FTFY.
I think it’s a good move having outside testing done, and I’m very much interested in the methods and results. It could be very interesting if compared to a group of ammunition test barrels (a large sample of barrels treated the same).
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Gunsmithing Any thoughts on structured barrels?
- Thread starter TriggerJerk!
- Start date
FTFY.
I think it’s a good move having outside testing done, and I’m very much interested in the methods and results. It could be very interesting if compared to a group of ammunition test barrels (a large sample of barrels treated the same).
I will try to be careful in this reply and not be "bloviating".
However- you absolutely have some real world experience. I promise not to ask for "your data".
I like simple terms. Simple explanations. Let's say I am only a simple guy and data is confusing for me.
First I whole heartedly agree with your statements about the micro world and the nano/Angstrom world. I first used monochromatic light to discern patterns at an Angstrom level in 1987 or so. Then onto AF, white light Interferometry, Numarski and deep etch techniques to test for subsurface damage. All you say is true. Yet even .0002" can be so big as to be unmeasurable in the systems I noted.
It is not just my drilled holes - its the bore also. How many images have we recorded in which finished bore barrels still have drill tool marks. That without a doubt effects performance at some level. The primary reason I used acid etching techniques was to look under/past a surface that had been "filled" in by a subsequent process. Like folding a burr on a knife edge over covering a depression.
To the sonic part. Waves at some level will pass by a surface finish. Like a turbulent layer. Shark skin. If I can magnify enough while looking at a wave front I might be able to distinguish that turbulent zone but in our case we ignored it by creating a tool that was 90% effective/acceptable across its surface. Once we stabilized the wave front and brought the frequencies within a 20mgh range the tool was considered acceptable. The faces were surface ground and polished (sub 5micron). Not for wave front but for continued processes that would be applied to the surface. We only turned the OD and end milled other surfaces. As you already know sticking an endmill into a piece of D2 or M2 six inches deep does not leave pristine surfaces. However, the features were in place to guide the wave front. To not let it "blow up".
The "blow up". If I take a loaded round and face it straight up, essentially only using the chamber section up to the throat as my retention, ignite the round- Which way will the round go? NOT A STUPID QUESTION.
A barrel is used to guide the round. Obvious fact-I hope- I might be told I am wrong.
Tuning fork- why does the vibration follow the forks. Their shape and mass.
Guitar string- the vibration follows the string. I can change the vibration by either tension or add heat/cold.
Fiber optics- light stays within the strand it does not go out the sides and disappear within a few feet.
If I take a mass, create features that limit unwanted directional movement, and guides a wave- back to the tuning fork.
If I take a round rod and drill holes in it each surface section or mass area (depending on how you look at it) is reduced as compared to a solid rod of the same weight. Reducing the ability of vibration to "go somewhere else"/become uncontrollable.
Ultrasonic tooling are not simple solid round tools. They have slots and specific shapes to guide the vibration- while it is not considered data here- specific computer programs are used to help optimize frequency movement.
The shape of our barrel has to- by physics - guide and direct a wave.
If our shape to guide a frequency wave front is "garbage"- back the the first example- just ignite your round. No barrel needed.
While it is only - opinion/objective evidence- the basic premises of "less felt recoil" is real. Physics demands it. The gun is not going "places" it is being pointed in a specific direction- recoil along the bore axis. The statement "your gun is the favorite one to shoot" is 100% objective opinion but noted at essentially every shoot they are used at.
It has been demanded I turn over proof of my wave front claims- if I still worked within that field I would. So for now- I am either a pathological lying story teller or at the very least my thought processes should be considered.
If I assume AB is correct concerning harmonics don't effect the accuracy of the shot- then something is. It was noted the movement of the barrel during the shot is miniscule as compared to the recoil event. IF my gun moves less in the "unwanted" planes.. that would imply the recoil events effect on my shot would be reduce.
I was bloviating
AND- I do not have one piece of data in my possession to back up one thing on this page.
