Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
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
.
Forums
The Range
Ammo & Reloading
My proof: sweat the details
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gus Petch" data-source="post: 2868857" data-attributes="member: 5452"><p>Short of using a machine rest, you simply cannot exclude any human error or even reduce it to a negligible effect. Whether you realize it or not (or are willing to admit it), you are already predisposed to the tighter tolerance group producing "better", i.e. more repeatable, results or at least the results you want to obtain. You -- and any shooter, for that matter -- knowing a difference exists within the load makeup is more likely to induce (or reduce) any error within your control, consciously or subconsciously.</p><p></p><p>This still doesn't address any instrument calibration standards or potential discrepancies. What was used to verify the scale and caliper readings? Were the readings compared to those obtained from other devices?</p><p></p><p>You're obviously happy with your results, but none of them concludes anything one way or another.</p><p></p><p>A chronograph would offer some validation, as would a "blind" test involving other shooters (who can obtain repeatable results).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gus Petch, post: 2868857, member: 5452"] Short of using a machine rest, you simply cannot exclude any human error or even reduce it to a negligible effect. Whether you realize it or not (or are willing to admit it), you are already predisposed to the tighter tolerance group producing "better", i.e. more repeatable, results or at least the results you want to obtain. You -- and any shooter, for that matter -- knowing a difference exists within the load makeup is more likely to induce (or reduce) any error within your control, consciously or subconsciously. This still doesn't address any instrument calibration standards or potential discrepancies. What was used to verify the scale and caliper readings? Were the readings compared to those obtained from other devices? You're obviously happy with your results, but none of them concludes anything one way or another. A chronograph would offer some validation, as would a "blind" test involving other shooters (who can obtain repeatable results). [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Ammo & Reloading
My proof: sweat the details
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom