ES and SD

[Greyfox]

I was taking 3-5 rifles out each shooting event. Allowing each rifle and ammo to come down to outdoor ambient temps, and then shooting each rifle one time while recording velocity and POIs. Sometimes I'd shoot a rifle a second time.
So I'd be firing ~5-7 shots each trip.
Not trying to convince anyone of anything. Your rifle outfits may be flawless. The minor POI drifts I observed were the norm, and repeated with a 2nd shot, in some instances. Not enough to be problematic on large game out to 450yds. I concluded it is what it is. Have any of you ever done this before? Take 5 rifles out 5 different times in variable temperatures and lighting conditions, over a period of several months? Run this test?
Didn't think so... It takes a fair amount of time and effort.

Different shooters can have their own testing protocols that serve their own particular purposes. In my case I have used the same LR rifle/load, for seven years. The first year of ownership was spent perfecting its performance. The next six years were spent mastering this rifle. This rifle is completely understood. It's performance has been tested at elevations from 150ft to 6000ft, temperatures from -5F to 85F. Shots have long been recorded hot, cold, clean and dirty. Changes in POI from prone, sitting, etc are known. Each year a tall test is performed on the scope and my rangefinder tested. Since acquired it has accounted for 50+game animals shot from 165-1188 yards with the average distance being 585 yards. Every shot taken with the rifle is recorded. I take the same approach with my other purpose built rifles9competition, etc.)....just different performance criteria, and conditions testing.

One cold bore, and a second shot is taken at 200 yards(zero) at the start of each season. This zero check from last October.

 

[Pdvdh]

I have no reason to doubt any of your experiences with your rifle. They don't speak directly to my testing.
As you stated, different testing for different purposes.
So you take no exception to my test results? Because it seems you do. Which is fine with me...
Is your point that you believe that if you were to run a test similar to mine, you and your rifle would lay them into one hole over time and under differing atmospheric and lighting conditions?
Cause I'm pretty sure you intend to make a statement. What that statement is relative to my testing, so far, only you know for certain.

 

[30BR]

SD isn't really an average of the velocities of shots fired, as that would be the "mean"(or average), ...

Not to be nitpicky, BUT... http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-average-and-mean/
In mathematics, we normally consider average as the sum of all values divided by the number of values added. Strictly speaking, it is the 'arithmetic mean', or simply referred to as the 'mean'. The mean is almost considered synonymous with average, but statisticians will definitely disagree, because, in essence, mean is only a form of describing an average.

An average can be described in many ways. Aside from expressing it as the mean of the sample, it can also be given as the median or the mode.

Median is the central point of the set. In statistics, it is usually the number that occurs in the middle of a set of numbers. A description of the average can be in the median, some of the time, if it is considered as the most suitable way to describe the central tendency of a particular sample.

 

[Greyfox]

I have no reason to doubt any of your experiences with your rifle. They don't speak directly to my testing.
As you stated, different testing for different purposes.
So you take no exception to my test results? Because it seems you do. Which is fine with me...
Is your point that you believe that if you were to run a test similar to mine, you and your rifle would lay them into one hole over time and under differing atmospheric lighting and conditions?
Cause I'm pretty sure you intend to make a statement. What that statement is relative to my testing, so far, only you know for certain.

Apologies that my post caused such consternation....it was not my intention. I wanted to simply offer up the process and approach that I employ. Your test was of interest to me, and makes sense. I take no exceptions to your testing protocol or conclusion which seem to support your particular hunting requirements. To answer your specific question; With my requirements I do expect, and succeed in meeting my accuracy standard under differing lighting and atmopheric changes over time. The tools, technology, and information is available, and effective for dealing with these issues. I hope this is the clarity that I failed to achieve in my original post.

 

[Capt RB]

I have 2 targets I bring to the range every trip. They are the redfield sight in targets. One is the load map with the different seat/powder charge target. One is the cold bore for the rifle(s) being shot. I put these at the 100yd line every session. The cold bore target(s) are shot first. I shoot at the load map second shot. If there is a new hole vs into the existing group hole(about 1" now) I will shoot the 22 till the line goes cold.
I have done this for years. It can show things that Phorwath is talking about. Since it's all on one target If I don't see a change I don't worry about it. I learned this over 30 years ago before all the cool kid gear was made available. I use one of my business yard signs for this. They are clipped to it and ride behind my truck seat 24/7. I can put notes like first light early morning high noon etc etc. The position of the sun in the sky for both time of day and day of year do have an effect. If you have a map of it you can correct for it. If you don't know it exists how do you know why it is different? It is also the fastest way to know that your load needs to be tweaked due to temp or da.