Yeah I knew it was. Like I said, I have no idea if your barrels work as intended, but it's ignorant to say that there isn't barrel movement happening at some level. Also, I would think that if the barrel can twist a rifle, it's got to be torque the barrel itself to some degree and thus, if that can be mitigated, it could offer improvement. I'm not an engineer though I am a building science guy so I do have a lot of structures and physics under my belt (though it's been more than 20 years since I've really used any of it). I was just pointing out that there is at minimum a viable theory that your barrels would offer some improvement with general principles considered, but I'm not going to get into the e fight stuff. I like seeing people try to push boundaries and make new things in new ways.
Thank you.
Actually - we have tried to only use data from 3rd party on all of our claims (potential). I recognize the complexity of this subject and the amount of testing that would be required to truly separate our data from others. Bryan actually went back to repeat the test some period later and brought a "better barrel" for comparison.
The test being conducted on the outside are directly related to direct comparisons to other weapons identical (as reasonably manufactured) shot at the same time during field testing. The weapons with our barrels rose (in their minds and data) to a level that noted "let's look into this a bit deeper".
We are not sophisticated enough to do the testing required. Yes- we can pull a trigger on multiple shots- but any data, in which we are the source, would be questioned. 3rd party all the way.
We will be posting a demonstration (on actual barrels) torque required to twist a barrel and force needed to lengthen it.
We will see if mechanical theory is wrong
Once we have that torque- we can apply it to a mechanical equation and view the required work needed to twist a barrel with a known angular force (the twist of the grooves) applied.
No movement implies extremely high forces required.
Reasonably lower forces would then imply a "delay" function not well described that I am aware of.
Let's say the barrel does not move in any reasonable fashion to effect the bullet.
However- does a barrel torque? YES. I know a few people with broken bipods. At least our opinions.
If the torque event is real- and not opinion- where is the energy stored in which it is released after the bullet leaves the barrel?
Objects from, what I understand, have a tendency to stay at rest until acted upon.
If the exterior is not moving.
Then where is the energy stored? Only leaves the interior.
For the mass to move, the interior will have to have been displaced in order to leave its "at rest position".
If the interiors ID is displaced as compared to the exterior the energy is now present in which equilibrium will have to occur at some point.
Which is the torquing of the barrel as "perceived" by the shooter. Need Data torque is real.
I could also apply the same thought as the diameter (ID or and OD) of the barrel is displaced during a shot.
However, what is being proposed, is the bullet leaves the barrel before any material displacement has time to occur or react.
If a bullet can leave before any material displacement and reaction can occur- perhaps bedding, and stocks and so forth are also a waste of effort outside of shooter comfort (being sarcastic
).A barrel is not a adamant, permanent structure impervious to outside forces. It is an elastic body.
Aircraft colors are limited for this express purpose, particularly wings. You could literally be grounded under high altitude, hot temp conditions if your paint is too dark.
Wow so much barrel whip
Watch this video on Facebook https://fb.watch/o-Z7yA64q-/?mibextid=DqYSjB
Watch this video on Facebook https://fb.watch/o-ZjK1_eNR/?mibextid=DqYSjB
Watch this video on Facebook https://fb.watch/o-Zl6jQ86V/?mibextid=DqYSjB
Definitely a phenomena that needs to be addressed by dropping thousands of dollars on a “technology” with no statistical evidence or peer reviewed data to support it.
Oh wait, reloading handbooks even note that the barrel doesn’t vibrate (Somchem 2001)
Watch this video on Facebook https://fb.watch/o-Z7yA64q-/?mibextid=DqYSjB Watch this video on Facebook https://fb.watch/o-ZjK1_eNR/?mibextid=DqYSjB Watch this video on Facebook https://fb.watch/o-Zl6jQ86V/?mibextid=DqYSjBDefinitely a phenomena that needs to be addressed by dropping thousands of dollars on a “technology” with no statistical evidence or peer reviewed data to support it.
Oh wait, reloading handbooks even note that the barrel doesn’t vibrate (Somchem 2001)
Last edited:
Drew,Wow so much barrel whip
Definitely a phenomena that needs to be addressed by dropping thousands of dollars on a technology with no statistical evidence or peer reviewed data to support it.
Oh wait, reloading handbooks even note that the barrel doesn’t vibrate (Somchem 2001)
View attachment 8299510
Please tell me what Peer Evidence is in this industry?
Who is the arbiter?
