Statistics

[gunsandgunsmithing]

THANK YOU !!!!

THANK YOU !!!!

No...Thank YOU for supporting my decision.

 

[INTJ]

And this information can be found .... where? Hey, if I can shortcut what I'm doing and learn in the process I'M IN!
Thanks!

I described the basic process earlier in this thread.

 

[Shooter13]

I described the basic process earlier in this thread.

Sorry, missed it. I'll look

 

[quest450]

Mike, there's no reason to insult me via PM....be a man and post it in here

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Mike, there's no reason to insult me via PM....be a man and post it in here

I just told you what you needed to hear. I preferred it's just between us. You had it coming. I wa only responding to your pm.

 

[quest450]

that's why I have ZERO respect for ppl like you Mike
good luck with peddling your nonsense around here
but please do not turn every thread into TUNER discu$$ion

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

that's why I have ZERO respect for ppl like you Mike
good luck with peddling your nonsense around here
but please do not turn every thread into TUNER discu$$ion

How many times do I have to ask for clarification? I did twice..after he mentioned tuners. This is your problem, not mine.

 

[jonbearman]

I want to stir the pot a little on this discussion. To ad another point of view to the discussion around statistics. Lately theres been a lot of talk about what is statistically relevant when it comes to testing things or tuning a rifle. Most of the stuff I have seen comes from people with a scientific background. I wanted to ad a point of view from a background of building rifles that have to win matches and shoot the smallest aggs possible.
In my opinion, we want to tune a barrel in the least statistically relevant way possible SO LONG as it produces results. If I could tune a barrel in 5 shots and go break a record and win matches consistently with that method it would be the best tuning method there is. But also the least likely to stand up to scientific scrutiny.
The reality is that none of my tuning methods, or any of the methods used by my customers to win or break records would be considered statistically relevant. It blows my mind when I read some of this stuff. We have to test powders, primers, neck tension, seating depth, tuner test, ext. There are ways to do this with only a small sampling. When I am starting with a new rifle and I want to try 3 or 4 different powders, it only takes about 10 shots to know if that barrel likes that powder or not. Same goes for primers. Group size is another thing. 3-5 shot groups are not relevant? I dont have enough fingers and toes to count the records that say they are. What are we trying to do? Tune a rifle or create data?
What I am trying to stop is the guy that calls and says he is struggling to tune his rifle, hes shot a ton of groups. Piled up plenty of statistically relevant data, but has only tried one powder, one bullet, and one primer, and now has his barrel 1/3 shot out because he would not make decisions based on a small sampling.

 

[jonbearman]

I want to stir the pot a little on this discussion. To ad another point of view to the discussion around statistics. Lately theres been a lot of talk about what is statistically relevant when it comes to testing things or tuning a rifle. Most of the stuff I have seen comes from people with a scientific background. I wanted to ad a point of view from a background of building rifles that have to win matches and shoot the smallest aggs possible.
In my opinion, we want to tune a barrel in the least statistically relevant way possible SO LONG as it produces results. If I could tune a barrel in 5 shots and go break a record and win matches consistently with that method it would be the best tuning method there is. But also the least likely to stand up to scientific scrutiny.
The reality is that none of my tuning methods, or any of the methods used by my customers to win or break records would be considered statistically relevant. It blows my mind when I read some of this stuff. We have to test powders, primers, neck tension, seating depth, tuner test, ext. There are ways to do this with only a small sampling. When I am starting with a new rifle and I want to try 3 or 4 different powders, it only takes about 10 shots to know if that barrel likes that powder or not. Same goes for primers. Group size is another thing. 3-5 shot groups are not relevant? I dont have enough fingers and toes to count the records that say they are. What are we trying to do? Tune a rifle or create data?
What I am trying to stop is the guy that calls and says he is struggling to tune his rifle, hes shot a ton of groups. Piled up plenty of statistically relevant data, but has only tried one powder, one bullet, and one primer, and now has his barrel 1/3 shot out because he would not make decisions based on a small sampling.

Finally someone showed the elephant in the room. I try all powders,primers and bullets as well as seating depths but some folks are just stuck.

 

[quest450]

Finally someone showed the elephant in the room. I try all powders,primers and bullets as well as seating depths but some folks are just stuck.

you have to try tuner next...Mike Ezell tuner preferably

 

[Wildcats]

Well this post went from 0-100 real quick...i'l just continue shooting and testing different powders,bullets ,neck tension,primers,seating depth,neck sizing,not neck sizing fl sizing,neck turning,not neck turning and don't forget this >>.

 

[JFrank]

Sorry, missed it. I'll look

I believe this is what you’re after, it is a bit lengthy but very informative.

You are being redirected...

 

[Andy Work]

Well this post went from 0-100 real quick...i'l just continue shooting and testing different powders,bullets ,neck tension,primers,seating depth,neck sizing,not neck sizing fl sizing,neck turning,not neck turning and don't forget this >>. View attachment 1440771

And don't forget the thousands of ways to clean a barrel. That reminds me, we haven't had a new barrel cleaning thread in a while.

 

[Rope2horns]

this ought to be a shit show! Lol

Statistically correct for any thread that goes past three pages.

 

[Dimner]

WHY tuner$$$$$$$$$ and wind flags are always derailing VERY informative threads

I use a tuner on my wind flags. It works. I have the data to prove it.

 

[Northridge]

Threads can take a turn or bounce around as minds start to “ponder” but the suggested point to the topic hasn’t been lost. Discussions as this one spark thought and that is always good … all good from my perspective

Shawn Williams

 

[Killick]

I stand by weighing my cleaning patches...I have the receipts.

 

[Killick]

I stand by weighing my cleaning patches...I have the receipts.

...and before you ask, yes, I anneal them.

 

[jimmymac]

I’m not smart enough and/or motivated enough to spend my time compiling stats other than seat of the pants data that I then record for posterity on any given barrel. A powder charge and seating depth that comes together and repeats is good enough for me. Sometimes I chase my tail more than other times, but in the end I usually get it figured out and the rest is up to me at the bench.

I will say that I typically struggle more with tune on a PPC than a 30BR.

 

[dcali]

I’m not smart enough and/or motivated enough to spend my time compiling stats other than seat of the pants data that I then record for posterity on any given barrel. A powder charge and seating depth that comes together and repeats is good enough for me. Sometimes I chase my tail more than other times, but in the end I usually get it figured out and the rest is up to me at the bench.

I will say that I typically struggle more with tune on a PPC than a 30BR.

I think it's worth saying that you *are* compiling stats. You're testing and evaluating as you go. It's not mathematically rigorous, but it *is* data. And a little data and gut level analysis is better than no data. Recognizing that you might chase your tail from time to time is the equivalent of a mathematician saying "I know this with x% confidence". Does knowing the rigorous level of confidence matter? I'd say no.

We are developing a broad community of knowledge (aka data), and everyone's experience counts. For some that's purely intuitive and experience based. Others find using math tools helps form that base of knowledge (I'm one of them, but I'm not going to say that there aren't other ways to skin a cat). But it all matters. That's why we *don't* need reams of formal data every time we screw a new barrel on.

At the end of the day, math and stats are a way to improve efficiency, not to get better results.