Empirical evidence of groups.
- Thread starter Cliff_Allen
- Start date
I agree, the gun mostly deserves the credit. However, in posting groups, that's exactly what I'm trying to relay to the public. I'm really just trying to demonstrate what the gun can do. I'm not really looking for credit for being a great shooter. A few years ago, when I was starting in this hobby and made the decision to buy my first high end PCP, I asked on the forums, what is the most accurate, off the shelf gun? In doing research, the only real life data I have to base my choice on is the results I see people getting from their guns online.
When I post groups online, it is for others who are trying to make a decision about what gun to buy. I've been through several high end PCP's over the years and now I'm admittedly biased toward certain brands, but I don't want to just be a cheerleader for the brand, I want to show others exactly why I'm saying I think it is the most accurate, or more practically, the most consistent. The only way I can think to do that is to show the results I'm getting.
Plus, I think it's fun as hell trying to squeeze everything I can out of a gun to see what it can do.
Upvote 0
Everyone is free to post whatever they like within the parameters of the rules of the forum. I say take things at face value. Part of what makes a man a good man is his word. I'm willing to assume the goodness and take folks at their word. They know if they're being totally honest or not. That's their practice, not mine.
Upvote 0
G
Guest
Guest
Really? The thread was completely non-partisan and impersonal .. Then you get your panties in a bunch because someone called you out on a group (which I will happily assume you shot) but you can't offer the same courtesy to some other fellow... Accuracy tendered.
Upvote 0
One thing to consider when shooting groups is that it's incredibly easy (comparably speaking) to get good results doing that, vs. shooting multiple bulls on a card.
Especially when shooing with a controllable setup, front rest, rear bag, bench etc.
So good groups will tell you the potential of the rifle, but nothing to little about yourself, and the rest of the equipment.
Especially when shooing with a controllable setup, front rest, rear bag, bench etc.
So good groups will tell you the potential of the rifle, but nothing to little about yourself, and the rest of the equipment.
Upvote 0
When I see a single good group posted, I presume it is cherry-picked from a bunch of lesser groups as The Group of the Day. Nothing wrong with that, just take it for what it is. Like a Greatest Hits compilation of your favorite rock artist.
If the shooter qualifies his groups properly and I have no reason to doubt him, I'll take his word for it.
I don't think there's really a way to "prove it" with a video unless you go to extreme lengths, at which point you have to question how much you care what the nay-sayers think.
But if you wanted to, here's how you'd do it, in one continuous video clip:
If the shooter qualifies his groups properly and I have no reason to doubt him, I'll take his word for it.
I don't think there's really a way to "prove it" with a video unless you go to extreme lengths, at which point you have to question how much you care what the nay-sayers think.
But if you wanted to, here's how you'd do it, in one continuous video clip:
- Hang the target
- Walk back to your shooting position, so it's somewhat obvious as to how far you're shooting.
- Take a video of you rangefinding the target
- Attach the camera to your scope or leave it off-gun and zoom it in. (you'll need a nice, long zoom or a second camera)
- Shoot your group
- Walk to the target with your camera and a caliper or ruler
[/LIST=1]
The better approach, I think, is to qualify your target posting, with things like:- "Granted, this was the best group of the day"
- "There was almost no wind"
- "My rest consisted of...."
I tend not to shoot with the very best rifles, from the very best rests, under the very best conditions, so what I like to do is challenge myself, and qualify THAT.
For example, one day, I was shooting my .177 Stoeger X20 at ranges from 25 - 75 yards. I didn't do well at 75 or 65 yards. But at 55, I shot maybe 4 groups that day. There was a variable ~5 mph breeze and I was shooting regular, out-of-the box, Crosman Premier Light pellets. I got one 5-shot group of about 1-1/4" and the others were 1-1/2 to 1-3/4". I was shooting with the rear of the rifle unsupported and with the front off of my hand, rested on sandbag. To me, at least, that was impressive, because of a usably accurate group, shot with humble equipment. Maybe even more impressive than a 1/3" group from a $1500 PCP from a rest that doesn't allow any rifle movement, on a calm day, with sized pellets.
