Jayden Quinlan - Hornady Ballistician | #58

[@twwtb]

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.

[@loganwebb6447]

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.

[@gilbertopadilla3611]

I was thinking the same thing. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

[@timburke2785]

Totally agree you nailed it

[@wapitibob]

Yep, was a fan till I saw this one.

[@justsnuggle]

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.

[@johnbuck283]

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.

[@larrydesantis9800]

I didn't watch Hornady"s original Podcast, but I have to say I was very impressed with Quilan.

[@OGBRADASS]

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.

[@jmgates09]

Jayden does seem to know his shit

[@Howlin23]

Jayden is laying facts DOWN!

[@seanoconnor2986]

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.

[@craigsmith3671]

@@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.

[@tim1942]

@@seanoconnor2986 being attacked lol really, we are soft if this is being attacked

[@tyler6147]

@@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".

[@derekedgley5074]

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.

[@pstewart5443]

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.

[@dwaynewood8156]

This is a perfect example of peaple only hearing what they want to hear

[@papaswoodshop4873]

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!

[@MMBRM]

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.

[@anestheticorange]

they mention it in the hornady podcast

[@stuartgregory7887]

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.

[@lukewarm_fuzz]

"Have you ever seen a 1/4 MOA gun over 150 rounds?" "No" "Neither have I."

[@halisidrysdale]

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 :)

[@freeandcriticalthinker4431]

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 take it you’re either an engineer or never worked with on…. Computers and calculators aren’t always right…..

[@freeandcriticalthinker4431]

@@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.

[@JamesM-l5g]

Hahaha, I love this pod cast. Both these guys are great! Appreciate it

[@AF1RETZ]

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]

The problem is Erik does not get the basic statistical methods and terms

[@justinbenjamin4651]

@@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''

[@xstevenx8132]

⁠@@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.

[@craigsmith3671]

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.

[@BelieveTheTarget]

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.

[@nickdobsch7443]

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...

[@cameronkendrick502]

Look at what can happen when you approach a conversation with an open mind! The key to greatness is on show in this podcast!!

[@timburke2785]

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!

[@userJohnSmith]

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.

[@jatollar]

@@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.

[@userJohnSmith]

@@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.

[@jatollar]

@@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.

[@userJohnSmith]

@@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.

[@raylong9382]

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!!!

[@meme-cc8os]

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...

[@davidschmidt5810]

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!

[@plstein20]

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.

[@tonystewart7287]

@@plstein20Yes the rest of us would call it smaller lol😂

[@newerest1]

@@plstein20 spoken in other words, most people greatly embellish their guns accuracy because everyone else does too

[@jennifermorgan6913]

I agree. Semantics seems to be the major point of disagreement in this conversation.

[@brucegoode6009]

Excellent interview, Erik. Jayden was a well-spoken, highly knowledgeable guest.

[@jufengzhang4666]

Jayden was presenting his statistical conclusion. Erik was all about his ego.

[@BelieveTheTarget]

Cool story bro. 😜

[@briandelong6056]

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.

[@DLoh2o1]

Great content gentleman. Erik, can you imagine having Brian and Jayden on with you at the same time? I would pay dearly to hear that podcast!

[@MrMillez]

Jayden, a very humble men. Respect.

[@mrzrog]

The doctor analogy was amazing.

[@danielcrossland6915]

Good podcast, great clarity. These are all helping on the general bag of knowledge I hunger for. Thank you.

[@BelieveTheTarget]

Our pleasure!

[@mikecowan3222]

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!

[@TrevorCazes]

commercials every 6-11 minutes is going to be the death of this for me. it wasnt a bad show but dang.

[@erp1776]

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.

[@blh1975]

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!!

[@brentrasmussen2440]

Glad to see Jayden on the show!

[@sf2189]

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.

[@johnnyrobbins1763]

Jacks sample size wasn’t small. It was derived from years and years of shooting his sample size. He knew in 2 shots what he was looking for

[@sf2189]

@@johnnyrobbins1763 that’s exactly my point. Agreed.

[@MMBRM]

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.

[@rotasaustralis]

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.

[@RabbitSlayer48]

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.

[@difficult_aardvark]

Not how sampling works at all. Those numbers are entirely vase dependent.

[@Vintage-406]

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.

