Jayden represented himself, company and community extremely well while being attacked. The factual statistical data that he presented again is extremely important to our shooting community.
@@seanoconnor2986 I think Jayden was being challenged, which is good, because Jayden's very clear, carefully-worded, thorough responses to each challenge only reinforced his points. Great job, Jayden.
@@seanoconnor2986 I don't see attacks at all. Nothing would ever be solved on pretty much anything if everyone considered every question as an "attack".
I didn’t see Erik as being aggressive, but I was disappointed in his apparent lack of understanding of basic stats given his extensive long range and overall shooting experience, but finally at 47.17 he seems to grasp what Jayden was trying to impart and overall seems to have gained a reasonable take away from the podcast with a desire and agreement that we’ll get more discussion from both going forward.
Really appreciate both their views and their input. They are both Rock Stars in their own rights, period. One is a bean counter, the other a World Champion.
This is great conversation! Our world would do good to listen to the respectful discussion of these guys trying g to understand each other! Precision chat!!
Believe the Target, Erik. As a paying customer of your product, I need to give some customer feedback on this product. I have found Believe the Target interviews very enjoyable in general, with some excellent segments and snippets of knowledge shared. I have been happy to pay with my time to watch your channel. If Believe the Target series of interviews was a ¼ “Average” rifle… most of the content is ¼ MOA… some is the 0.200” group area… BUT This interview, was an 8” group… and getting bigger by the question. At 44min approx. when you asked, “Why a competitor shoots a record and then doesn’t repeat” Did you not understand anything that had just been discussed in the last 44 min? At this point the group size had got so large that this string of shots was abandoned. As investing more into this target would cost too much.
Jayden actually said one thing that wasn't true, statistically. You could shoot 30 × 5 shot groups that are all 1/4 MOA, but that still doesn’t mean that the 150 shot group (or the gun) is 1/4 MOA.
My issue is I believe Jayden knows what he’s talking about, and his points are backed up with empirical data. However, my experience closely matched what Erik is saying. Developing a load with small sample sizes works for me and nearly every other competitor shooter out there. Unless you have unlimited money, unlimited time, and unlimited barrel life, you have to use suggestive, but statistically insignificant sample sizes to develop a load. Loads developed in this manner perform well in matches over a statistically significant number of shots. I also agree with Erik that PRS is not a precision discipline int the same way F-Class is. If it were, you would not have so many guys loading match ammo progressively for PRS and having the success they’ve had. You will never get away with that in F-Class. If you don’t believe that, walk down the line at any major F-Class match and ask the competitions if they load on a progressive press. Not case prep, but fully load. That’s not to say one discipline is better or more challenging than the other; they’re just different.
I think the people that think they know, were the ones who weren't listening. I know nothing, only been competing for a year, and I understood what Jayden and those podcasts were talking about that they both are eventually agreeing on. I'm still trying to figure what needed explaining. Ego makes you hear less!
Go watch the podcast, and the follow up q&a. Jayden is correct, however some of their results are skewed because of where and how they test. Jayden is a Genius.
Ill say this first, I was a huge Erik fan and never listen to the hornady podcast but between this podcast and the one with Bryan litz, I believe Erik is heading down this podcast journey the wrong way and wish it was done differently. I would like to hear really what these guests have to say about a variety of topics rather than just hear Erik disagree and try to prove what he thinks is right. Eric has a lot for us all to learn from but so do these guests and I feel they shouldn’t have to just defend themselves to Eric the whole time. We are missing out on a good bit of info we could learn from then. This guest could have taught us all so much more.
Eric has EARNED his opinion in this field. If you want a Joe Rogan, go with the flow Podcast, go listen to Joe. If you want to hear Shooters talk about Shooting, Listen to Eric.
I get what you are saying and it kind of annoyed me too, but on the other hand I think it is very important to also challenge the ideas presented. Because Mr. Cortina was challenging Mr. Quinlan here, the end result was way more informative and believable than just stating facts that many might ignore because they challenge their own perspective. Erik could probably be a bit more gentle when he challenges his guests, but otherwise this was great. Much better than speaking with someone who he agrees 100% on everything.
I think one of the points that is being ignored in the discussion regarding smaller sample sizes is that you can tell if something is not going to work a lot more easily than if it is consistently accurate. If you have an upper boundary set you only have to shoot as many shots as it takes to break that boundary. So if your goal is a gun that shoots .3" or less and on the second shot you see that the bullets are 0.6" apart you don't have to continue testing with the combination that generated that result.
Erik said “competitive shooters have a system/process that works so why deviate or burn up barrels by testing large samples?” Well I guess he’s only interested in his system that works very well for him and his style of shooting. Small groups at 1000 yards is great but not many in the shooting community are actually competing at this level. My advice to Erik is to not get too narrow in his focus of expertise and actually listen to guys like Jayden who have a tremendous amount of knowledge and expertise to share. Respectfully You totally missed the mark on this Erik! Hopefully you’ll learn from your mistakes and become better. I will continue watching and hoping for future great podcast like you have produced in the past. Good luck!
What the Hornady guys are doing is a completely different thing than Eric. If your developing a load for personal use going for big data sets IS a mistake. It's expensive and damages your barrels. If your developing something long term, like cartridges it loading theory, or bullets you don't care if by the end of the testing the barrel is shot out or you spent $1k getting data. They're both right but Eric has the right perspective for us as shooters.
@@userJohnSmith The only difference is that Litz and the dudes at Hornaday know a 1/4MOA gun isn't. You either pay the price for accuracy up front grouping and zeroing with adequate sample sizes or you pay on the back end as you refine your zero during practice and competition through trial and error. How many thousands of rounds and years of trial and error did it take Erik to come to the conclusion chasing the lands isn't worth it? Brian Litz and the dudes from Hornaday probably assembled a few batches of 20-35 rounds, put it in their machine and shot it in an afternoon. Now they're telling us what they learned for free and we can take it and bark up other trees that will be more fruitful or leave it and continue to read tea leaves and animal entrails ;) The good thing is the next barrel you probably just need to zero to confirm the load still works well.
@@jatollar Look I did the same testing the Hornady guys did in my initial list development. It tore up my guns. I did it because my background is physics and I wanted a statistically significant data set. Bottom line it was a complete waste of time. Fine aren't quantum mechanical systems. I didn't learn anything about my gun I haven't learned better and faster with 2-3 shit groups. And what they're saying isn't accurate either. There are absolutely guns that can put with 95% of their shots into a .25 inch group at 100yds, I own some that can hit that with a 60-80% confidence level. And if you're building a high precision rifle it's dumb to burn your rifle up proving which you have. But if your developing ammunition and bullets seeing what a real distribution on a high quality rifle looks like, without tons of load development or bullet sitting it's incredibly informative. I don't believe what the Hornady guys claim. I know because I understand stats better than they do and they're making claims that are easy outside the limits of their experiment. Is it data? Sure, but it absolutely doesn't prove what they claim, because they're not speaking clearly about distributions, confidence, and absolute limits.
@@userJohnSmith You should watch a few of their podcasts and videos. They're not trying to get you to tear up your guns, they're trying to get you to good groups and zero with less bullets by using proper statistical methods and focusing on what matters which is good enough ammo and spending your time practicing instead of messing around with different reloading idea's.
@@jatollar Oh I watched them. But you'll notice during this interview they say they've never seen a .25moa rifle? I had an AR shooting at .3 in large groups at one point. And it's normal in bench rest. For someone serious to make that statement is just goofy.
Erik, Jayden is talking at statistical probability. You should review this very interview and most all of your questions would be answered in first 15 minutes. Expectation bias is kill you and leading to circular nature of your questions.
Dr. Quinlan did very well to bring the discussion back to the rigors of science and the correct understanding of statistics as it applies to ballistics and dispersion. Very good discussion.
We live in a golden age of the shooting sports. All of this knowledge at the fingertips and keys of any computer. Erik has truly blazed the trail with Hornady, Vortex, John Masik (aka F-Class John), Brian Zolnikov (aka Witch Doctor), Keith (aka Winning in the Wind), Applied Ballistics, and many others for bringing so much to so many. Happy to be able to witness this.
Two giants in there field of expertise debating there point of view. While you and I get to sit back and learn how to become better shooters. Thank you Jayden and Erik for being willing to share your knowledge with us!
Jayden is talking reality, the majority of what he says here is NOT an opinion, it is either basic elements of the scientific method, knowledge gained over a long history thru mankind in understanding human behavior and how they can illogically insert all kinds of illogical, biased or emotionally oriented mistakes and then lastly of course hard science from ballistics. But it’s amazing reading thru these comments in which it’s clearly apparent there is quite a few people posting thinking with their emotions instead of with their logic. It does take some practice but it’s certainly worth the small amount of time it takes to understand the huge advantages of leaving your emotions and biases behind when dealing with topics like Physics. Remember the saying of “Facts don’t care about your feelings?” It could be expanded to also include things like self bias, confirmation bias, false confidence and error attribution to just name a few. I live with someone who’s pride and Ego totally, yes totally rules everything they do, say and feel. And bearing witness to this destructive and incredibly limiting handicap she has keeps me in amazement and bewilderment. And believe me it makes for a real shitty relationship, especially when your the one that’s literally physically locked into this situation with absolutely no recourse of stepping out of it, none. So I guess I am all to painfully aware of people who daily let emotions interfering with “truth, facts and reality.” Even if it Fuxxks up someone else’s life….