If AB (picture source) is the arbiter- then you are right. They already told me there is no need to test our barrel as it does not work.
While calling me essentially an idiot- please share to what level of precision you have measured to before so we can get a baseline of your skills in measurement at high resolution and finite objects. As a note: I have measured frequency/resonant patterns on surfaces measured in low digit angstrom values.
You do not have the capability to look at our barrel with any sort of neutral view.
Considering every single product we have introduced has been met with at minimal significant pessimism or outright disdain - how should I approach this? Trust you?
Peer Review- I am sure that you know that one of the people on this forum who also shoots one of our barrels- was a Program Manager/Engineer at a very large defense firm- where one of the projects was very similar to our concept and he noted it did work. Are you sure he pooh pooh'd this concept? Are you so sure some results were not obtained? Perhaps he is an idiot too- actually the whole company.
With that:
Your videos are not crisp across the total depth of field of the object/barrel.
Video two absolutely shows some type of movement as compared to a cursor set on its blurry edge.
Blurry- the edges are out of focus enough that there is no way to discern 25micron or less movements.
The dot could be used- please show a magnified crisp view of the dot edge. Though I cannot see the a crisp edge or even clear surface texture on the dot- please provide it.
Let's use a .001"/25.4micron movement within a 6" section of the barrel:
6" section .001movement vertically is our base value.
1yd/36inches = .006" vertical movement as the vector implied by the barrel over that continuing triangle.
50yds/1800inches = .3" of vertical movement.
100yds/3600inches = .6" of vertical movement. I even used an on line calculator to make sure there are 3600inches in 100yds.
Let's take the above further:
Shorter cycles increase the on target dispersion.
Long cycles decrease it.
If you apply the potential movement seen in the videos to a 30" barrel than you would only have .120" on target. As the cycles shorten you approach the .6" value above.
The images you provided are much shorter than a 6" section implying greater error on target.
If you note .6inch error on the target is acceptable- your argument with me is moot.
If I cut the error on target to .3inches- your camera has to measure 12.4microns of movement.
Please provide the vertical measurement measured- or are you saying the movement was 0.000?
The theoretical waves in the barrel are moving faster than the bullet. What was your time period of measurement to establish the vertical value?
This is simple triangle math.
The curve imparted within the 6" section will create a final vector exceeding the simple triangle line.
You did not describe how the barrel was restrained.
I am sure you can tell the rest of us how frequencies are effected by the environment they are in or rather emanated from. Otherwise every ultrasonic tool would just be bolted to a "plate" and frequency applied. Dukane- change your tooling. No boosters, special fasteners, shapes, solid vs standard etc...- are needed.
Your pictures look at one position.
The clarity of the pictures absolutely cannot be used to discern movements that can effect barrel movement.
Is there data that measures multiple positions at the same time?
Where is the "zoom" image that is focused on a precise line or point (<5microns) that is measured for vertical movement- and at more than one point.
Your measurement technique should have a 1-10 rule: Does your images show the capability to measure 2.5microns?
If I can focus on a surface in which I can clearly see 2.5microns, the depth of field is also decreasing rapidly. The distance camera to object is large in the micron world. Please show us who has the technology to allow 1000x's of zoom and retain focus at all points along at least a .5" depth of field.
Are you unequivocally saying all work imparted onto/into the barrel has no effect on the barrel/object until after the bullet leaves?
No waves, no material distortion- nada of anything?
As a note: your reference to the loading manual from 2001- DID YOUR CAMERA BEING USED EXIST IN 2001? How did he make the measurement that determined no movement in 2001? (To Somchem- not a insult on your observation- just a question for techniques used)
You are absolutely attacking me and my integrity- answer the above questions so a conversation can be had.
My argument is not with AB. They impart tremendous good to this community.
The pictures you provided are really cool - but from my uneducated ignorant mind point of view some big questions are still open.
Please directly answer the questions I have noted here.
AND DON"T TELL ME I AM JUST "bloviating"- and if I am- be specific and tell us which exact part is a bunch of BS.
You have told a few pretty smart people we are all "wrong".
No data- the world around me is filled with data that says movement is occurring.
Actually I thank you for saving me some work. I was going to go look for the AB images - that you have now provided. We will work with them.
