Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-03-2012, 11:29   #121
Matthew Courtney
CLM Number 285
Instructor #298
 
Matthew Courtney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 5,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD357 View Post
Exactly, any acredited study would have more than one example due to redundancy, how does one know that one gun was not up to their respective maker's standards?

I'm with you though, just shoot the guns and report back. This is GT not the NEJM.
We know by virtue of the fact that the rifles were purchased new through retail channels that the rifles were up to whatever standards their respective makers use to evaluate quality before shipping rifles intended for civilian sale.
__________________
You will never begin in the fight you have planned for. You will begin in the fight the other guy has planned for. Retreat in a manner that leads him into your fight should he press his attack.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Matthew Courtney is offline  
Old 06-03-2012, 11:38   #122
Matthew Courtney
CLM Number 285
Instructor #298
 
Matthew Courtney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 5,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD357 View Post
Good lord man, you're in over your head here and your comments are just making worse. Just let it go.

Several.... and I MEAN several experienments over many years, and different sites were conducted leading up to that type of weapon. To think that they just put together a bomb and they had one "sample" is beyond ignorant of what that project entailed. Even someone with the most superficial knowledge of that project knows this.
Prior tests on all of the rifles components have been done thousands of times. In theory, predictions could be made as to the outcome of a single test of the finished products, but testing the finished products is the only way we know for sure how the products will perform.

Consumer reports, the most well respected consumer product testing entity in the United States, uses the exact same testing process that we will be using. If you want to buy some additional rifles for us to test, pm me and we will make arrangements to test as many as you wish.
__________________
You will never begin in the fight you have planned for. You will begin in the fight the other guy has planned for. Retreat in a manner that leads him into your fight should he press his attack.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Matthew Courtney is offline  
Old 06-03-2012, 11:48   #123
fowler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: ohio
Posts: 3,864
Mr.Larry Vickers is for real and has seen first hand knowledge of combat weapons. He is not like the Gun Rag whores who write for dollars&perks. Kudo,s to Mr Vickers even if we don,t agree to all his reason,s for one firearm to the other. I agree with him on the Ballistol oil. It works and doe,s not cause cancer like most petrol oil and car oils. Back to the Colt- VS-SW carbines. Both are good.

Last edited by fowler; 06-03-2012 at 15:51..
fowler is offline  
Old 06-03-2012, 13:26   #124
MD357
Senior Member
 
MD357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Courtney View Post
We know by virtue of the fact that the rifles were purchased new through retail channels that the rifles were up to whatever standards their respective makers use to evaluate quality before shipping rifles intended for civilian sale.
Doesn't matter, QC errors can and do slip by. The only way to circumvent this is to have multiple samples..... IF we were being truly scientific of course. Again, I'm not requiring multple samples... but don't say this "test" is up the standards held by many scientific communities.

Quote:
Prior tests on all of the rifles components have been done thousands of times. In theory, predictions could be made as to the outcome of a single test of the finished products, but testing the finished products is the only way we know for sure how the products will perform.
Really? of these particular rifles? By all means post up these previous tests of THESE particular rifles.

Quote:
Consumer reports, the most well respected consumer product testing entity in the United States, uses the exact same testing process that we will be using.
This speaks volumes as to your standards and as to why you don't understand what I'm saying. In a nutshell, Consumer Reports is a remedial science at best. Hit up your Ph.D friends and get them to explain the differences between what they do and what consumer reports does and get back to me.

Quote:
If you want to buy some additional rifles for us to test, pm me and we will make arrangements to test as many as you wish.
See above where I've said multiple times I'm not requiring you to test multiple guns, besides the burden of proof is upon yourself if you insist this test be up to the standards of higher learning.
MD357 is offline  
Old 06-03-2012, 13:52   #125
G36's Rule
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spring, TX.
Posts: 15,031
Holy carp, this thread is all over the place.

Anyway, good luck on your testing and I hope it can be caught here through completion or at least until one rifle fails in a serious manner.