@@cameronbaker7959 I don’t recall saying computers were always correct. Regardless the limitations of computers are limited via human beings that both built them AND programmed them. Hence they are going to constantly have errors within their range of outputs. Think that’s self evident to the degree that it doesn’t even need to be said since that’s a given.
Erik should take his rifle to Hornady's lab and have them put his barreled action in a test fixture and shoot 100 rounds of his handloaded ammunition through it. Let's look at the 100 shot extreme spread which would define the true accuracy potential of that system. While an AVERAGE group size capability might be good information, knowing the overall dispersion capability of a rifle/ammo combination is what's most important if you want to predict how big a future group size could be.
It’s not that simple. Barreled action will shoot different in a rail gun than in a stock. I have a rail gun for this purpose, but I have been warned that they will not shoot the same. I’ll find out soon.
I'd like to see this, I have a feeling that exactly what Jayden says would come true, much larger groups, with smaller sample size deviation. Might even find that shooting 2 rounds to test a tuner isn't a very effective method, I'd say the sample sizes for turner testing is far to small. I'd like to see a test where a rifle has 20 shot groups on each setting of the tuner... Might find it doesn't change as much as you'd think...
Great discussion! I say that because we were able to communicate with one another. We hardly ever do that anymore. People type out an emotional response and walk away. What a great demonstration of how to communicate and move the goal forward! Thanks gentleman.
The large sample size test is meant to be a check against people who will shoot a new rifle enough to put a .25" 3-shot group on paper and then lie to themselves and everyone around them that they have a .25" gun, then throw the gun in the safe and never shoot it again, but brag about it the rest of their lives. I know people like this personally, and if you shop for reloading components online and look at the reviews for this or that powder/primer/bullet, everyone is shooting .25 MOA.
It is either an average .25 moa or a never exceeds .25 moa gun. Can not claim unless you declare the parameters. Jayden claim of never seeing a .25 moa gun is correct in his context. Trying to prove yourself wrong is the correct metrology. Must be repeatable over and over.
If I shoot 1,000 rounds and the total group size is 2 MoA, and you shoot 1,000 rounds and the total group size is 0.25 MoA, is it a quarter MoA gun? I think that's what Erik is getting at: Do you classify the gun based on human error or not? Erik seems to think no, but Jayden seems to think yes.
Interesting take that PRS isn't a precision discipline. PRS has standards and rule limitations just like F-Class does. The only "precision" discipline according to Eric would be one that has no limitations on accuracy, which also is not F-Class. Not a hater comment btw. Good discussion! There is precision in all shooting disciplines, but different 'games' may dictate higher levels of precision.
Too many people flip flop "precision" and "accuracy" definitions. F-class and PRS are graded on accuracy. Benchrest is graded on precision. A lot more people would take more from these conversations if they would simply cut off their pride and keep an open mind. I believe there two sides of the aisle pertaining ballistic data aquireing. One side is solely based off statistical data, the other side is solely real world data. We are sooo close to meshing the two together. Once we get there it will make perfect sense to everyone.
I have listed to all hornady podcasts and Eric's, they are both leaving something out. The amount of noise in the rifle system dictates how relevant sample size is. 2 shot groups from a off the shelf hunting rifle are probably meaningless. 2 shot groups from a purpose built precision instrument like a rifle that Eric, Jack, or Speedy would bring to a championship carry much more meaning. They briefly touched on repeatability of the system, repeatability of the system is the determining factor of sample size relevance. As I am typing this they are touching on repeatability again. I believe they both know that repeatability is critical but haven't made that clear enough for people to digest.
In my opinion it comes down to the degradation of communication and the difference between listening only to respond or rebuke another’s opinion and having the ability to actually listen for the sole purpose to understand said opinion. I’m glad Eric listened to it multiple times to understand the point or purpose before having this discussion because there’s no better way to be proven wrong faster than to be ill prepared! I say great job Eric and these types of differing opinion podcasts is where I learn the most; I can’t say how much I enjoy them and can’t wait for the next one!!!
Hahahaha, yeah Hornady guys are dumb…. Hahahahaha Yet they make precision products and equipment and have the time money guys knowledge equipment and facilities to back up what they say. But they are dumb…. Both Erick and Jayden did great. Erick needs to go hang out with the Hornady crew.
I really enjoyed this one too. Jayden got a bit defensive at first, but I think y’all ended up having a really good conversation. I’ve listened to all of the Hornady podcasts Jayden has been on and enjoy what he has to share and how he explains things. I think I was predisposed to hear what those guys were trying to say and cut them slack when that first group size podcast first came out. But I think they went for some clickbait with it, both in terms of the title and how they said things the first time around. Their second podcast and Jayden’s tone here were quite a bit more nuanced than how some things came across in their first one. Anyway, I love your podcast Erik-keep them coming.
