Here is a 20 shot group

[Nicole Hamilton]

It seemed to me (and apparently also to others, judging by the comments) that pretty much everything that might be said on the matter had already been said. We were beginning to repeat and also -- and I'm as guilty as anyone, so please don't take this as finger pointing -- as frustrations rose, it was becoming a little personal. That's never okay, which is what prompted me to realize it was time to apologize and move on.

[Steve Swartz]

I went back and reread the whole thread (yeah, slow day).

It's human nature; it seemed that pretty quickly in the thread we all suffered from the "talking past each other" phenomenon.

Seems like we actually had plenty of core areas of agreement actually.

Nobody said "Never adjust your sights" (although some folks seemed to think that's what was said).

Nobody said "Chase your sights" (although some folks seemed to think that's what was said).

The key issue- when and how to adjust your sights in a match, and what it means to do so- is still a good topic and worthy of discussion.

Maybe we can have that discussion after we all sober up.

Just my $0.02; Your Mileage May Vary; Not Valid in Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands; For What It's Worth; etc. . . . .

Steve Swartz

[Nicole Hamilton]

You said it a whole lot better than I did, Steve, but, yes, that was my take. Thank you.

[CraigE]

Lots of egos clashing ....but I think it is correct that we all chase the same elusive goal. I take what mileage I can get. CraigE

[2650 Plus]

My Rule Called X result 9 at 3. Sometimes change sight 1 click left Next shot Called X result 9 at 3;30 always take 1 click left Justification 9 right is worth just as much as a 9 left.and I have already given a 2 point advantage to that hot shot marine 2 firing points to my right

[mikej]

This has nothing to do with math or pointy headed people. I am trying to provide quality advise for new shooters. Unfortunately, your experience in the science world had led to you providing an opinion that a new shooter may think is correct. I hate to say it, but your reasoning for leaving the sights "as is" is incorrect.

Feel free to express your opinion as you wish...allow others to do the same

[Nicole Hamilton]

This pot's been cold for over a year. I don't think we need to stir it again.

[mikej]

Yikes , so it is . old hat, i'll move on

[Mark Briggs]

To Richard's point, the system of which we speak is indeed an unstable system. The greatest single destabilizer is in fact the human behind the pistol. While I agree with Nichole's analysis in the abstract, I disagree most vehemently with it as applied to the practical sport of pistol shooting. Some of the elements which her analysis does not factor in are in fact the most important elements in the equation - chiefly, the ability of the human eye to perceive sight picture.

While the sights themselves are mechanical and thus represent a stable system the poor old Human Eyeball, Mark I, is subject to fatigue and thus over time (yes, as little time as that taken to fire a 20-shot string) are capable of presenting to the targetting computer (Human Brain, Mark I) a very different perception of sight picture.

Additionally, lighting conditions have a huge impact on sight picture perception and thus mean point of impact. Unless a shooter is firing from exactly the same firing point week after week in training she is going to encounter different lighting conditions and will have to make sight adjustments to match those lighting conditions. This is especially true of events shot outdoors where lighting conditions will change not just from position to position but also will change drastically over the duration of a match. The shooter needs to be mentally prepared for this and needs to be willing to make a few clicks of adjustment to track the changes in ambient conditions.

So, in short, a group of 3 or so shots does indeed represent a statistically viable sample when in the middle of a match. If you need to click your sights one way or the other to move that group into the X-ring, then do it. Obviously one doesn't want to be chasing shots all over the target - Steve's suggestion about performing an analysis of the basics is a definite prerequisite to adjusting the sights. I've failed to make the necessary changes during a match and have paid dearly. On the other hand, I don't ever regret having taken a few clicks to adjust the point of impact into the 10-ring!

[Mark Briggs]

There's something fishy going on here... Yes, this post is old, and 4 pages long. When I looked at it on first reading it was just 2 pages long. Then I posted and saw something completely different. Hmmmm, I wonder what's up?

No matter how you cut it, this has been a good thread. Nicole has presented viewpoints that cause some important things to happen - namely THINKING about the whole problem. While some comments may have become personal (such a shame) there is good benefit to be had by getting all the points out in the open so we can collectively ponder them. After all, that's how we learn to improve our shooting!

