Ammo is expensive, so,... the worse I shoot, the less I shoot.
This is a discussion on Did you realize, the more you shoot, the worse you shoot? within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by phreddy Without seeing the article or the way the data was collected, I would say that it is merely showing the the ...
I've addressed all this a couple of times already. in the data table, the most dramatic change in group size occurred between two shots and three shots. I hardly think this can be attributed to the barrel heating up, getting dirty, the shooter getting tired. The group size doubled from 2 to 10 shots. I think that's simply statistics in action. The data in that table could very well represent throwing darts - the statistical spread would be about the same.
You could clean your gun after every shot, you could water cool the barrel, whatever, and that wouldn't keep the group from enlarging as you shoot more shots at the same target. Look at my last target. Do you really think in 18 shots, it was barrel fouling, barrel heating, etc. etc. that caused the larger group when more shots were fired at the same target? Or could it be the inconsistency of the shooter's ability to sight and hold the gun in the exact same spot every time?
Here's something I did after I shot that last 9 on 1 target. I put up another target and shot three shots and that target looked pretty much like the other three shot targets I shot previously.
I've addressed this before as well. This has nothing to do with population and sample size. What is the population? What is the sample size? This is about what this person could do with a 1 MOA rifle. If we are throwing darts, we'd find a similar result, it has nothing to do with the population or samples. There are no outliers, all shots are included in the determination of group size.
The group spreads according to statistical probability and of course with gross shooter error. But I had no gross shooter error in my four targets.
Let's think about this: If I shoot two shots, I now have a group size. There is no place I can shoot the next shot that will make the group size smaller. So I have zero probability of getting a smaller group with an additional shot. But I do have a probability of the third shot making the group larger. So here we have absolutely no chance of subsequent shots reducing the size of the group, but there is a chance of subsequent shots making the group larger.
Let's look at it another way. When I shoot at a specific target, at a specific range, and shoot two shoots, does that represent the worst I will do? If it does, then all my subsequent shots will fall within that initial group and the group size does not change. But, if those two first shots represent say may best ability then what's gonna happen the more I shoot? My group size is gonna grow larger.
Probability shows that there is a more likely probability to get two hits in two trys, than to get three hits in three tries and so on.
I'm too young to be this old!
Getting old isn't good for you!
Ammo is expensive, so,... the worse I shoot, the less I shoot.
What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Hi Fellows,
I'm not a statistician, either, but I am an engineer, with a pretty good grasp of statistics (and physics). Of all the posts so far, Tangle has the best take on the subject.
No doubt, fatigue, barrel heating, arthritic fingers and (in my case) fogged up or sweaty bifocals have an effect on how we group our shots over time, but from a strictly statistical point of view, the groups are always going to get larger, the more shots you fire. As Tangle pointed out, the only way your group could NOT get larger is if the group you've shot so far represents your very worst performance! It's easy to think that if you've shot a 1" three-shot group, you can consistently shoot that well, but it's just not true. Say you shoot a great 3-shot (or 5-shot, or 10-shot) group - what are the odds that you will NEVER make a worse shot than the worst of those? Not a chance!
On another note - past performance has NOTHING to do with the statistical probabilities of what will happen with the next shot. Changing targets may give you a chance to rest your fingers or eyes, clean your glasses, or just generally compose yourself better, so you might actually shoot better, but it has NOTHING to do with the statistical spread that your shots are most probably going to cover, given a certain number of shots.
If you toss a coin, your odds of coming up heads are 50/50. If you toss a coin ten times, the odds of coming up heads ten times in a row are 1024 to one against. But what are the odds of the tenth throw coming up heads? 50/50! The last nine throws have no effect on it!!!
To put it another way, I defy ANYONE to consistently shoot better 10-shot groups than they can 3-shot groups. Any takers? Probably not, since it's impossible!
Regards,
Jim
The more I shoot in a session the more tired I get, so, I shoot a box or less and go home. IMO the key is to shoot a few often, not a lot a few times.
Concievably, if you shot a 2 shot group, and that group were .5 inches C to C... your third shot could be equidistant between the two... making your group .25" center to center. No? and that could continue ad infinitum, no? So, impossible? maybe not. likelyhood? Oh, about 1 in a google. But not impossible.
Rats!
It could be worse!
I suppose
Me too, and going from your name, Kilowatt3, we're both electrical engineers?
How about that - we're both engineers and we agree completely that I have the best take on this.
Yep, and inherent accuracy of the gun, and unfortunately for shooting, a disappearing point of aim. I just don't know how much of an effect the latter has.
Absolutely!
I'm sure everyone's curiousity is now peaked out as to how this is determined statistically, so here it is: the binomial probability distribution. It's a pretty simple equation, as equations go,
P(x) = (n! / (n - x)! * x!)* p^x * q^(n-x)
where,
P(x) is the probability
n is the number of tries
x is the number of successes
p is the one event probability of a success, e.g. batting average
q is the one event probability of a failure
In our case, the probability of getting 2 shots in 2 tries or 10 shots in 10 tries simplifies the equation to:
P(x) = p^n
where 'n' represents the same number of tries and hits, and p is the probability of a success in a single event.
I have a 0.8 probability of making a shot, what's my probability of making 2 for 2?
P(2) = 0.8^2 = 64%
What's my probability of making 5 for 5?
P(5) = 0.8^5 = 33%
Typo - typo - I think you meant "...the previous nine throws have no effect on it!!!."
And of course, your exactly right.
I'm too young to be this old!
Getting old isn't good for you!
I'm writing (and memorizing) all these formulas for my next trip to Vegas..!! ...
Great stuff, Guys..!
What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Thanks los.
Different people see this stuff in various ways, as evident from reponses in the thread, trying to explain misses on external factors, and there can be external influences. But like Kilowatt3 mentioned, you still can't escape the nature of probability. When you apply the probability to shooting free throws, all the bore fouling, inherent accuracy, etc. goes away and we can see probabilty in isolation and now we don't have external influences and we are forced to realize it is not the nature of the gear/equipment we're seeing, but the variations of the human.
Some will see no value in such things, but personally, I've found it quite revealing. For example, I've observed many, many times that when I get a really good hits on the first one or two shots, the more I shoot, the larger that group gets. Now, thanks to probability principles, I see that's inescapable.
However, I have put four shots (3 yds) in a hole not a whole lot bigger than the caliber - certainly better than the cloverleaf pattern. Doesn't that refute the probability effect? Not really, it simply means I have a really high single event probability.
If I wanted to impress a friend with my shooting skill, I now know shooting 10 shots is NOT the way to do it.
If I want to look at how tight of a group a gun will shoot, according to probability, that's best represented by two shots. Seems like I remember reading that snipers only use one shot for that.
And there are exceptions occassionally, probably somewhat random in nature. Just like the odds of winning the lottery, the odds are quite small, but people still win.
I'm too young to be this old!
Getting old isn't good for you!
I concur, Tangle.
I once owned a Sub-MOA Remy 700PSS that was a sweet shooter. I equipped it with expensive glass, and an aftermarket adjustable trigger. I only fed it precision loads (loaded by yours truly ..). The first 3 shots would consistently produce groups of .720" (center to center). The fourth and fifth shot would would always drift a little low and to the left.
By the seventh shot, the grouping would usually expand to about 1.180" . The eight and ninth [.30 cal/ Nosler 165 grain Ballistic Tip] bullet would continue to impact low and to the left, expanding the cluster to 1.275". Group size always increased[specially after the third shot] the more I fired at the same target.
I would obtain the same results, If not worse [depending on wind conditions], in every range outing. BTW, I would really take my sweet time between shots and during target acquisition. I'd go through 20 loads in about 90 minutes.
What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Wow los that is interesting. Good report and nice record keeping! Good shooting too! I just love it when practice agrees with theory. There will, of course always be discrepancies and exceptions, but in the long run our results will conform to probability. Some may find that unbelieveable, disconcerting, and annoying, but if we know what's going on we can tailor our shooting methods to take advantage of the inevitable.
I wonder how many good rifles like yours have been sold because 'it' wouldn't hold a group for more than a few shots?
I'm too young to be this old!
Getting old isn't good for you!