Statistics vs Shooting

[AJMD429]

.
https://youtu.be/JSxr9AHER_s

I think this makes sense from a statistical standpoint but I've got to admit sometimes you just have to be practical.

[Griff]

In my single view of his video, I found that statistically speaking, he's boring. It could be the subject, his presentation, or I'm just impatient this morning. I could only stand about half of his video... before I got fed up trying to interpret. Life is all about compromise, 100 shot groups provide more data than 50, 25, 10, 5 or 3... It doesn't take an hour to say that. One hundred 100-shot groups also give a lot more data, But is it necessary to draw a conclusion from that differs significantly from that 1st 5 shot group?

[Old Savage]

What group size is useful. Maybe 3 to me. Before one antelope hunt I drove 25 miles to the range, shot one shot from a cold fouled barrel. It hit the X-ring about 3” above the point of aim at 100 yds. I had done a lot of testing before that.

[Grizz]

my question is how is it possible for a shooter to cull out all those anomalies to produce the current 1000 yard group size ? Hmmm?

I agree that a 5 shot group is not a statistical proof of anything, but in hunting I observed the wound entrance coinciding with the location of the bead when the gun discharged. and a follow up entry shot an inch from the first one . . . shot made from a row boat, in a slight sea, from around 60 yards, with open sights. . . . all proved impossible by the simulation . . .


the sample test does a good job of calling out statistics, but something is missing from the simulations. like insurance premiums. and medical information, such as the likelihood that patient Y will die in the next ten years . . . something that at least one internet doctor puts a lot of credence in. when asked for the evidence of that his response is that "we don't have the data for that", thus invalidating the proposition.

but the power of stats and experts is such that we are bound by them, like it or not.

†

[AJMD429]

.
Yeah. A "one shot group" is really what matters

The parallels in the medical field are big.

What a drug does in ONE patient is all that matters to THAT patient

No clinician could live long enough to see enough patients with an exact same medical condition and treat it and make enough observations to PROVE one treatment was 10% better, yet we still make observations that have relevance, and we DO gradually evolve to better treatments.

It's the same debate as to whether "large scale double-blind placebo-controlled studies" are actually needed to prove things, versus just real doctors observing real results with real patients in the real world.

Both have their place. I would expect an ammunition maker competing for a military contract to do something akin to the former, that somebody picking out the best load for their upcoming elk hunt to do the latter.

It was nice to see someone point out the difference. Now if we could just get him to do the same for the medical community (although I agree his presentation wasn't very entertaining).