Why a "one shot zero" isn't ....

Jump to latest Follow Reply
G

Guest

Guest
.

HE IS ALL YOURS, MICHAEL. After you have had a little time to read this... I'll delete all my accounts.



Re: Seriously?

Conversation between heavy-impact and you. Delete



5f5924c43e3c1-bpthumb.jpg
oldspook Sent 1 week, 6 days ago

Star



Feel free to make ALL or NONE of this public, but not PART of it.

I know a lot of people who drink and it doesn't harm their family or relationships. That is because they are not addicted to it. The topic in that thread is addiction.

As for my knowledge of other drugs than alcohol. I have used Mescaline, LSD, Peyote, DMT, and a couple of different kinds of "speed", so not totally ignorant of the effects of those drugs. I was a "pot head for a dozen years". I quit LSD after a particularly bad trip. I passed out on Mescaline and fell and hit my head so hard that we thought I had a concussion. So … 

I am going to address your problem with "Religious Nuts" here as well.

You will remember the discussion that 2Many and I had about projection. If you don't look it up. You are projecting here.

I realize it must have been really hard raising two boys without a mom. I don't know if I could have done it. I did it for about three years with two boys and a girl. I'm sure I had it easier than you did. I got no help from the Church, but I didn't look for it, either. I am sorry that you are angry at people of faith. I don't know what "Religious Nuts" did to offend you and I am sorry they did whatever it was. I am not a "religious nut". I am a man of faith. I am not better than you. I am not wiser than you. I do not claim to be smarter, stronger, faster or superior in any way. 

I do not know if I could have done what you did with your sons. I will say if you taught them to hate God the way that you do, you did them a disservice in that but that was your call. That said, you have absolutely no more right to judge me than I have to judge you and if you think you do, you have become the very thing you hate. I'm not trolling. I do not troll. We got off track in that thread and managed to get it back on track. Now we are again going off track. The problem is not "Religious nuts". It is "hate". Deal with your hate. You can control that and that is about all. You take care of your problems. I will take care of my problems. Again, you have no right to insult people of faith. If you do it, I am going to call you on it every time.

I am going say this again, Mom always said, "When you are pointing your finger it is always wise to remember there are three pointing back at you." Don't become the thing you hate.

I am not interested in a fight with you; however, I absolutely will not tolerate you insulting my faith. I have no problem with your taking issue with "religious" people or someone trying to make you accept an idea you do not want to accept. You have absolutely no right to try to make me accept an idea I don't want to accept either. I don't have a lot of respect for "sanctimony and vain repetitions myself". 

Now then you will get EXACTLY as much respect from me as you dine to give me, and not one damn bit more. Religion is YOUR problem, sir, not mine. I am not judging you. I don't know you other than what I see here. Frankly, I am sorry for you. Now, you get off my back mister … I'm not kidding. Mark my words here, you will get as much as you give.

Don't make them lock that thread.






5f5c4b6b5fa3c-bpthumb.png
heavy-impact Sent 1 week, 6 days ago

Star



You are free to be as mentally ill as you'd like. You can worship the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, santa claus and casper the friendly ghost all you want, just don't try to present any of that nonsense as fact or as being responsible for anything here in the real world other than murder, torture, war and homosexual pedophile priests. Threaten whatever you'd like, it means nothing to me. There is nothing on a forum that could change my life in any way or make me lose a minutes sleep.

Have a look at the big picture of your fairy tale.

God is omnipotent… all knowing, all powerful, creator of all and can not perish… right?

This means that he impregnated his daughter who was also the wife of his son because this was the only way he could walk on Earth.

Then he committed mock suicide to save us from himself.

If god is omnipotent could he create a rock so large that he could not lift it? Yes or no means he's not omnipotent and proves there could be no such thing.

If your god created me then I am functioning exactly as as he intended unless he made a mistake.

You have created your own hell and chosen to reside in it.

The whole subject is simple minded and silly.
nut1.1599869270.gif







5f5924c43e3c1-bpthumb.jpg
oldspook Sent 1 week, 6 days ago

Star



I will pray for you and God will answer my prayer. Mark that down and take it to the bank.












5f5c4b6b5fa3c-bpthumb.png
heavy-impact Sent 1 week, 6 days ago

Star



Maybe you should just kill a lamb and smear it's blood on stuff to protect people from your god.
nut1.1599874777.gif







5f5924c43e3c1-bpthumb.jpg
oldspook Sent 1 week, 6 days ago

Star



You have free will. You are as disfunctional as you elect to be.

We are wasting our time here.






