Here’s a graph of the cost vs average 5-shot group size of the 21 precision rifles that have been used in the Backfire Accuracy challenge so far. What do you make of it?
1 Like
My statistical analysis neurons have atrophied significantly, and there’s definitely an issue of sample size here since if you use $5,000 as a cut off, There are roughly two times the Number of samples below that as there are above.
But it does look to me that if you did use that 5,000 cut off, the average group size below that is shifted to the right compared to the group size above that cut off.
There’s a lot of overlap there in the middle range
The 12500 and 2500 both getting 0.5” groups
Well, it looks like 13 of 21 were under a minute. The best performing rifle, at guessing around 0.12" was not the most expensive. The most expensive rifle barely outperformed one of the least expensive rigs. Ten of the 21 grouped between 0.50" and 1.00", so this represents roughly half of the group. Those rifles ranged roughly between $2000 to $6500. Seven of the 10 in this group were $5,000 or less. So, this says to me, the most expensive gun will not necessarily be the most accurate and overall, spending more than $5,000 on a percision rifle is not justified.
What distance was the 5-shot group measured at?
Few thoughts:
-
In general, we suck at shooting. Most of us (myself included) would be better served by practicing more instead of buying another gun.
-
It will be interesting to see if patterns develop in relation to gun parts. Certain stocks, barrels, actions etc. outperforming others in the field as the data set grows.
-
I want to see the cartridge in relation to the plotted points above. Right now, I’m starting to believe more and more that recoil is the single most important factor in one’s ability to shoot well. No data to back this up, but I bet over 6mm cartridges, you start seeing a big dip in accuracy.
I’m not saying people can’t shoot bigger cartridges well, but I think they are not practicing with them like they should because they’re not fun to shoot. I got a Sako 90 in 300 Win Mag last year. Shoots fantastic, but I hate taking it to the range and will likely be selling it and moving back down for elk.
Also, just buy the Tikka /Sako and save yourself some money unless you are doing PRS.
1 Like
Also, is that price of rifle by itself, or rifle Plus scope, or rifle plus scope Plus accessories??
Graph says full cost of gear, excluding suppressor.
Unless for PRS, you might have a point, buy a Tikka/Sako and spend the rest on ammo to practice.
That’s similar to what they preach in the defensive pistol world. Purchase a glock, several magazines to go with it, and a case of ammo, and save up for a course or two or three.
Run a linear regression on it and tell us what the values of R (correlation coefficient) and R-squared (coefficient of determination) are.
Just hearing those terms again makes cringe… correlation coefficient and coefficient of determination…arrrrhhhhghhhh
1 Like
I don’t think you go just based off of cost. Some rifle calibers are inherently more precise and accurate. Sometimes you can’t compare apples to different varietys of apples.
I don’t think that we can draw any RELIABLE conclussions because these results are from different calibers and more importantly, different shooters.
1 Like
I think you are right for two reasons. First, there are now a good number of data points, but probably not quite enough for statistical power. Second, I think you are highlighting that there may be non-linear relationships between the independent variables, so linear regression may not be the best for analysis. More data and consider a polynomial regression or other test for non-linear data.
I have several different pistols, from carry to competition. Of all of them, including my primary carry pistol, a Kimber Micro 9 outshoots the Glock. None of my handguns cost over $1200, and that was for a Gold Cup National Match, otherwise, average cost is around $450. Outside of GSSF competition you don’t find Glocks out there in the bullseye shooting world, simply because they are not accurate enough.
I do not own any precision rifles, none of my rifles cost more than $1000, excluding optics. All are conventional bolt actions and all shoot between 0.4 and 0.75 inches at 100 yards using for the most part handloads. The Winchester XPR 6.8 Western likes the 162 gr factory best, shooting groups around 0.6. The 338 Win Mag likes both factory and handloads from 200 to 250 gr, all shooting between 0.4 and 0.7 inches. Of all my rifles the Tikka T3x 270 is the most consistent, especially with Federal 140 gr Nosler Trophy bonded with 0.45 to 0.5 my handloads slightly larger at 0.5 to 0.6 All the group sizes have been verified out to 300 yards since that is the longest range I have available within reasonable driving distance. Personally I think that the non precise, precision rifles are a waste of money when out of the box standard hunting rifles can outshoot them without all the gimmicks.
So the cheapest rifle used in the challenge is around $2k total? My experience is that once you spend the ~$1k-$1.5k on a top of the line barrel blank and gunsmith to fit it for you, that’s kind of the practical upper limit of what money will buy in terms of accuracy potential.
I don’t shoot long range. Perhaps, a custom PRS rifle shooting 0.3" groups at 100 has an advantage when you range out to 1000 over a factory rifle shooting 0.7" groups. For hunting, I agree.