[Nicole Hamilton]

Fwiw, my attitude has changed somewhat in the last year. I still wouldn't necessarily adjust my sights based on a single target, but I also wouldn't be as slow to change them as I used to be. In some cases, I might consider a change after only a few shots, just so long as they're all in a nice tight group that landed differently than I called (and I have some confidence in my calls.)

But a lot of that is because of the same factors I identified a year ago as making a difference have changed: Today, I'm a little better shooter than I was a year ago, my groups are better and I'm becoming more aware of how lighting changes or how tired I am can affect me. So it's easier for me to decide whether any given target is just a random outcome or evidence I should adjust my sights. In effect, the data's higher quality, so I don't need as much of it.

Still, I tend to be pretty conservative. I'll do a click or two and see what happens. A fair amount of the time, I'll realize it did not get better and I'll undo it. :)

But even so, this only applies to iron sights. I do not find it necessary to tweak a red-dot, except over a very long haul.

[Elmas]

Couldnt resist having a say !

But I confess to not reading 90% of the thread , its too long !!.. so I may well be repeating what other(s) have said already.. if so , sorry !!

If one is shooting with one's own pistol , the sights should be correct for the last 'target milieu' .

In a match , click adjustments to the sights seem logical ONLY at the start , when one adjusts to the range's particular lighting conditions IF they are different from our own range . And only after 'making sure' .

Sights should not be readjusted during the match for fear of 'losing one's way' .

If one finds that ones shots are landing ( grouping ) in a place other than the center... look for other causes and not click the sights.. for there is no reason to assume that your adjustment has changed !
So , its something else thats moving you off center. Look for that something else .


Elmas

.

[Nicole Hamilton]

If one finds that ones shots are landing ( grouping ) in a place other than the center... look for other causes and not click the sights.. for there is no reason to assume that your adjustment has changed !
So , its something else thats moving you off center. Look for that something else .

This is a pretty good point. For example, when I notice my shots are off a little to the left or the right, especially in FP, it's virtually always my NPA that's off. I need to move my feet, not my sights.

[Guest]

Your point of aim may well change throughout a shoot and to ignore it is asking for inferior results. ... Your sights are there for a reason and if you shoot a technically perfect shot that doesn't end up being that on the target then you need to rectify whatever the problem is.

Sorry, Rob, the math doesn't support you, and neither does your argument about the technically perfect shot.

You should adjust your sights only when the probability is greater than 50% that doing so will improve your score, meaning you have statistically significant data suggesting that if you moved your probabilistic distribution of shots, that it would be better centered. To know whether you're over that 50% threshold requires, even if you do it by eyeballing it, that you consider (a) the sample size, (b) the distance by which the sample is off, (c) the shape of distribution from which the sample is taken and (d) your confidence that you actually know the distribution.

By way of illustration, consider two shooters of vastly different skill levels and a third of unknown skill. Shooter A is a robot who always puts every round through the same ragged hole. Shooter B is completely unskilled and produces a wide bell-shaped distribution with a standard deviation that's several feet across at the target distance. Shooter C is of unknown skill. Now suppose each shooter fires one round and each hits the 6-ring at 2 o'clock. What should you do?

The answer is that you're only justified in adjusting the sights for shooter A. For shooter B, the distribution is known but a sample size of one shot and an error of only a few rings is too small to be meaningful. For shooter C, you don't know the distribution to know if the sample is meaningful.

In real life, most shooters are neither robots nor blind men and they have some history to tell us about their usual performance. If the shooter is very skilled with a lot of history to tell us he always produces a very tight group, it may not take many shots or, alternately, for them to be very far off to be able to say with confidence that the sights are off. But with a novice shooter, it takes a larger sample and/or a larger discrepancy.

Given just a single target, e.g., the one posted at the beginning of this thread, I don't think that's enough data to tell you if the sights should be adjusted. Who's to say that even with no adjustment of the sights, that the next target won't just happen to be the mirror image, off by the same amount but in the opposite direction? The only way to know would be if we had more targets telling us that this shooter always produces very tight groups (confirming that a small error in a small sample is meaningful) or that even if it was a fluke that this group was so tight, it is nonetheless part of a pattern showing the distribution is off-center.

Regarding the "technically perfect shot," we need to return to question of what the objective is in adjusting the sights.

