Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
Hornady at it again
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="hereinaz" data-source="post: 3011154" data-attributes="member: 110606"><p>I agree with the above, having listened to the podcast with this thread in mind, they just said they didn't see it in the fee rifles they tested. Their rifles, cartridges, ammo, and barrels really didn't seem to benefit.</p><p></p><p>In the scientific world, that's barely a start to prove or disprove whether tuners work. </p><p></p><p>I was convinced OCW worked, until I saw what Satterlee did, then I got lazy and just loaded up a good shooting combo and went to town shooting.</p><p></p><p>Seems like Hornady with their podcasts have justified my laziness, lol.</p><p></p><p>I knew statistics from business classes, how and why they work, but just went along with the "tests" from the internet cause they were what I found.</p><p></p><p>It was impossible, like I was blinded from seeing that 3 and 5 shot groups were not representative of the gun as a whole, and kept trying to figure out the "flyers", when they were just part of the natural dispersion.</p><p></p><p>I have been thinking about why the 3 shot phenomenon exists and why it is so hard to discuss. I mean, statistics are not easy to understand, so that's part of it. But, there is something even more powerful at work in the mind.</p><p></p><p>I call it the three shot slot machine. Maybe someone else has made the comparison, but so was listening to a podcast on behavioral/psychological science and it hit me.</p><p></p><p>I see shooters who live by their three shot groups, my gun is .25 moa if I do my part, like gamblers at a slot machine. If you believe there is anything significant about a three shot group, every group is like dropping a quarter into a slot machine and hoping for three of a kind. </p><p></p><p>A good gun will deliver more 3 of a kind in the statistical slot machine, but that doesn't mean it is a .25 gun. If it does a lot of them, then yeah it's a good gun for sure, but aggregating them means it's probably more like a .5 moa gun.</p><p></p><p>It's why the 1 moa three shot group guarantee is a joke from major manufacturers and why the .5 moa guarantee does mean what you think it means from some custom or high end makers too.</p><p></p><p>Play the slot rifle long enough and you'll win. I seriously think that is one reason three shot groups mean so much to some shooters. They are addicted to the pleasure our brain puts out to random awards of a slot machine or other gambling. </p><p></p><p>I seriously picture some people on the reloading bench and on the shooting bench just as addicted to the slot machine aspect of the shot dispersion.</p><p></p><p>They act so much like a person sitting at the slot machine. They are convinced that their little groups with three rounds mean something and something they did produced it. Our brains literally are programmed to crave solving problems like that. </p><p></p><p>It's why you get irrational resistance as soon as you say shoot a 20 or 30 shot group and tell me about it. "But, I have seen it!" </p><p></p><p>Or, why someone will spend hours and hundreds or thousands of dollars and dozens of hours on multiple loading variations with 3 or 5 shot groups, but they can't see how spending less money to test 30 shots will tell them things.</p><p></p><p>The brain craves the random slot machine type payouts. We aren't even aware of it. </p><p></p><p>Tuners are part of the same loading process. </p><p></p><p>It doesn't mean that tuners don't work or that meticulous loading doesn't work. </p><p></p><p>But, it does mean that those who question it are rebutted in large part by irrational or insignificant statistical analysis, which comes from a human/biological basis that creates a burning belief in it, even though it is false or unquantifiable.</p><p></p><p>It is why many people are offended when they are asked for verifiable and repeatable proof. It violates the irrational basis of a deep subconscious programming based on the pleasure of the act of shooting a small three shot group.</p><p></p><p>The brain doesn't like 5 shot groups, because it can break the pleasure from the 3 shot slot. But, it is still few enough shots that we can sneak in a small group, and "call a flyer". Beyond 5, we all know that we are going to get one or more that sooner or later that does not touch the rest of the group.</p><p></p><p>Shooting for 30 eventually shows that the flyers are just some of the natural dispersion. </p><p></p><p>We can't get the slot machine like pleasure from 10 and 30 round groups because statistically speaking, it would be like drawing only hearts from a deck. You could make a few three card draws of only red cards. But, the odds of pulling 10 of only red are significantly reduced. Being rare ruins the brains pleasure because there are too many failures that the brain has to endure.