Wow so much barrel whip
Definitely a phenomena that needs to be addressed by dropping thousands of dollars on a “technology” with no statistical evidence or peer reviewed data to support it.
Oh wait, reloading handbooks even note that the barrel doesn’t vibrate (Somchem 2001)
View attachment 8299510
Interesting that your quote states that vibration does occur, but only after the bullet exits the muzzle. I have a couple questions:
1- What causes the barrel to begin vibrating after the bullet exits the barrel?
2- What is an approximate frequency of these vibrations?
Regarding the videos presented, they are trying to tell a story, but without context, they can’t be taken at face value. For instance, notice how much powder is expelled from the barrel. This means that the barrel is not long enough to fully burn the charge. Shorter barrels, of course, are stiffer for the same diameter. Again, context matters.
Remember that AB is not a benevolent entity seeking to enrich our shooting lives. They are a business with a vested interest in pushing a specific narrative. If they were pursuing a contract that relied on the premise that barrels vibrate, I can guarantee you that you would be watching videos of oscillating barrels.
Remember that John Baker isn’t a benevolent entity trying to enrich our shooting lives. He’s a snake oil salesman trying to get you to pay upwards of $1500 on something with no statistical evidence to support his narrative.
The video presented - source code could be drastically degraded- cannot be used (easily) to discern movement:Wow so much barrel whip
Definitely a phenomena that needs to be addressed by dropping thousands of dollars on a “technology” with no statistical evidence or peer reviewed data to support it.
Oh wait, reloading handbooks even note that the barrel doesn’t vibrate (Somchem 2001)
View attachment 8299510
The barrel image in order to be useable would have to be at least 500pixels tall for a .500" diameter barrel in order to equate to .001".
The image resolution is very poor. In fact the blue dot changes apparent surface topography to such a degree as a feature cannot be grabbed to compare positions with. Many features change shape, intensity, or disappear.
Not one point within the view is in useable focus. Plus the image appears to have some barrel distortion.
Even the barrel, which appears to have a taper, is represented by 4-5pixels (on our 4k resolution) per edge. It is also seen to "step down" as the pixel resolution is not sufficient to smoothly focus the edge.
4-5 pixel resolution makes it hard to determine movement.
Are we measuring potential movement - yes- are we confident in their results- no. Are we still continuing to try to format the image so multiple points can be measured - yes.
Something is moving- now its to locate the what.
Do you have access to original content?
Show me the statistical evidence - not a video which by your terms is only objective evidence- in which at least ten barrels with vertical measurements were taken for at least 25 events along at least two places - show us the data.
Also- either I am a great salesman or the people who shoot our barrels are all stupid.
Are you calling us all "stupid"?
Instead of attacking me- answer some of the questions by which you can show your superior position. The video(s) are objective evidence- if you can't accept mine- I can't accept yours.
It’s hilarious how you prove exactly how John Baker isn’t acting in good faith. He’s the only one pushing a product claiming to solve the purported issues from oscillating barrels, and so he is pulling out completely unrelated “analogies” to try and convince you that what your eyes see is untrustworthy, what the statisticians and accelerometer data shows is fabricated, and only he can shrink your groups (despite showing zero data to support that).
You brought the product to market, you provide the peer reviewed evidence that it provides an advantage instead of in-house FEA renderings or comparing it to bird bones
Here’s what I want from you:
Physically prove vibrations are a dominant driver to precision, and do it statistically.
Use an oscilloscope and accelerometer with enough temporal resolution (upwards of 1GHz) to measure muzzle displacement before and after the shot, and do it enough times both with a normal barrel and a structured barrel to prove a difference.
Post the raw, unfiltered data here (not on IG where you block naysayers left and right).
Physically prove vibrations are a dominant driver to precision, and do it statistically.
Use an oscilloscope and accelerometer with enough temporal resolution (upwards of 1GHz) to measure muzzle displacement before and after the shot, and do it enough times both with a normal barrel and a structured barrel to prove a difference.
Post the raw, unfiltered data here (not on IG where you block naysayers left and right).
You come and start threads because you don’t know what caliber rifle you need.
Now you wanna educate people that actually know stuff and are making things?
Yer funny!