[@john-draftanimal]

Jayden, your comment on 'average group size' vs actual individual samplings was an exact ecample of the concept subsampling vs population distribution was spot on. Usually when we teach concepts like this in a datascience class we use graphical illlustrations ie probability curves. The rest is also quite spot on as far as the math/statistics/scientific methods go. Just better with illustrations, thats how the brain works for most

[@georgedeedsnotwords2162]

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 .

[@longview00]

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.

[@luloadventure]

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.

[@BelieveTheTarget]

Working on it!

[@trey]

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

[@JamesM-l5g]

Erick needs to go spend a few days at Hornady. That would be great for both of them.

[@wyattgraham5711]

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!

[@theLTrain700E]

I almost just gave up- "precision reloading " because it sounded like it was almost all futile. So glad it was all cleared up

[@airgunslugslingers]

Interesting and extremely knowledgeable guest. Great podcasts , thanks Erik.

[@repairfreak]

Another fantastic conversation Eric. Keep bringing these experts on for us to learn from. Love your channel. Rock on! ✌️😎👍

[@hulley5223]

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.

[@grahamsperry7048]

Great and informative discission. Thanks both.

[@hondas562]

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.

[@newerest1]

If someone says their gun is 1/4 moa gun I expect it to 9/10 times shoot a 1/4 moa

[@TheKaihi]

@@newerest1 actualy 97 out of 100 times

[@mckimmym]

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

[@propertypreparedness6846]

I am new to the podcast. JQ is one of the brightest minds in ballistics. He has to take everything into consideration and manufacture for millions of people. What some dude does with his custom rifle and custom bullets… no matter the results, can’t sniff JQs jock strap.

[@BelieveTheTarget]

“No matter the results…” 🤦‍♂️😂

[@emoryzakin2576]

Well this changed how I'm looking at load development. Love it

[@LongRangeApproach]

If we all agreed on everything then we'd learn nothing. Great discussion guys!

[@cs7285]

Wow! Was hoping this one might come!

[@Lemur70]

I have to say that no matter what I always learn a lot. I think I would like also to listen to the Hornady podcast and take in all the imfomation I can to make an informed opinion. I think here I see more a difference in definitions than a difference on facts. Thank you Erik and Jayden. So far I have only watched half and need to finish later.

[@esw2348]

Erik… you did shoot are large data set for that load… multiple 5 shot group spread over several barrels.

[@newerest1]

that's not large

[@Guitarjourney4life]

Just subbed to Eriks new channel. Size Matters. In all seriousness I enjoy these conversations. Knowledgeable host and guests.

[@briany7508]

Great conversation on both ends.

[@themazmanmechanic]

He was quoting bryan litz, from the other interview. The precentages he was talking were exactly the same.

[@buddyeast1928]

Actually, they are both quoting normal standard deviation distribution.

[@milesn3173]

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.

[@tim1942]

I don’t know what’s better the comments or the podcast love them all keep it up guys

[@travisteuton1408]

Did you listen to their podcast?. They literally said 20 to 30 will verify your loads

[@ClaytonMacleod]

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.

[@TexasTrained]

I am thankful for Hornady and their testying.They do thebest they can as anyone would think.They test in perfect condidtions.I put more store in what bullets do with Bryan Litz tests out in the real world of my type of shooting.I wish Hornady had more stringent QC. They bullets weigths are not very consistent out of a box.I stillshoot them but I weigh and measure and seperate them to groups. Match group/,Sighters and Foulers. I do respect what Jayden has tpo offer.Too many times people get Defensive when confronted with things they dont know.Myself included.Thanks,Jayden for trying to help us shoot better,

[@craigsmith3671]

Jayden, Spot on information. You got it right. Ever wonder why the government requires large sample size accuracy testing for sniper ammo acceptance criteria for lots of ammo? Cause sample size matters . Btw,. The only reason those 2 shot groups mattered for the benchrest shooter is because they delivered consistent performance across several groups, even if only a couple shots per group, hence a large sample size! The fact that the winning barrel consistently performed well is what mattered.

[@thelarry6864]

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.

[@tonydevich7937]

I'm liking both of your opinions

[@18wheelsandadozen6shooters5]

Great job boys! Keep up the good work!!

[@plstein20]

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.

[@therevoman]

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

[@nrspence8258]

Great podcast, I knew a lot of common ground would be found.

[@Michael-rg7mx]

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!