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hereinaz, post: 3011154, member: 110606"] I agree with the above, having listened to the podcast with this thread in mind, they just said they didn’t see it in the fee rifles they tested. Their rifles, cartridges, ammo, and barrels really didn’t seem to benefit. In the scientific world, that’s barely a start to prove or disprove whether tuners work. I was convinced OCW worked, until I saw what Satterlee did, then I got lazy and just loaded up a good shooting combo and went to town shooting. Seems like Hornady with their podcasts have justified my laziness, lol. I knew statistics from business classes, how and why they work, but just went along with the “tests” from the internet cause they were what I found. It was impossible, like I was blinded from seeing that 3 and 5 shot groups were not representative of the gun as a whole, and kept trying to figure out the “flyers”, when they were just part of the natural dispersion. I have been thinking about why the 3 shot phenomenon exists and why it is so hard to discuss. I mean, statistics are not easy to understand, so that’s part of it. But, there is something even more powerful at work in the mind. I call it the three shot slot machine. Maybe someone else has made the comparison, but so was listening to a podcast on behavioral/psychological science and it hit me. I see shooters who live by their three shot groups, my gun is .25 moa if I do my part, like gamblers at a slot machine. If you believe there is anything significant about a three shot group, every group is like dropping a quarter into a slot machine and hoping for three of a kind. A good gun will deliver more 3 of a kind in the statistical slot machine, but that doesn’t mean it is a .25 gun. If it does a lot of them, then yeah it’s a good gun for sure, but aggregating them means it’s probably more like a .5 moa gun. It’s why the 1 moa three shot group guarantee is a joke from major manufacturers and why the .5 moa guarantee does mean what you think it means from some custom or high end makers too. Play the slot rifle long enough and you’ll win. I seriously think that is one reason three shot groups mean so much to some shooters. They are addicted to the pleasure our brain puts out to random awards of a slot machine or other gambling. I seriously picture some people on the reloading bench and on the shooting bench just as addicted to the slot machine aspect of the shot dispersion. They act so much like a person sitting at the slot machine. They are convinced that their little groups with three rounds mean something and something they did produced it. Our brains literally are programmed to crave solving problems like that. It’s why you get irrational resistance as soon as you say shoot a 20 or 30 shot group and tell me about it. “But, I have seen it!” Or, why someone will spend hours and hundreds or thousands of dollars and dozens of hours on multiple loading variations with 3 or 5 shot groups, but they can’t see how spending less money to test 30 shots will tell them things. The brain craves the random slot machine type payouts. We aren’t even aware of it. Tuners are part of the same loading process. It doesn’t mean that tuners don’t work or that meticulous loading doesn’t work. But, it does mean that those who question it are rebutted in large part by irrational or insignificant statistical analysis, which comes from a human/biological basis that creates a burning belief in it, even though it is false or unquantifiable. It is why many people are offended when they are asked for verifiable and repeatable proof. It violates the irrational basis of a deep subconscious programming based on the pleasure of the act of shooting a small three shot group. The brain doesn’t like 5 shot groups, because it can break the pleasure from the 3 shot slot. But, it is still few enough shots that we can sneak in a small group, and “call a flyer”. Beyond 5, we all know that we are going to get one or more that sooner or later that does not touch the rest of the group. Shooting for 30 eventually shows that the flyers are just some of the natural dispersion. We can’t get the slot machine like pleasure from 10 and 30 round groups because statistically speaking, it would be like drawing only hearts from a deck. You could make a few three card draws of only red cards. But, the odds of pulling 10 of only red are significantly reduced. Being rare ruins the brains pleasure because there are too many failures that the brain has to endure. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
Hornady at it again
Top