This test attempted to measure the friendliness of the scopes to multiple positions under a serious time crunch. The target was the standard target I’ve been using, a ~4.2” target, placed at 25 yards. The drill is as follows: Begin with a magazine of 5 rounds. 5 shots standing, reload with a magazine of 10 rounds. Shoot five rounds from kneeling, shoot five rounds from prone. A passing score requires all hits in 15 seconds or less.
Hits were measured as hits in the 5 zone, which is the primary target on the paper. A hit is defined as more than half the bullet hole being in the scoring ring. The target is printed on an 8.5” x 11” sheet of printer paper. Here is the target:
I spoke on accuracy and reliability of test results in the last post. This test turned out to be essentially invalid. I don’t believe that the problem was in the accuracy of the testing methodology. I think the test has the potential to measure what I intended to measure.
I believe that the problem is that my consistency of skill in solving this shooting problem was way too erratic. We all know that equipment is basically secondary to skill, within reason. Equipment does make a difference, especially when there is a great disparity between one item and the next. When the equipment is basically comparable in class, the differences will be fine. If the shooter’s consistency isn’t well within that margin, it won’t be possible to see how the equipment affected the differences in performance. That’s what happened here.
Here’s what I can say about what happened over the course of the testing:
I got faster. That is good.
My hit rate went rather steadily down. That is bad:
In the balance of speed and accuracy, my performance over time degraded. That is bad:
I was not great in the extreme close range type of shooting, but I was at least consistent enough to make a comparison. Tests 4 and 5, in the 100-400 yard venue, worked toward my strengths. This test was in a style in between the others. The subconscious lesson that ‘worked’ for me in test #2 also affected my shooting in this test, but the context was so different as to have a drastically different result. What saves your life on Sunday will get you killed on Monday.
In order to get better at this test I would first make an analysis of my gunhandling that was wasting time via video. Then I would reduce the distance (increasing the target size) until my hit rate would be 100% at the par time. Then I would gradually extend the distance. The idea is to begin where I actually am and steadily improve, pushing the edge of my envelope.
That is all. Thanks for reading.