Maybe go do the testing yourself?
asking for advice on a caliber choice for hunting has no bearing on my ability to criticize bad science being used for marketing purposes. Kindly fuck off
A perfect example of bad science is posting the links for the Facebook videos that you posted. Try again.
I get it if you don’t like someone’s science, but maybe John doesn’t wanna share every detail for ‘reasons’.
But he has something that seems to work, why? I don’t know. But it seems like it does, and he is also a very reasonable guy that’s very open to try something new.
Maybe if you know enough you can actually prove or disprove it.
At least @45-90 listed his claimed credentials before going molecular.
What are your creds?
I'm no lawyer or engineering whiz, but I'd be careful with the libel you're spouting.
“Just trust me bro, my $2000 barrel perforations will definitely improve your shooting”
Absolutely laughable
All the more reason for him to release statistically significant data supporting his claims. If he does that, I’ll retract everything I said, buy a barrel from him, and not look back. Just post oscilloscope/accelerometer data proving that (all else being equal) his barrel has a marked improvement over an equal quality barrel of the same weight in reducing muzzle displacement (and that the reduced muzzle displacement increases overall accuracy).
Post targets that prove you even have the skill to appreciate such a fine barrel?
i doubt you do.
Again. Any credentials to show you even know how to understand scientific data?
It appears you dont.
You posted some clownish info from 2001 that’s been disproved. Barrels vibrate.
And your “id buy a barrel if he shows me data I ain’t capable of understandin”
Utterly laughable.
Show me where Somchem & Rheinmetall Denel are clownish or have been disproved. Or are you just going to add ad hominem to the list of fallacious arguments that have been used to defend this product
Aren’t they the the guys that had an ammo plant blow up in Africa a few years back? Only killed a few people though.
Drew - You are doing a great job at wasting everyone's time. Clearly you do not agree, and you are entitled to your opinion. Instead of providing hard evidence yourself, you resort to shameful, personal attacks. What "Facebook evidence" you do provides does nothing to support your case. For example, you cannot even defend / prove how a 1200x800 image can discern 0.001" of movement. Or even acknowledge, how this margin of error could results in 0.6" at range (or did you not read this?). Our goal is to improve performance after 5-10 rapid succession rounds. If vibration was moot, so would any change in temperature, and groups should not open. If we are to strive to improve on a system past 10 rounds, we need to start evaluating smaller details. If you disagree or find there is nothing to improve, we have nothing else to talk about. Statistically, there is a significance to cold bore. Why? Statistically, people find greater results with a big bull barrel. Why? Clearly you will not answer any of these questions as instead of hosting a discussion to review ideas and concepts, you continue to prove your lack of knowledge and understanding to everyone. Please inform everyone how Structures are weaker when of an equivalent mass (but judging from your content thus far, I doubt you can). We mathematically proved our design to be superior to that of a standard barrel using a mechanical engineering concept called Second Moment of Area, and the result almost identically matched a simulation conducted in CEL, a program used by aeronautical engineers. Simply said, if we are providing the benefit of a big bull barrel, but at a fraction of the weight, what drives you to be offended? Good science is to challenge. You have made your agenda clear while being unable to answer some of the most basic questions and challenges. To make a statement like, "Post the raw, unfiltered data here (not on IG where you block naysayers left and right)" is throwing shit on the wall and hoping it sticks. We have never blocked anyone and to make a statement like this just get "Views" is amusing and truly calls into question your integrity. It also raises how many other instances you have made emotional accusations. You don't like us. Okay. What else are you trying to prove other than your opinion? I will say this though, turn all your barrels down to a pencil barrel and let us know what happens. And if bullets and barrels were so perfect, measured BC would match theoretical BC. Cheers and good luck
Jacob- the guy you watched on Instagram.
He/his company already crossed that line. Time is now on my side.
Not getting to the if it works or doesn't work debate. But this statement is just not logical at all. For several reasons.
-AB generates a portion of its revenue from publishing research/books. They would only benefit from showing vibrations prior to bullet exit.
-AB would benefit much more via proving vibrations and then selling a product/getting contracts base on that. Rather than trying to claim there are no vibrations to protect current contracts.