[@1clnsdime1]

I like how you worded that. There was a disconnect in what you guys were saying AND what I was hearing.

[@jamesmooney5348]

Great job Erik! You can can his method of finding the powder charge load the "Jayquillian Method" But Jayquillian did do ok.... in the end.... sorta...

[@WillLeviMarshall]

Well done done guys I think Eric was brave to ask big dog Jayden on. I really enjoy this kind of think

[@matthewrogers9766]

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.

[@swarmar3085]

“It all matters how you listen” was very well said Erick. All education cost in the class room or the field… don’t lose the curiosity. Thank you both.

[@dannaomif1255]

My Hornady factory ammo shoots 0 MOA single shot groups all day long out my Ruger American 🤙

[@joe69trump69]

Forgot to add “if I do my part”

[@mark-koba]

​@@joe69trump69Technically his part is just putting that single shot on paper to prove that it is indeed a zero MOA dispersion single shot grouo. 😂😂

[@andyjonathan2486]

23:35: “observed precision.” Shots fired!

[@davecollins6113]

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.

[@brentrasmussen2440]

44:18 "Why is that when records happen..." the best part of the discussion came right after this comment.

[@stricklyreloading8494]

I think Hornady should invite Erik (and a few of his choice friends) up to their facility and have them shoot their own rifles and ammo in Hornady's wind tunnel, using the same coarse of fire that Hornady used in their testing. Now THAT's a video I'd like to see

[@elyrobison6316]

“I shoot precisely with no precision” is what I got from this.

[@MaxairEngineering]

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.

[@devrinmg]

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 👏🏻

[@atairuy]

Great talk, thanks a ton for doing this

[@stevepodleski]

I wish Erik would have asked Jayden: if a rifle shots an average of 1/4moa at 100yd, what would you expect at 1000yd?

[@JEMadaras]

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.

[@BelieveTheTarget]

Correct. According to BR shooters, F-Class is not a precision sport either. Lol

[@lisaannaallen6283]

rail benchrest

[@seanoconnor2986]

I would propose shooting a 1 MOA plate off of a stack of tires is more difficult than shooting a 1 MOA target prone with a front rest.

[@timshia]

🎉🎉

[@LeftEdgePrecision]

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.

[@timnowak7749]

1/4 inch gun shoots 1/4 inch only 1/4 inch gun average shoots one hole groups to 1/2 inch group So simple😊

[@Greyzonecompliant]

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 😉

[@plstein20]

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.

[@blindboyjonny]

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…

[@tyler6147]

On the drag curve podcasts an analogy will help. Imagine if you drove your car from point A to Point B. Along the way you have some areas where you can drive 70mph, but in other areas you can only go 30mph and have lots of stop lights. At the end of the trip you can look at the totality of the trip and come up with a single number for the gas mileage, which would be equal to the BC model. In reality though your gas mileage varies along the route depending on which leg of the trip you are on. With shooting the bullet slows down from the second it leaves the barrel so technically all along the way the BC is changing because of speed variables. And hence the problem is most ballistic solvers use just one overall BC that it considers as a constant the whole way. Because of that the old solvers are only accurate to a degree before it starts to deviate from reality. The new models basically are much more complex and hence account for what the actual BC is at the muzzle and every 50 yards (or whatever) down range. How it does the math is different in the new way vs the old way.

[@tim1942]

Precision shooting is group size not just hits

[@kilekinney253]

read Jeff Siewert's AMMUNITION DEMYSTFIED and you shall be amazed at the complications of ballistics. I wish we had this book years ago (published in 2022) These podcast by Erik and Hornady (Jayden) are informative and fantastic

[@nathanmanley4203]

So excited for this one

[@williamkillingsworth2619]

this is dang good information

[@lukeeskola3434]

I wish it had more commercials

[@o2wow]

Sampling is a tricky business, there are tables to determine sampling sizes based on the population and the level of confidence you want to achieve. You have to know what level of confidence you require before designing a sailing plan. This a common concern for sampling things like fasteners in the aircraft and nuclear industries.

[@jimmiller6030]

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.

[@blantant]

Good stuff. Obviously more sample size is better but unrealistic and expensive. What's the right study size? in stats that's like Power analysis, no? Designing the right size sample to detect a specific hypothesis.

[@gregphillips8299]

Absolute gold guys