• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Statistics

I mean if your going to try to figure out how or why something does what it does, that requires a lot of data to prove your theory. But if you just want to use it, you can shoot a relatively small amount to make it work.
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.
But again, I might be misunderstanding your previous post Alex. If so, please clarify so that I don't continue to take this off subject.
What's being put out by "everyone?"
 
Last edited:
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.
But again, I might be misunderstanding your previous post Alex. If so, please clarify so that I don't continue to take this off subject.
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.
 
Last edited:
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 handle 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.
It's not what I considered cost prohibitive to do either time, that we conducted vibration testing. Your problem is gonna be having someone qualified to help, but I hope you and they will do it too. When you get done, I'm very interested to see what you learn that is of value to 99.99% of people here or anywhere. If not for the help I had, I would've had no idea how to do the testing...much less interpret it. Get to work!! You're only 16 years behind on what it appears you're asking for. You da man, right? Do it and I'll wait on you.

Actually, I'm not waiting on anybody and I'm working on a totally new tuner....while others debate if they work or not.
 
Last edited:
There are thing’s generally accepted as true even though there has been no statistically validated test to prove them. Tuners generally work if used appropriately and for the right purpose. We don’t need a validated statistical test to prove it. We have seen it enough on targets to accept it as fact.

Increasing powder charge can take a gun in and out of tune. No validated test needed to prove it. We see it on the target. You can say the same about neck tension or seating depth.

I could give a rat’s hiney about why or how these things work. The guys shooting record targets are enough validation for me. I will spend my time trying to figure out things that will actually make me shoot better, like the wind, and what adjustments to make to the tuner, seating depth, neck tension or charge to make the bullet go where I want it to go. If they all go in the same hole when I make the assessed adjustment, I don’t worry about figuring out why the adjustment worked. I am happy that I got it right and learned something for the next time around. If I get I wrong and the groups get larger as a result, I learn from that to.

Carry on.
 
There are thing’s generally accepted as true even though there has been no statistically validated test to prove them. Tuners generally work if used appropriately and for the right purpose. We don’t need a validated statistical test to prove it. We have seen it enough on targets to accept it as fact.

Increasing powder charge can take a gun in and out of tune. No validated test needed to prove it. We see it on the target. You can say the same about neck tension or seating depth.

I could give a rat’s hiney about why or how these things work. The guys shooting record targets are enough validation for me. I will spend my time trying to figure out things that will actually make me shoot better, like the wind, and what adjustments to make to the tuner, seating depth, neck tension or charge to make the bullet go where I want it to go. If they all go in the same hole when I make the assessed adjustment, I don’t worry about figuring out why the adjustment worked. I am happy that I got it right and learned something for the next time around. If I get I wrong and the groups get larger as a result, I learn from that to.

Carry on.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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?
 
The issue regarding this topic is people in the industry are trying to apply statistics used to find probabilities of randomness to processes that are not random plain and simple. Either they don't understand statics and probabilities as well as they believe they do or they are lying to viewers/followers.
 
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.
 
The issue regarding this topic is people in the industry are trying to apply statistics used to find probabilities of randomness to processes that are not random plain and simple. Either they don't understand statics and probabilities as well as they believe they do or they are lying to viewers/followers.
I don't believe anyone is intentionally lying. Take that elsewhere.
 
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?
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.
 
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.
 
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.

I will add that the reason the test are not needed is because reliable individuals like yourself and Alex, only to mention a few, have already put the work in for us and readily share information.
 
The issue regarding this topic is people in the industry are trying to apply statistics used to find probabilities of randomness to processes that are not random plain and simple. Either they don't understand statics and probabilities as well as they believe they do or they are lying to viewers/followers.
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.
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,262
Messages
2,215,147
Members
79,506
Latest member
Hunt99elk
Back
Top