If the objective is to have all "technically perfect shots" in the 10-ring even if only the occasional shot is technically perfect and all the rest display have the same flaw, e.g., a consistent error in the sight picture, then sure, be my guest, adjust your sights for those occasional shots.

But if the objective is to maximize score, then it's not about where the technically perfect shots end up on the paper, it's about what happens to the overall distribution of shots, regardless of what skill or lack thereof is displayed in any given shot.

Many top shooters at worldcups adjusts their sights along the match. Some clicks here and there. But since you talk like you have multiple OG and WC titles you must know better than them...

[Nicole Hamilton]

But since you talk like you have multiple OG and WC titles you must know better than them...

You're stirring a pot that's been cold for over a year. Everyone knows I'm only a very ordinary shooter.

[Give it a break]

Many top shooters at worldcups adjusts their sights along the match. Some clicks here and there. But since you talk like you have multiple OG and WC titles you must know better than them...

Shhhh. If we're all quiet the troll might go away.

[pgfaini]

Many top shooters at worldcups adjusts their sights along the match. Some clicks here and there. But since you talk like you have multiple OG and WC titles you must know better than them...

Too bad we don't have a way to seperate the guests from the party crashers!

Paul

[alb]

But since you talk like you have multiple OG and WC titles you must know better than them...

Actually, Nichole talks like an engineer. I know ... cause I are one!

The fact is, radial error in shot placement follows a Rayleigh probability distribution. And the size of the group, for any given number of shots, follows a gamma probability distribution. And the average size of a shot group, based on the number of shots fired, follows a probability distribution derived by H.E. Daniels in his paper, "The Covering Circle of a Sample From a Circular Normal Distribution", 1952.

What does any of this mean? In practical terms, any time you shoot another shot at the target, the size of the group either stays the same or gets larger. Not only that, the center of the group changes as well. And when you shoot groups with a specific number of shots, the groups will vary in size, following a random probability distribution. Not only that, but the center of the group will change randomly as well. It's easy enough to verify this by applying an algorithim to drop outlying shots in such a way that the resulting group size is minimized. This can be done using something like the Elzinga-Hearn covering circle algorithm.

The point here is that the center of a shot group has a certain amount of randomness associated with it.

When I adjust my sights, I do it based on 50-shot groups. Once I've set my sights, I almost never need to change them. The size of my groups can vary randomly, as can the center -- to a much smaller degree. But once my sights are correctly set, I almost never need to change them.

This is a good strategy for testing the accuracy of ammunition, as well as for training, since we are interested in training ourselves to produce the smallest possible groups. But, is it a good strategy for producing the highest possible score in a match?

Well, if changing the sights results in larger groups, maybe not. The question is, are we changing the sights to adapt to changing physical conditions, like cross-wind, or shooter fatigue, or are we changing the sights to try to compensate for naturally occurring random variations in the center of our shot group -- something that we can't deternine with a high degree of accuracy by simply eyeballing it, and which will change to some extent with the next shot anyway?

If you are someone who has "multiple OG and WC titles," then you are probably pretty confident in your skill, and most likely, if you feel the need to change your sights, it's because of a real, changing physical condition. For the rest of us, the degree of randomness may far exceed the variation caused by changing physical conditions. So, for we mere mortals, it would probably be a far better strategy to leave the sights alone.

The math isn't some abstract, theoretical thing that has no bearing on reality. Rather, it provides a deeper understanding of reality and how we can manipulate it to our advantage.

Regards,

Al B.

[Guest]

But since you talk like you have multiple OG and WC titles you must know better than them...

Actually, Nichole talks like an engineer. I know ... cause I are one!

The fact is, radial error in shot placement follows a Rayleigh probability distribution. And the size of the group, for any given number of shots, follows a gamma probability distribution. And the average size of a shot group, based on the number of shots fired, follows a probability distribution derived by H.E. Daniels in his paper, "The Covering Circle of a Sample From a Circular Normal Distribution", 1952.

What does any of this mean? In practical terms, any time you shoot another shot at the target, the size of the group either stays the same or gets larger. Not only that, the center of the group changes as well. And when you shoot groups with a specific number of shots, the groups will vary in size, following a random probability distribution. Not only that, but the center of the group will change randomly as well. It's easy enough to verify this by applying an algorithim to drop outlying shots in such a way that the resulting group size is minimized. This can be done using something like the Elzinga-Hearn covering circle algorithm.