I would think that a rifle that shoots an average of quarter minute but has the occasional upward trend to a half inch would be considered a half-inch rifle, not a quarter inch rifle. To me if it’s quarter inch rifle it is one that you can depend on every time to shoot a quarter inch.… I’m just saying…
Jayquillian? Jayquillian? Jayquillan? Jayquillian is a bit annoying, stiff or up tight but keeps his bearing pretty well. And, could be seen, to me, to be backing a bit by a little guidance from Erik.
Blanket 1/4 moa definition might mean the absolute largest group is 1/4. Meaning the average would be lower than that statistically. 1/4 moa average would have to include larger groups statistically.
Yeah, but if your making poor, ignorant, fooling or stupid statements in the first five minutes, can you blame them for leaving. Jaquillians stiff neckness can be seen as an overly strong pride or arrogance! It's like they are agreeing without really agreeing in the pod cast.
Another great podcast Eric. Thanks again. My takeaway from the conversation as you & Jayden progressed was basically the same as I've heard previously which is that the disconnect within the conversation was mainly due to a difference in familiarity of the fundamentals of statistical analysis as they are applied to dispersion as a function of categorizing the changes in what we measure. Unfortunately, statistical analysis is very much one of those disciplines which is generally not immediately intuitive to most people & therefore requires some study in order to gain familiarity & understanding.
Statistical analysis attempts to remove bias, under the circumstances of the experiment. Anything else is an inference that we hope is correct about that population. Jayden clearly defined the perameters of his research. Extrapolate beyond those borders and you are making assumptions. Take the data and compare to your experience and study.
Interesting how Jayden very cleverly introduces the probability of standard distribution against the confidence of the target result. Jayden and brian Litz are fantastic at presenting the maths and science process in such a calm manner against a resistance to the evidence they present - 10's of thousands of dollars of research made available for free. Would be lovely for Quinlan and/or Brian to spend a weekend together shooting and tuning a new set up. Side by side Eric, and introducing the core concepts of the maths in real time, it would communicate more clearly how the statistics would benefit the setting up and understanding of precision :) ...well done Eric for putting yourself forward to ask the questions and receive the answers. Great series :)
Erik, thank you for doing the interview, I really enjoyed the push-and-pull of your questions. I think you are very honest in saying what you think, many kudos to you for that. My comment to you is: The guys who work making quality bullets and quality ammunition really *do* know what precision shooting is. If you can do so, try do do a tour of their facilities, and podcast that. They have an enviable amount of the best quality measuring stuff, and equal amounts of best quality components, guns, and controlled environmental conditions, and a huge obsession to shoot with more accuracy then anyone else. What they say about statistics is correct; shooting isn't uniquely immune from statistical quantification. All that Jayden and Miles and Bryan are trying to tell us is how to not waste our time. PS: Kevan Thomas, at Sierra, is also would be a good guy to talk to, if you can...
Interesting take. I’m glad I listened all the way through after the beginning I didn’t much care to continue. I think jayden might be doing a bit of word smithing here with the “1/2 moa rifle… okay but over how many shots?” We’re saying the same thing! It’s not a 1/4 MOA load if it only does it one time. A zero, 1/2 and a 1 makes a 1/2 moa load most of the time…. I think the biggest take away here is it has to be repeatable, and sometimes you have to prove yourself wrong to prove yourself right with large sampling… With that being said I do like some of the hornady cartridges. 6.5CM, 6.5PRC and now the 7prc. They are easy to reload for, but since following Erik the passed few months my reloading has changed so much for the better, and my groups have gotten smaller without chasing my tail.
So a 3 shot group is large enough to prove all the bad load combinations you try as bad. But it can not prove that a certain variable like seating depth, powder weight or primer is positive or not. But if you are an expert shooter like Erik, you know the different variables importance in the tried and tested cartridge that your using. So the need for using big sample sizes is not worth the investment. With barrel life and time beeing important factors. The statistics from hornady are true. And the practical observations and methods from Erik are also true. In my country we statistically have 1.7 kids and that is true. But it is really hard to make it practical 😉
I yelled this at my computer a couple of times. They covered it, but there were times I wanted them to make the point again. Small sample sizes can absolutely tell you if something doesn’t work. And the Hornady folks never said people weren’t able to identify and develop really really accurate loads using the “standard” load development methods and small sample sizes. The trouble is when trying to claim that load A is better than load B when you’ve only got a small sample and the results are close. I also enjoyed Erik’s explanation of what he’s looking for in trends of closely related small groups. Someone else has been trying to explain this to me and I think it’s starting to click, but those guys aren’t looking at just 2-3 data points when they do those trend groups. They are looking at several adjacent groups and considering them as a whole.
17:31 I think the hold up at this time point is that all 1000 shots of the quarter minute gun don’t fall within a quarter minute of each other. so 1000 shots in a single group would not have a quarter minute measurement. if you shot different groups on different days etc you can have a quarter minute average even if of all the groups it shot were not stacked on top of each other. those are two different things
In over 30 years of shooting, handloading and few years competing, I have yet to find a solid shooter that I couldn’t draw knowledge or even a new perspective. Does all of it pan out, no. The minute I let ego get in the way(easy for any of us), it’s over. It seems to me that Erik seemed much more open as the interview progressed👍 Thanks, Erik. I have learned much from your personal contributions and these interviews.
I started listening to all the Hornady podcasts because of the 1st sample size podcast. I "rolled my eyes" when I heard Erik mention how his cohorts dismissed the podcast by listening to only 5 minutes. If you are a world class shooter I guess it makes sense to not hear anything new that might change how you arrived there. I am going to use the information to determine if my second and third barrels are better or worse than my first. Good job Jayden. Thanks for sharing your hard earned knowledge.
@@lekomin They're also talking about two separate things. In Jayden's mind 1/4 MOA can't be outside the point of aim where the "precision shooters" have sighters to get on target then purely shoot a group. F class has to be in the x ring but I'd guess if you overlaid all the groups in Erik's benchrest story they wouldnt be close to 1/4''
@@lekomin the problem is Erik has a lived statistical experience and has found what works. And he’s being told that his method can’t possibly work by someone using statistics. I guess being a national champion in a sport requiring precision and accuracy is pretty meaningless once you face statistics. I think the issue here is that if Erik were to understand statistics better, he would be able to make an argument that crunches the crux of Jayden’s argument. He references it several times on the podcast without saying it in statistical terms. If you are looking for a certain average MOA there are groups that will be easily fall outside of three standard deviations of the group size he’s after. In fact, the way he is working up loads gives him the results he’s looking for using ladder testing. As another example, if he were well-versed in statistics. He would be able to say that the lower the standard deviation, the less random samples that you need to find a representative sample size. Therefore, ladder testing does a good job of identifying both groups that are much too wide, and if you find a node that has extremely low standard deviation and extreme spread you are finding something that is statistically relevant. Then you then can work out in a much larger sample size to confirm statistical significance. Which is the statician’s way of saying what he’s doing is working. Lastly, if he could have made the argument that the average moa is the most appropriate way to refer to the moa of the gun. In many statistical analysis this what is used. For example, batting average (or other baseball statistics), miles per gallon, medical trials. Personally, I have never heard of any statistical data being referred to by its outlier data points.
One of the few things i remember from stats is population sampling. 500 is the minimum meaningful sample and at 2k diminishing returns begin. The barrel is toast by the time you truly have a good sample. After 10 shot tests for powder charges i pick the best one for SD \ ES and run another 10. Sometimes the result of the next test is terrible.
This explains how Brian Litz’s .6 MOA .308 0:01 can get 3rd in the world championship. His gun might have an average .25 MOA but never exceeds a group of .6 for specific number of shots. Semantics do matter! Great interview Erik!
I think Bryan said his F/TR rifle averaged .6 over it’s life. My suspicion is that Bryan included every group in that, no matter what, and lots of folks would characterize his gun differently.
Just a observation from a small sample. 3 diff barrels all match grade and diff caliber’s & velocity’s Hornady bullets copper foul more than. Others. They shoot good but foul the barrel considerably more Anybody else find this or have it happen or test this.
30!minutes in: I have never had a rifle that consistently shoots 0.3” groups throw a 1.7” group. Not ever. It may fire a 0.4” group but will always settle back into its norm. There are more tolerances stacked in the ammo than the rifle. I think, saying “that ammo is 0.4” in that 👉🏻 rifle” would be a more precise assertion if it mattered one bit. I think, Jayden is essentially debating the differing shades of white with his terminology. I just disagree with his premise and point. After his initial arguments, he and I agree.
If Prs isn’t a precision sport then why can’t any f class shooter set down at a target at 788 yards and hit a 1moa target without a sighter ? That was not a good blanket statement. PRS is the only sport that pushes the limits of accuracy and precision together at any distance.
Here's one f class fact. If you bought all of the testing, loading, practice, shooting line, and the gun. It would cost around $100,000. The best shooter who doesn't have access to this level of equipment will never be competitive. So it isn't just the best driver, it is how fast can you afford to go!
I have a hard time taking anything from Hornady very seriously these days. Been shooting Hornady 143 ELDx 6.5 match hunting bullets and never happy with my SDs despite doing everything right. Well yesterday I decided to weigh some bullets and found a .5 grain extreme spread from 142.8 to 143.3. Not sure how anyone can call that “match grade” with a straight face. Earlier this year I bought some of the Hornady match hunter ammo in 143 ELDx 6.5 prc. Two different boxes from two different lots were close to 100 fps different. Outrageous. Switching to Berger.
The reason I challenge things is to expand my knowledge and understanding of something . Its not to prove you right or I'm right . Its to further me and my thoughts processing . In the hopes I will better my self , so that everyone can get benefit .