No research facility would prefer to say something doesn't work over being the first to prove that it does work.
Ok- refraining from calling you names and using profanity-
Who the F said vibrations are the/a dominant driver of precision?
You put words in my mouth.
I have always said our goal was a 10% improvement across the board: reduced group size on extended strings, less velocity drift, less SD drift, less mirage, less group shift.... Which one is false?
How many planes did you set your accelerometers on? Within the same shot? One place? Really...
I did not see an accelerometer device in your videos... I guess separate test. Which is acceptable
Where is your data please so that we can compare?
Did you measure any displacement- I have not seen where you said "yes" or "no".
If the muzzle did move- where was the other point taken to describe origin
As a note- I have documented shift in your image. I am being careful because the discriminations of 800pixels in the vertical are not sufficient to show .001" movements clearly. However- I repeated it multiple times.
You ask for one sided data.
You ignore all 3rd party info that works on our side.
Ignore any and all other applications of other engineering or experience. You actually pooh pooh it.
Ignore all other potential components of the barrel.
Provide absolutely no data besides a video that can not be measured.
Called all of our clients "stupid" essentially.
Call me a snake oil salesman and my son a liar.
I think I have this right concerning your approach to dealing with a counter argument.
I will be calling on the accelerometers.
It better be better than you video reference.
NOTE: Again this is not against AB. If they feel harmonics has NOTHING to do with the bullet accuracy on target, that is fine. They have no prerogative to post data. However, it is being used against me and because I question it- you go ape poop?
You have yet to engage in conversation.
If you were to tap a barrel with a light hammer, would you say that the sound is relatively high pitch or low pitch?
If your answer is high pitch, congratulations. You now acknowledge that barrels vibrate.
Or did you answer low pitch? If so, congratulation, you just acknowledged that barrels vibrate.
They vibrate, the question is at what frequency(or should I say frequencies)? Which mode of vibration would you like to discuss? First, second, or maybe fifth? Do you know the difference?
You never know who is on the other keyboard do you? Just sayin…
If John is a snake oil salesman …. I’ll take a gallon of what he’s selling/developing.
I use one … will use another one. If I were John, I wouldn’t even come on this medium. Why the hell would any manufacturer come on here.
I use one … will use another one. If I were John, I wouldn’t even come on this medium. Why the hell would any manufacturer come on here.
Attachments
Last edited:
The FEA renderings were not done by us. 3rd party. I would say their software is at least equal to yours.
And bird bone structures are not stronger per weight than mammal bones. Your secret.
imagine believing in velocity nodes or that load development can be done in single round groups
Last edited:
One thing I don’t get about this thread compared to tuner threads is John B has actually said he’s doing more testing and might show us the info.
If nothing else we should let it play out.
If it works it works if not then it’s a different story
On going R&D is worth a stay of execution
If nothing else we should let it play out.
If it works it works if not then it’s a different story
On going R&D is worth a stay of execution
Considering we have ran 20-50rd groups--- what sample size is good?
I have shot 20rd groups with my 300Norma-- what is a good sample size?
What sample size was Coastal Precisions groups?
You have responders on here who tested barrel against barrel to see at what point a group would shift (6mm -- 20rds vs 43rds). However, I know your answer "they are just stupid idiots".
Bench rest guys are a thing of the past and have no bearing on this discussion.
While I have multiple non-TACOMHQ 3rd party inputs in favor of our barrel. You have not shown any other 3rd party results showing you are right.
Not sure what a "single round group is"? Is it a single round or a single group?
I have been warned you are a troll.
You do not answer any pertinent question.
You throw grenades to see what happens.
This last one was stupid.
You call people names and make slanderous statements about them and their company.
However, THANK YOU- this has been a continuing exercise in engineering principles and proofs.
Fortunately I can't think like you. Messing with someone's life just to mess with it is beyond my scope of thinking.
I imagine you liked to torture little animals and beat the crap out of children because you are a big tough man hiding behind absolutely zero data or inputted engineering point of views. You got to win at something.
Thank you.One thing I don’t get about this thread compared to tuner threads is John B has actually said he’s doing more testing and might show us the info.
If nothing else we should let it play out.