The point here is that the center of a shot group has a certain amount of randomness associated with it.

When I adjust my sights, I do it based on 50-shot groups. Once I've set my sights, I almost never need to change them. The size of my groups can vary randomly, as can the center -- to a much smaller degree. But once my sights are correctly set, I almost never need to change them.

This is a good strategy for testing the accuracy of ammunition, as well as for training, since we are interested in training ourselves to produce the smallest possible groups. But, is it a good strategy for producing the highest possible score in a match?

Well, if changing the sights results in larger groups, maybe not. The question is, are we changing the sights to adapt to changing physical conditions, like cross-wind, or shooter fatigue, or are we changing the sights to try to compensate for naturally occurring random variations in the center of our shot group -- something that we can't deternine with a high degree of accuracy by simply eyeballing it, and which will change to some extent with the next shot anyway?

If you are someone who has "multiple OG and WC titles," then you are probably pretty confident in your skill, and most likely, if you feel the need to change your sights, it's because of a real, changing physical condition. For the rest of us, the degree of randomness may far exceed the variation caused by changing physical conditions. So, for we mere mortals, it would probably be a far better strategy to leave the sights alone.

The math isn't some abstract, theoretical thing that has no bearing on reality. Rather, it provides a deeper understanding of reality and how we can manipulate it to our advantage.

Regards,

Al B.

I'd rather take advices from top shooters than from people spreading the shots all over the target. :-)

[alb]

I'd rather take advices from top shooters than from people spreading the shots all over the target. :-)

I'll start by making the perhaps unwarranted assumption that you aren't a "top shooter" -- otherwise, you would most likely have said so. I'll make the further assumption that you don't have a very solid foundation in math or much of an understanding of randomness and probablity, and the effect that randomness has in everyday life, and in particular, pistol shooting. Otherwise, you would have responded to my post in kind, rather than with an ad hominem attack.

So, I'll try to explain the point that I was making in non-mathematical terms.

If you look at the post that started this thread, you'll see a target that represents an atypically tight group for this shooter, based on his own statement, as well as his stetement that his best match score so far is 490 and the fact that he has only been shooting for four months. Based on this, I would estimate that the RANDOM variation in the location of the center of his 20-shot groups is at least 4 to 5 MOA (8 to 10 clicks), or about 0.5 inches -- roughly the diameter of the 10-ring. Furthermore, the RANDOM variation in the location of the center of his 5-shot groups is probably considerably greater than that.

The center of his shot group appears to be a little over 1/4 of an inch high and 1/4 of an inch to the right -- well within the range of variation that we would expect to see occurring RANDOMLY about 68% of the time.

When you change your sights to compensate for RANDOM variations in the location of your shot groups, then you are, in effect, changing your sights RANDOMLY. When you change your sights RANDOMLY throughout a match, all that you really accomplish is to reduce the accuracy of your pistol. When you you reduce the accuracy of your pistol, your aggregate group size will increase. This increase in aggregate group size, based on a RANDOM reduction in accuracy, TRANSLATES TO LOWER SCORES.

This was my point.

When a "top shooter" shoots, the RANDOM variation in his group size is considerably smaller than for average shooters, such as you and I, and the RANDOM variation in the center of his shot group is considerably smaller as well.

For a world-class shooter, given the shot group in the original post, it would make a lot of sense for him to adjust his sights 2 to 3 clicks down and 2 to 3 clicks to the left (about half of the difference from the center of the shot group to the center of the target).

For the original poster, if his shot group were centered on the 7-ring, then it would certainly make sense for him to adjust his sights by about 5 clicks (about half of the difference from the center of the shot group to the center of the target) to compensate for a REAL change in POI. But, this shooter, as well as shooters such as you and I, simply lack the degree of PRECISION of world-class shooters. So attempting to apply their strategy on the scale at which they apply it, only serves to decrease the accuracy of the pistol and reduce our scores.

Furthermore, by reducing the effective accuracy of the pistol, we deprive ourselves of the valuable feedback that the target provides, making it much more difficult for us to improve our level of skill.

Regards,

Al B.