Seems to me those two need to get together somewhere, a few times, and have a couple of beer together, so they can relax and have some fun at this. There are so many subjects that could be covered in this format, powders for one, primers for another, bullets, brass, etc. An explanation of the parameters that have to be explored and specs for components met to manufacture ammo would be the total result. Some info on the tooling would be educational, and an overview of how they go about designing it along with some of the funky things that happen during runs.
I love this podcast! The conversation reminds me of a lot with my brother-in-law. Something that I did with velocity and the standard deviation. A 5 fps standard deviation will include 99.9% of the shots within a 30 fps extreme spread, 95% within 20 fps and then 68% within 10 fps. For the 99.9% it is rougly a 1/2 moa difference on impact at 1000 yards. Did the same with a 7 fps sd, 42 fps es for the 99.9%. It had a 3/4 moa variation on the extreme for impact at 1000 yards. I was using a 190 hornady atip using their 4dof calculator. Something pretty cool to think about and do. I do think we are all after a really consistent load. Low sd, low es. For me it is fun to run the math/stats and see what happens. I really enjoyed this podcast!
Thank you guys! I wasn't sure how this was going to work when I 1st clicked on it. I love both you guys and the work you do it was really nice to hear you You guys talk through this. I hope you do more these in the future thank you so much!! I think it was a big help.
Alot of people hold a much higher standard then a 1/4 minute riffle especially in the benchrest / accuracy nut world Has this bloke shot a riffle that shoots dots ? Maybe not. In my opinion most custom riffles would have the ability to shoots little tiny holes considering all variables covered correctly and have the ability to get it there, I also don't really agree on small changes in powder weight "don't mean anything" as you will find most benchrest and even elr shooters use pressure as a major factor in determining a load ,one tenth move can mean the world in a condition, it can change how the riffle shoots completey. Never less good discussion
So as I understand it, if Jack picked his best 4 "two shot groups" and followed them with 20 shot groups the outcomes would be statistically similar. You can not argue with math. I believe in this setting his system is tight, his skills are amazing , and his components are consistent so the variability in the 2 shot groups are probably so small that if we went a few thousandths one way or another there would be little difference over a larger sample size. I think Mr Cortina inadvertently supported what Jayden was saying. The world record example exemplifies this. The record was set on the smaller side of the standard deviation possibility and since not been repeated. The shooter had amazing skills, equipment, components and the standard deviation worked in his favor that day. Man this is in the weeds for my small brain. Thanks for all you do for us Erik!
Erik - at about 54:30 you mention the 2 shot seating depth test and all 6 or 8 of them being one hole. How would you explain this in terms of harmonics and seating depth? Have you ever seen a rifle or load that is this tolerant to seating depth change?
Some barrels just are more tolerant. The reason that BR barrels are short(an average of about 22" for 100 yard) and thick(1.250" straight contours aren't uncommon) is to reduce overall resonance of the system(the more mass and less length you have the stiffer the system is physically). This alone makes them more tolerant of load changes. When they are extremely tolerant they're called "hummers" and no one fully understands what the magic is that does it(or if they do they aren't telling!). I did a load test on my 6BR bench gun not too long ago where it shot 5x5 shot groups over 1.2gns(130fps difference between slowest and fastest) of powder and every group was under 0.280" and the point of impact shifted so little that if I combined the 25 shot group the total size was under 0.400". This was also at my unverified starting seating depth.
I don't know how you can't go off of average when it comes to 1/4 MOA. There are too many factors that can create a flier that isn't the gun's fault. Precision is defined as to how close two shots are relative to each other. Shooting in a tunnel is as the top of precision while shooting off a galloping horse is towards the bottom. Either one would benifit from a more accurate gun but that doesn't make shooting off a horse precise. 2 shot grroups can find what doesn't work but may not show what works. Meaning if a 2 shot groups shoots 4 moa something is seriously wrong and there is absolutely no reason to shoot 1000 shots. However, shooting 2 shots and it shoots 1/4 moa that would need to be verified. Of course a bullet manufacture will tell you need LARGE sample sizes, they sell bullets.