If it works it works if not then it’s a different story
On going R&D is worth a stay of execution
All I care about is the test and its results. I care that people who shoot our barrels have an absolute gain they can measure and perceive. If it was money only - I would have been gone years ago.
I love when people shoot our guns- just watching their faces and getting their reactions is almost worth it all.
I’m one of the idiots he talks about. I believe in the technology … I use the technology. Seems to have worked well for me.
Yes, John is a friend of mine, BUT I will stand in front, by his side and behind his work. His work has been forefront of the ELR success that I’ve experienced, and it will continue forward.
Chris Schmidt
Tennessee
RLTW
straight from the snake oil salesman’s mouth
You’re not going to find a load firing one round per 1/2 gr powder charge. Its just further proof that you guys either don’t know what you’re talking about or are banking on your customer’s ignorance.
I’m betting it’s a big mix of the two
My favorite thing about having two degrees in statistics is watching people argue about statistics. Hornady put out a video (which they suck at explaining fundamental concepts and the host is just saying words to sound smart) and now all the reloders think they’re statisticians. It’s so cute.
Score one for Drew.
Bad wording.
However- you still have not explained why our nodes are so wide.
Still have not explained why multiple shooters state this is the easiest barrel they have ever loaded to.
Why multiple users have stopped on the first load set they shot?
Which was the intent of the statement - and we will correct it.
You just like insulting people.
What are your current stats for shooting accomplishments?
Should we compare them to shooters on here?
Why don't you tell us your credentials?
Who you work for?
Keep on telling everyone I am a "snake oil liar" please. Keep it up.
Only 50% of us think we're statisticians.
Never said I was a versed in statistics. Never quoted any statistics. Never implied any statistics.
While not versed- I do believe a random population can become a significant point.
Let me ask you-
What would a test look like that would satisfy your needs?
Honest question with no ill intent.
This wasn’t directed at you. The annoyance from all the reloaders yelling “statistically significant” when they can’t even define or show what that means while not even knowing that practical significance is more important. We can throw a sample size of 10,000 at a basic t-test and find a statistical significance of say a 3 fps delta. Wth are we going to do with that?
As far as designing an experiment generalizing it to a large population would be the problem. Right, because if you did an experiment with just say Bartlein but didn’t include the other manufacturers, then people would say your experiment wasn’t representative of the population of barrels. This also becomes an issue if you don’t include many different calibers, barrel profiles (unstructured), cartridges, bullets, etc. But most engineering experiments use some sort of factorial design. 2^k being the most popular. For instance, the factors and levels being structured, unstructured, and 6mm and 416cal. The the pain in the ass part is estimating the experimental error because if there are many combinations it will be costly. How many replications would be needed? I have no idea but a pilot study would help.
I think the most complicated issue of the discussion would be testing all of the benefits of the barrels that go beyond precision and MV. At the end of the day, people only really care about if they have a precise rifle and they have the MV they want. The barrel life increase is also something but that can be easily tested with a life cycle test of a few paired matched barrels of one being structured and the other being unstructured.
I get the sense you’re more interested in the causality. I’m good with statistics. I’m not good with material science.
Last edited:
I remember a thread where someone said something along the lines of "ok, you pick my powder charge, and ill go with that". Im gonna say @kthomas ??? (Sorry if im wrong).
His point being that finding a "node" is not everything. I will speculate this is whats happening here. Getting a base line powder charge "quicker and easier", and then messing with seating depth, neck tension, whatever. Having a barrel which tunes easily will translate to more relaxed seating / tension issues ?. Again, speculation, but it seems senaible that could happen.
I also find it hilarious people complain about things they have NEVER physically seen. Like motogp or F1.. "yeah, their bike / car ia ahit this year. Aero is bad, and the hook up out of corners is bad.. also fueling seems to be off". WTF you giant canoe.... you can sense that from the TV and shitty speakers ? Wowsers.
@JB.IC i did wonder that, if statisticians around the world all cried out in pain.
Still, they have to dumb it down for people who are so dumb they can smell the colour nine.
His point being that finding a "node" is not everything. I will speculate this is whats happening here. Getting a base line powder charge "quicker and easier", and then messing with seating depth, neck tension, whatever. Having a barrel which tunes easily will translate to more relaxed seating / tension issues ?. Again, speculation, but it seems senaible that could happen.
