I wonder how many actually read or skim through all those pages???? Or did they just fixate on the Abstract at the top of the thesis????
The beginning is all really well done... Obviously written by someone that has been in the science field and understands writing journals. Very much appreciated the pictures and process for drilling the flash holes and reloading. Simple but still, all good stuff.
For me, things start to go sideways around pg 53 (top corner of the report).... When I set up an experiment, my first goal is to ensure my results are consistent and accurate but also reproduceable. And the tests I would run should eliminate all other variables except what I am trying to test and prove... no?
For accuracy testing, would you choose some of those ingredients?
Then the test rifles, optics, rests and bench might be suspect as well. But hey, 10rds on a sporter Rem 788. For all the effort to drill those cases, interesting choice of test equipment dont you think????
I think the ProChrono would be a hit now with most precision LR shooters... wonder what the inherent output error on this device would be????
Wonder what that error might have on the "absolute" values of the data. wonder what the results would be if any one section was repeated oh say, another time????
The real excitement starts at section 3.6 - Data Analysis. 3.6.1 is certainly my fave... Outlier removal. Worth a read. Then there is the distance from center analysis.. also interesting.
On a second read, I paid more attention to some of the charts and yes indeed, not all columns have the same number of data points. Would make sense to only use the data that MADE SENSE
But then it all comes together when you surf through many many pages of data.. no I didn't bother to review at this point. I did like that he highlighted the data point outliers that were removed. That was quite thorough don't you think...
I wanted to see his test targets. P198 is where it starts.... you can decide for yourself on how to compare each target and ammo spec with the other.
But my takeaway from this is that I also truly like the Outlier Removal... Referee, that shot is an outlier... it is much further away from my normal group and I feel it should be removed. I will take another shot in its place so that the results are a fairer representation of the quality of my shooting (data).
Wonder how that will fly at the new sanctioned match?
Whether FH diameters make a difference or not, this is not the report I am likely to be refering to in my discussions.
But hey, it must have passed "peer review".
Jerry
I view Master's research as a basis to see if something is worthy of further investigation and the beginning steps of proofing a model. I commend a young student for his attempt to research an interesting issue. I would also, as your comments are suggesting, NOT take the conclusions as gospel or make any assumptions based on this research. If the same conclusions were reached in a couple of different models by a few other independent researchers then...MAYBE...they are on to something.