When you were discussing seating depth the questions I would’ve had would be “in your mind what is seating depth capable of addressing? Why would someone want to adjust seating depth? What results might you expect?” From what he was saying it sounds like he thinks of the practice as only mattering if you have a sensitivity to bullet jump. It is my understanding that besides any bullet jump sensitivity existing, the main reason for adjusting seating depth would be to alter the timing of the bullet exiting the muzzle. Perhaps I’m wrong on that. But it seemed to me like he was saying the only concern is whether or not the bullet is making a smooth journey into the rifling and that’s all it is good for. I’d want him to clarify whether or not that’s what he meant to say. And I’d want to ask whether or not he’s examined the muzzle exit timing aspect. It seems to me this can have a rather large effect on precision at the target. And is also why a tuner can have similar effect at the target. With seating depth you accept how the barrel is moving and adjust your muzzle exit timing to try to cooperate with that barrel movement. Tailor the exit time according to the barrel movement. With a tuner you approach it from the other side and try to make changes in the barrel movement itself. Tailor the barrel movement according to the exit time. Two different methods of trying to get the bullet to leave under more advantageous conditions. That’s how I understand those two things anyway. He seemed to be saying it only affects whether or not the bullet makes a smooth transition into the rifling, and I can’t say I agree with that. Maybe that isn’t what he meant to say, but that’s what I thought he was saying.
Great Podcast Erik! I hope you could make another Podcast with Jayden from Hornady. We are all ignorantes trying to learn something new every day. Thank you. Regards from Switzerland.
Not likely, lol. This Podcast was recorded before the Litz podcast aired. More like two independent sources did some research and came to similar conclusions.
It’s pretty simple, Jayden is saying if that “1/4” gun never shot over a 1/4” for the 100-200 rd match then it’s a 1/4” gun. Lol also it’s just data coming from a data nerd and not sure why everyone’s so butt hurt over the data they had for those tests. Honestly it just seems like misunderstanding mixed with egos Appreciate the time spent on doing the podcast and glad you had him on to clear things up for the better of the shooting community 👏🏻
The whole issue here is that Jayden believes that one 5 shot group is in the MIDDLE of the bell curve. It's assumed it's 50% either way of that group. THAT IS FALSE! Statistically false, and that's really where this whole thing went south. He needs to read this comment...
I love Erik and Jayden. I think Erik’s 1/2 Moa is the rest of the world’s 1/8 Moa. It feels like Erik says “average 1/2 moa” but really means most of his 1000 shots taken land in a 1/2 or less circle and is really way better than 1/2 moa. Also, his sample size is probably 10k or 100k because of the consistency of the components used between him and other BR and F class
At first I walked away feeling a little uncomfortable with the flow of the whole interview (and I listened to the full 90 minutes) but realized that this discussion was actually very stimulating despite being somewhat frustrating. In the friction I found myself paying closer attention to see exactly where they were misunderstanding each other. Quinlan tried to get Erik to understand the importance of sample size and Erik was emphasizing how a practical .25 MOA gun is not uncommon in F- class. Same topic but looked at from two independently valid viewpoints. You can see why they are both the best at what they do.
What it sounds like is that an F-class or benchrest guy or maybe any reloader in some capacity uses small samples as a starting point. If a small sample of two or three shots group outside of what is acceptable, then that combination is then eliminated. It's like Thomas Edison said, “I have not failed, but found 1,000 ways to not make a light bulb”. I think that idea stands here. If a group ever shoots outside of acceptable tolerances, then you've found another load that's not acceptable. I also think that the tolerances in F-class and benchrest guns are so much tighter than factory rifles that you could make tiny adjustments in loads and actually see changes because "the noise" is so much less in these custom rifles.
Eric forgets he calculates jump. And adjusts as the barrel wears. General shooter don't. Eric anneals brass. General reloader don't. Hornady takes a rifle and loads it with production run ammo, not custom, and shoot semi-custom, standard, made gun barrels. Hornady isn't adjusting for bullet seat depth like the F class guys do. Eric was ignorant about the different situations. Eric is acting as if he is above the average long-range shooter because of his wins. Egotistical! Not good Eric. Don't look down on folks. You are, as stated an F1 class shooter. There are guys that are setting behind a rifle now days and shoot 1000, 2000 and up to 3000 yrds. With out having custom made guns and custom made ammo. Eric, what is the average cost of your gun... $10,000? These guys are doing it with $1000 to $2000 rifle off the shelf.
OMG dude. It’s PRS (PRECISION rifle series). If you think it’s not as precise as benchrest or F-class then maybe you can tell everyone why they call it the wrong name. Static positions having precision doesn’t mean dynamic positions can’t. In some ways it requires even more because you lose any prior shot references. F-class target is 1/2 moa x ring with over 2 moa outer ring. PRS targets are usually 1/2 to 1 moa total. Basically, if you missed the X, you missed the whole target in PRS. That’s not only accuracy.
What a great discussion. My main takeaway is that not all small sample sizes are created equal and many times (such as in Erik’s case, or Jack Neary or some of his other shooting buddies) their small samples are actually enormously large samples in disguise.
I think one of the points that is being ignored in the discussion regarding smaller sample sizes is that you can tell if something is not going to work a lot more easily than if it is consistently accurate. If you have an upper boundary set you only have to shoot as many shots as it takes to break that boundary. So if your goal is a gun that shoots .3" or less and on the second shot you see that the bullets are 0.6" apart you don't have to continue testing with that combination that generated that result. Conversely say you're happy with a .250" avg gun and you shoot 9 2 shot groups and they're all 0.0XX" then you can more reliably say that the gun has a lot of potential to do what you want. Especially if you are very familiar and have previous experience with the system involved.
Well, the same thing applies to all people listening. That rifles are suppose to shoot 1/4 moa @ 1000 yards. Competition shooters as an example need to be specific what that are shooting and the equipment they have. Most FCLASS shooters are using $2500 front rest for crying out loud. With all do respect no competative shooter in the entire world is shooting a 30-06 Savage off the shelf from a kneeling position, a 1000 yards and scoring a 1/4 moa. You must be a little more specific what you have for equipment for what your achieving.
I understand what both of y’all are saying. I found it interesting that Jayden was a little defensive about the PRS comment. I didn’t take it as you saying PRS wasn’t precision, all you said was PRS isn’t really scored based on precision (group size) it is scored more on what I would define as “consistent accuracy”. I’m sure the PRS shooters won’t like that, but it’s just how I see it. Common sense tells us, a bigger sample is more reliable, and like we all know, the more shots you shoot, the group won’t get smaller! Another thing, when I hear 1/4” MOA gun, I don’t assume it will NEVER shoot over that. I’m smart enough to understand what that means, which is that with a competent shooter, the gun is capable of shooting a multiple shot (say 3 or 5) group at 1/4” MOA. You don’t have to say it’s a 1/4 MOA “average” gun. I think that’s kind of implied IMO.
Nothing against Eric's ability but this was simply trying to explain an incorrect statement when challenged. It's ok to say maybe I'm incorrect about something instead of trying to talk around it to hopefully make people think your still correct. This doesn't mean your not a good shooter with a good amount of experience but everything Quinlan said was as logical as statistically proven. Keep this up Eric and I like you just as much as before but now I started listening to the Hornady podcast after listening
I have to agree with Erik, PRS is not really a precision disciple as far as the gun itself. Not that the PRS guns aren't accurate but the best rifles and loads set up for PRS won't shoot groups with an F class setup more does it need to. A good shooter can win PRS with a 1moa rifle. I'm not sure the best shooter would win a big F class match with a 1moa gun without a lot of luck. It's like comparing my main match cowboy action rifles to my side match rifle. It's a difference in just having to hit steel plates in a short time vs snuffing out candles and cutting playing cards. Different levels of precision.
It is painful to listen Erik have a conversations with folks who understand statistics. For a guy with a channel called "Believe the Target", you would think he would subscribe to the FACT that "numbers to lie." His interview with Bryan Litz was equally enlightening as to how little he understands about statistical analysis.
I think the point that is missed. F-class shooters don't rely on 3 shot groups..they will shoot a series of groups...they will choose something...they go and shoot it in club days or comps...if it doesn't perform to expectations they will change it based on experience and data to date. The whole small sample size conversation is missing the reality of what happens...
I feel like Erik doesn’t even understand the difference between a rifle’s repeatability and a shooter’s skill. He concedes a point then argues that same point after agreeing. Then he tries to argue that PRS isn’t precision shooting? 😂 Erik, just stick to shooting and leave statistics to someone else.
Not defending Erik... I promise.. but I am realizing that Erik is in a different world in regards to accuracy. F-Class is a small community and 1/2 MOA is unacceptable to them.. the average shooter is doing amazing at 1/2 MOA groups consistently. I think this is where the disconnect is, desired performance and expectations of their gear, F-Class vs PRS. Also, I don't think Eric is the sensitive type and isn't afraid of being disagreeable.. I don't think he was disrespectful just blatantly honest with his opinion. Our community is full of misinformation and lies and I appreciate that Erik actually calls people out to explain their claims... people like this are always assumed to be the bad guy when in reality their seeking truth.. I want to stress this.. the one thing I find super cringy about the precision rifle community is all the BS info and stories... creates bad expectations for new shooters and theirs lot of frauds in this community who just repeat and regurgitate nonsense.. The last ten years has been amazing for precision rifle community in terms of gear and knowledge.. I like seeing people who make claims sweat just a little bit when their making claims and to be precise in their explanation to avoid alll the misinformation.
Great Conversation! It was mentioned, but I don’t think hammered home that small groups might not be statistically relevant but they can certainly eliminate bad combinations. “Bad groups don’t get smaller with more shots” Also, the relative change in average group size and SD matters as well. If you have a small SD system you can identify meaningful changes with small groups if the delta of the average is high enough. If the SD is changing with the powder/bullet combinations then the large sample size will be needed to CONFIRM a good load. Struggle with the same things in the oil field in identifying what makes better wells when we’ll
This is where I lost all respect for EC. Eric is a decisive click-baiter. Jayden handled himself as a gentlemen in this interview, and I commend him for his skills in handling this nonsense..
