So, testing over several thousands of rounds, vibration analysis testing, both in a lab and live fire.. and a few world records and national championships... and multiple shooters, over 16 years should prove something works beyond being a theory? I wholeheartedly agree with that.
I cant think of another way to say it. If you want to prove how a tuner acts or works as a fact thats going to take a lot of testing. Compiling data to prove why it does what it does. If you just want to use a tuner, you shoot a hand full of groups and you done. Kind of like seating depth. If you wanted to know why it does what it does, thats going to take a lot of testing and data. But if you dont care why, you just go shoot a few groups and dial it in.
I feel like I've addressed this with my "sine wave test", due to that fact that it shows a user what they need to know to make a tuner work. This didn't start out about tuners, but yes, I felt the direction it was headed. So, here I am again. I've done both, compiling data from both why and how as well as develop a test that is practical, yet supports my work with them...so there is really no further response needed to address this.
And this information can be found .... where? Hey, if I can shortcut what I'm doing and learn in the process I'M IN!
Exactly. This thread is about the new idea that load development has to be done in a statistically valid way. Lots of groups and a lot of shots per group. Damon brought up the difference between the reasons why you would need to shoot a lot of groups in post #52. If you were trying to prove if something small like neck turning improved accuracy. You would need to shoot a lot more than a couple groups to prove that. Just like you would need to shoot a lot to prove what seating depth actually does or what a tuner is actually doing. But since we are talking about load development, not proving why or if something works we do not need to shoot statistically valid group sizes.
Happy to see that post Bro. I been saying it all along.
He didn't mention tuners Alex, as well as some other things. You know this and I replied. I kept asking for clarification... but now it comes. What am I supposed to think? You mentioned tuners. You mentioned testing and how many rounds it takes to test them. That wasn't me. And even after...I twice asked for clarification and after I put the monkey on your back, your say it has nothing to do with tuners. Are you kidding m,e?
No he didnt, I did as another example of why you would need to shoot a lot of groups. I should have just used a different example, since tuners are one of the last things I want to talk about.
I don't believe anyone is intentionally lying. Take that elsewhere.
You missing the point Mike. He is saying that when developing a load and then using the tuner, we don’t need a validated statistical analysis to know you are right-tuners work. We see it on paper in short order. And, for many of us newer guys and some of the older, we don’t care about the why; and getting drug around a theoretical debate about why does not help us to get our targets smaller.
Fine...That's why I asked twice. I wasn't looking for a debate with him.
Yep. I saw that. He could have just as easily said seating depth, or neck tension. Point would have been the same.
This needs to be emphasized. Statistical methods are valid and helpful if they are used properly and their limitations and assumptions are understood. Shooting multiple groups while changing a single variable is not a series of independent tests, and it’s foolish to treat them as such.