If I had not qualified it, but had just posted a 1-1/4" group, most folks wouldn't bat an eye and some folks would think: "Psh. Check out this hack, so proud of himself for shooting that huge group..."
In the end though, it might be a bit like landscape photography. Very few people care what group YOU or YOUR GUN can shoot, they mostly care about improving their own groups.
Upvote 0
oldspook at the very least you could have read the thread before commenting on my"courtesy". Two posts up on the very top of the page the buyer of that gun posted there was no way it was capable of dime groups at 55 yards.
How happy would you be if you were ripped off for $1500? Tony posted false photos of dime size groups at 55 yards so the guy would buy the gun. Tony lied. By the way $1500 is more than most of the people in his country make in a month. Accuracy tendered. "Courtesy" might be the reason you have been banned from other airgun forums.
Upvote 0
G
Guest
Guest
I've moved to 20 shot groups, as my bench rest matches are 75 shots, and field target matches 50-60.
Upvote 0
G
Guest
Guest
"Courtesy" is exactly the reason given for my being banned at one "other" AG forum. I trust you simply used the plural because you are ill informed... unless I have been banned on a second forum somewhere that I am not aware of... feel free to document that here. The moderators there demanded respect which I was not willing to give them. I didn't give them what they demanded and they banned me. That's just the way it goes. I'll live with that and not use it as a reason to rationalize my anger. The truth is I just don't like the clowns who run the place, but I don't call them liars, I just don't like them.
I read the thread. I read the linked thread as well. I see no evidence Tony lied. You say he lied. I don't know Tony personally and I prefer to believe good about him just as I choose to believe you are not lying about the shots you say you made. So there is that...
A guy bought a gun from Tony. The guy says it is not capable of the groups Tony says he shot. You therefore you call him a liar. That is your evidence? I don't know what pellets either shooter was using. I don't know what Tony meant by "swirling winds" and I don't know what conditions the other fellow is shooting under. I don't know that the gun was not battered about in shipping. Both you and Tony claim to have shot some good groups. I chose to believe both of you because I don't know either of you. ... but only one of you is here calling the other a liar.
What goes around comes around, generally. The folks over there running that "other" forum didn't like my willingness to challenge their authority and they gave me what they thought I deserved. Oh, well, Rule #62. I didn't come over here and bitch about it constantly. I said I didn't like that forum and left it at that. Privately I have said other things so have they. There are folks in the AG world that I butt heads with but even the worst ones are not people I am willing to out and out call a liar. So far, I have no reason to call the folks at that "other" forum liars and could not prove it if I did.
I'll add just this, if you feel a need to talk about bannings on "other" forums, feel free to take those issues up with the moderators on those forums. They might give a damn about it, I don't. I'm not running around behind their backs talking them down. If they are men of good conscience they will not discuss conversations which took place in confidence, especially given that they have rules about such things ... hell they have a rule for everything even one which says basically "if we don't like you we will ban you". Which is fine, it is their forum after all and they are famous for violating rule 62. Like I said elsewhere, the problem with rules is that you have to enforce them and live by them at the same time.
It is what it is... live with it.
Upvote 0
Pretty much any video is up for editing these days. But when I really want to get real stats I go to an indoor 100yd range. Shooting from a bench is totally different than shouldering it. Or using any sort of pod/brace point.
As far as proof goes, at a range I visit they have a digital display with the distance of the target. Someone could simply start video with the target at zero yds. Record it out to desired distance. Target, distance, shooter, gun, all in view... Then shoulder the gun or sit down and start shooting. The consistent rate the target moves out scrolls on the display at a set speed. Editing any part of the video would be hard, making either the shooters' movement hard to splice together without throwing of the digital display. Also the lighting in the range isn't perfect, so isolating the digital display to be pasted into an edited video would be evident.
As far as proof goes, at a range I visit they have a digital display with the distance of the target. Someone could simply start video with the target at zero yds. Record it out to desired distance. Target, distance, shooter, gun, all in view... Then shoulder the gun or sit down and start shooting. The consistent rate the target moves out scrolls on the display at a set speed. Editing any part of the video would be hard, making either the shooters' movement hard to splice together without throwing of the digital display. Also the lighting in the range isn't perfect, so isolating the digital display to be pasted into an edited video would be evident.
Upvote 0