5f5c4b6b5fa3c-bpthumb.png
heavy-impact Sent 1 week, 6 days ago

Star



1n6rsl1.1599877904.jpg




 
Very nice video oldspook, well done. In the commercial engineering world 7 data samples (shots) is considered the minimum to have statistical significance, so 5 shot groups have always puzzled me and provided me no asssurances with regard to a guns accuracy or a scopes zero. 10 shot groups & that software should make one more confident about a scope zero. Thanks for this very informative vid.
 
Upvote 0
oldspook -

Yes a more detailed explanation is appropriate.

A statistician would not likely chosen seven shots. A statistician would specify a required confidence level and interval to determine the required sample size. A liberal application of the 80/20 rule to sampling calculations results in seven samples (shots) with an 80% confidence level and 25% confidence interval.

I'm in no way suggesting this is a good idea, but am merely suggesting it happens in industry when it is costly or time consuming to perform testing.

Obviously, the more shots taken, the better prediction of the true population mean. With that software, the shot sample limit is a practical one - the inability to locate the POI due to the paper being completely punched away. Anyway, very nice video & something new for me to investigate. Thanks again.
 
Upvote 0
Am i missing something here ? Superdomes don't work with your rifle ? Yes I watched the video, but please someone educate me as to why this is not karp pellets at work ?

I agree 2 shot zero is hard and I would normally 3 or 4 shot to make sure, but what was the point of this video other than to advertise some "software" and mis matched pellets ?
 
Upvote 0
Thank you for your video. It's very interesting. I was getting frustrated with the one shot zero technique. I was not getting a reliable zero. I do have a question. Do you throw out an obvious fliers from your shot group?

The program seems very user friendly. I can see the value of using app in the field when zeroing a rifle. But I wish it was compatible with an iPhone. After a little research, I found Ballistic that uses iOS and has similar functionality. Do you have any experience with this app?
 
Upvote 0
Here's a simple "one shot" method of aligning your scope's optical axis with your shot placement: The procedure requires one pellet.

Have your rifle pre-loaded and ready to fire, and remove the scope's turret caps.

Now, set the safety to "fire", and mount your rifle loosely in a gun vise.

Aim your rife somewhere near the bullseye...it doesn't have to be accurate, because you'll take care of that after the shot! 

Now tighten the vise firmly, immobilizing the rifle so it doesn't shift when you pull the trigger.

Gently pull the trigger.

Now dial in the scope's adjustments so the crosshairs are on the hole you just made in the target.

You are now sighted-in for that distance and that pellet weight, and without counting any clicks!

Now you can replace the scope caps and remove your airgun from the vise.

Treat yourself to a Beer! (But please...not the light kind...)

SpringerHal (I read about this "one shot" technique in "Shooting Times" and "Guns & Ammo" magazines, as tried on a .270 and a .30-06, although I never tried it myself, not having a shooting bench or a gun vise.)













 
Upvote 0
I'm a little confused with the example used here at 25 yards? If I had that group at 25 yards I would be looking for what I needed to do next? So you have that group what do you do next? And what about so many other issues like loose screws on the stock and scope movement?
I assume you are using open sights? I understand that program averages where the center of the shots are. But it doesn't tell the why of the wide grouping just that here is the center of it? 

In other words what the heck do you do with your information after you get it?
 
Upvote 0
Oldspook,

For a gun and pellet combination that shoots like the one in your video, I'd agree. But there are a lot of rifles out there (I have several) that at 25 yards from a bench rest, 1, 5, 10, or 20 shots all go through the same hole so, multiple shots don't apply. I can literally twist both turrets off zero, take a shot, dial the turret to the POI, take a shot at the bull and hit it every time.
 
Upvote 0
"Goodtogo"I'm a little confused with the example used here at 25 yards? If I had that group at 25 yards I would be looking for what I needed to do next? So you have that group what do you do next? And what about so many other issues like loose screws on the stock and scope movement?
I assume you are using open sights? I understand that program averages where the center of the shots are. But it doesn't tell the why of the wide grouping just that here is the center of it? 

In other words what the heck do you do with your information after you get it?
Click to expand...
Well, I'll tell you the why of the wide grouping. Go back to the first video. Watch the first 30 seconds. Pay very careful attention to what I say between 13 and 25 seconds.

"Randomly selected .... ... RWS 2x7x32...."

Maybe just watching the whole thing again without trying to read too much into it would help? If I tried to address all the issues you brought up in one video it would be three hours long and you would have fallen asleep within the first ten minutes...

The video is about statistics... I hid that pretty well didn't I? ;) You didn't even notice you were getting a lesson in probability, did you?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu