Apologies, I have forgotten to mention the range, which is 300m.At what range were these targets shot? As an artilleryman, I see these results a bit differently. We artillerymen think of dispersion in terms of "CEP" - circular error of probability. The artllery CEP is a circle flat on the ground, and the statistic is the number of rounds that land inside the circle vs. the ones that land outside. So "CEP" takes into account, and combines, range probable error and lateral dispersion. The rifle targets above are akin to CEP targets, only vertical instead of horizontal.
What is significant to me is the number of hits within the "CEP" circle compared with the hits outside of it. That perspective makes the "JG11" still look pretty good.
It seems pretty straightforward here. The distance is known, 300m. The only thing theoretically tested here is the mechanical dispersion of the firearm + ammunition.
What I don't understand is the fact that you write "the number of hits within the CEP circle". By definition, if I understood it correctly, the very definition of the "CEP circle" is the radius formed by the impacts of 50% of the rounds shot, on target. Since both targets have 25 rounds on them (as specified), the number of shots inside this "CEP circle" is the same... no?
Therefore, what matters is the size of that radius. The Kar. 31's is tighter, the Ig. 11's is looser, as shown on the results above.
Back to square one. Why is there a preference on the Ig. 11 over the Kar. 31 "all things being equal", when you have the historical data as presented above clearly showing the opposite?