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="Tcox" data-source="post: 2868942" data-attributes="member: 10058"><p>Gus, I do understand what your saying, however, don't you think that some of that is a bit unrealistic? I agree that human error plays its role in all testing, but human error in both shooting/loading methods is a constant. The same human shot the same weapon from the same location and received repeatable, consistent results. In my mind, this yielding in five reasonably consistent targets brings credible data. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, nothing is.</p><p></p><p>You may or may not have significantly more knowledge than I do in this but when a shooter knows for certain that he/she had a significant fault in shot placement wouldn't it substantially alter your data to include that shot? If a shooter "pulls" a shot The point of aim/point of impact would shift and that shot would be completely inconsistent with atleast the point of aim for the previous rounds? Nonetheless, include the flyer and this test shows an even more substantial increase in accuracy due to tighter tolerances in the loads. The outcome is the same. Omitting the flier I think is important and this test is only to show the difference on paper from precise or less precise loading. This wasn't a shooters ability test. Eliminating conscious human error is important because it is a known. I cannot factor subconscious human error.</p><p></p><p>I use a micrometer and check with a dial caliper. I have not had to calibrate since I have owned it but I check its calibration by measuring 3 known length cases. The dial caliper acts as insurance.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tcox, post: 2868942, member: 10058"] Gus, I do understand what your saying, however, don't you think that some of that is a bit unrealistic? I agree that human error plays its role in all testing, but human error in both shooting/loading methods is a constant. The same human shot the same weapon from the same location and received repeatable, consistent results. In my mind, this yielding in five reasonably consistent targets brings credible data. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, nothing is. You may or may not have significantly more knowledge than I do in this but when a shooter knows for certain that he/she had a significant fault in shot placement wouldn't it substantially alter your data to include that shot? If a shooter "pulls" a shot The point of aim/point of impact would shift and that shot would be completely inconsistent with atleast the point of aim for the previous rounds? Nonetheless, include the flyer and this test shows an even more substantial increase in accuracy due to tighter tolerances in the loads. The outcome is the same. Omitting the flier I think is important and this test is only to show the difference on paper from precise or less precise loading. This wasn't a shooters ability test. Eliminating conscious human error is important because it is a known. I cannot factor subconscious human error. I use a micrometer and check with a dial caliper. I have not had to calibrate since I have owned it but I check its calibration by measuring 3 known length cases. The dial caliper acts as insurance. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Ammo & Reloading
My proof: sweat the details
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom