accuracy” of given firearm.
Target shooters tend to be pedantic when it comes to measuring groups and/or scoring shots, but IMO this tweaking definitions is taking it too far.
Just average it out; i.e. “we fired six groups of five at 100 metres with a 2.4 inch average”. Joe Sixpack will get a reasonable opinion from that info.
Speaking of group size..
Why 3-shot groups don’t tell the tale
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=5&t=323026
The Trouble With 3-Shot Groups
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=279218
Statistics Is Not A Dirty Word
http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammunition/st_statistics_200810/index2.html
Sniper’s Hide Group Shot Policy v2 2010
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1844909#Post1844909
1. When it comes to Gun Magazines, everyone knows that ‘average group sizes’ are directly proportional to the amount of advertising space paid for by firearm / ammunition manufacturers in said publications.
2. If you are a journalist for a Gun Magazine and you bring back targets showing 5+ inch groupings, everyone’s going to think you are a lousy shot, so best to play it safe and mock up some targets showing what a dead eye marksman you are.
3. Shooting Illustrated’s premise that we should only pay attention to ‘median group sizes’ as opposed to ‘average group sizes’ is an anathema, both are equally inaccurate. If you are juggling the data to support pre-conceived notions of accuracy, why bother with the median, just publish the best group size and be done with it.
sp: Rationale, not rational.
Peter, thanks