I also find it hilarious people complain about things they have NEVER physically seen. Like motogp or F1.. "yeah, their bike / car ia ahit this year. Aero is bad, and the hook up out of corners is bad.. also fueling seems to be off". WTF you giant canoe.... you can sense that from the TV and shitty speakers ? Wowsers.
@JB.IC i did wonder that, if statisticians around the world all cried out in pain.
Still, they have to dumb it down for people who are so dumb they can smell the colour nine.
You wanna point us towards a 1 GHz accelerometer? That sounds like a rather remarkable device, but since you're making the request, surely you have some experience and can make a recommendation.
Thank you.
Your response is exactly why we placed barrels into a variety of hands (beyond just standard buyers) running the gambit of .22 to 50cal.
Even my simple mind understands this is really complex from the number of input variables.
Overall my assumption is people who buy our barrels are not Walmart buyers. They most likely have skill set and at least learned something from a lot of experience. Something they can compare to.
I am looking for essentially non-standard variables in their performance.
While a few of the shooters have nearly plotted every round they have fired, look for season long aggregates, others are looking at items outside of strictly POI.
If I look at the fact that 2 of the last 4 Cold Bore challenges are held by our barrels (with only a couple barrels in comps), achieves a group putting them on a 15 shooter set that achieved a specific sub group size in comp (with gun that is 4lbs under weight), "shoots like heave barrel would", "only barrel to stabilize this round", "favorite gun to shoot", "obtained a velocity 150fps faster" -I consider those as non-standard variables. As more are achieved and repeated the non- standard moves toward standard. Instead of being on the edge of the bell curve- we start centering on our own new bell curve within the standard.
Don't shoot me (pun intended) if I misused terms here.
However-- a test. Test over time - varying group/shots taken per event- how many groups to show some sort of viability.
Yes- two barrels- One standard one Structured
I will reach out for your input.
I’d be happy to help. Engineering experiments are typically simple to implement when we care about modeling and optimizing a response. But engineering itself is so complicated because we are taking about modeling some physical phenomenons and then building a product. A lot of our linear methods (huge assumptions in parametric statistics) aren’t adequate. Hell, just look at all the physics equations. A lot of them are non-linear models.
I’ve tiptoed into engineering for manufacturing and designing quality products and process design for quality. But I’m humble enough to know that the conducting statistics in physics can be a pain in the ass. Something seemingly low dimensional can be high dimensional. If it was easy, it would have already been done. The high hanging fruits are high for a reason.
I remember going from my undergraduate and thinking I knew everything. Then when I started my graduate program, I was like “I don’t know shit.” I’ve been biting my tongue a lot because I’ve been surprised at how complicated physical science can be.
Twas the other Thomas. Charge weight and seating depth were chosen by forum member via random number generator.
Same load was used in two matches. 181/190 possible points.
Sir-
I hope by your Stabilitrak Active title - you can help point us forward.
A wave moving (theoretically to keep things quiet) at 5500fps.
Which would create 3 events in a firing cycle (typically).
An amplitude of .001"/25.4microns. Perhaps less. Our calculations were based on 6" cycles/amplitude peak to peak.
I certainly know we are way beyond a mechanical and have to be in silicon base.
Where would you start?
Or a lab capable of such readings- and at least two points on two axis minimum.
As a further note: I used a gradient line with spaced marks applied to the image in video 2 noted earlier. We detect movement/change as viewed by the pixel. It could be the source is degraded significantly from original but for us a repeatable action.
The pixel value as compared to the image - we created a scale of 1". The pixel count in that one 1" applied scale was 100.
The bullet was assumed to be .308.
With that the barrel diameter (taper not included) to be .670.
In order to even detect .001" of movement at the pixel level we would need 670 pixels to represent the barrel in a Y height.
We note 277+/-.
This would indicate the pixels ability to note movement is only 50% of required capability, let alone a standard 1-10 measurement ratio.
Considering the blurred out of focus edge and the inability to use any detail as reference- the videos referenced are not capable (as presented) to measure barrel deviation on low orders.
AGAIN- the image could be degraded. However, pixel count is pixel count.