I agree with accuracy testing being done with high power scope off a solid bench. I would also suggest using 10 shot groups as that will add to the overall group size and show which, if either, is effected more by heat.
G36's Rule is offline  
Old 06-03-2012, 14:20   #126
K. Foster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mo.
Posts: 2,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Courtney View Post
The scientific standards used in the Manhattan Project Only required the implosion type plutonium weapon dropped on Nagasaki to be tested one time. The gun type uranium weapon that was dropped on Hiroshima was tested zero times before being used. If the most important weapons test in the history of man can result in data valid enough to make decisions with after one test, a single elementary comparison of two rifles can produce data valid enough for most comparable applications.
We’re discussing comparing 2 M4 type rifles and you want to compare that to the Manhattan Project? Good Lord!
__________________
An amateur trains until he gets it right, a professional trains until he can't get it wrong.
K. Foster is offline  
Old 06-03-2012, 16:13   #127
Matthew Courtney
CLM Number 285
Instructor #298
 
Matthew Courtney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 5,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD357 View Post



See above where I've said multiple times I'm not requiring you to test multiple guns, besides the burden of proof is upon yourself if you insist this test be up to the standards of higher learning.
I've already consulted several other scientists about the validity of the test under our planned protocols, they will produce valid data because they are up to standards consistent with scientific testing.

Burden of proof? The only burden of proof in scientific testing is that a test has to be repeatable. It does not have to be repeated. Simply being repeatable makes it rational to believe that in the absence of contrary data, the data given is valid.

Since you have no stated credentials as either an educator or a scientist, it is also rational to believe that you are merely an Internet fan boy trying to pre-empt some finding by attacking our testing procedures. Relax, all I expect to find is that there are trade-offs when selecting a rifle and our goal is to simply document those trade offs for people thinking of buying a rifle.

The chances against us getting a defective rifle are pretty high. We have had thousands of firearms come through our courses and I haven't seen a defective one yet. Dirty ones, unlubricated ones, worn out ones, abused ones and firearms that needed to be broken in.... But no defective ones.
__________________
You will never begin in the fight you have planned for. You will begin in the fight the other guy has planned for. Retreat in a manner that leads him into your fight should he press his attack.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Matthew Courtney; 06-03-2012 at 17:48..
Matthew Courtney is offline  
Old 06-03-2012, 16:21   #128
DieselNut
Senior Member
 
DieselNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 442
Send a message via AIM to DieselNut
__________________
Nothing smells better than diesel fumes, cosmoline, and burnt gun powder.
DieselNut is offline  
Old 06-03-2012, 16:30   #129
vettely
Senior Member
 
vettely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 1,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by fowler View Post
Mr.Larry Vickers is for real and has seen first hand knowledge of combat weapons. He is not like the Gun Rag whores who write for dollars&perks. Kudo,s to Mr Vickers even if we don,t agree to all his reason,s for one firearm to the other. I agree with him on the Ballistol oil. It works and doe,s not cause cancer like most petrol oil and car oils. Back to the Colt- VS-SW carbines. Both are good.
Huh? What?
__________________
N.R.A. Life Member

Last edited by vettely; 06-03-2012 at 16:31..
vettely is offline  
Old 06-03-2012, 18:27   #130
MD357
Senior Member
 
MD357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,961
Quote:
I've already consulted several other scientists about the validity of the test under our planned protocols, they will produce valid data because they are up to standards consistent with scientific testing.
I'm not really in argument of the validity, rather that you believe that you are up to industry standards. I'll say it again, what you're doing IS probably up to "consumer reports" standards. However, in the learned scientific community said standards are much higher. Just like I said, if you believe that what you are doing is analgous the Manhattan project or what your "friends" publish, you're smoking crack.

Quote:
Burden of proof? The only burden of proof in scientific testing is that a test has to be repeatable
Actually, the results not the test have to be repeatable for the data to move closer to a fact.

Quote:
Since you have no stated credentials as either an educator or a scientist, it is also rational to believe that you are merely an Internet fan boy trying to pre-empt some finding by attacking our testing procedures.
Ah yes.....when in doubt.... take the knuckle dragging route of Ad hom. Fanboy? I really don't think you understand what that means as I have stated no preference of either rifle. I own both so I'm interested in the results though.

Show me one place where I "attacked your procedures." I've said all along, in plain english, that the protocol for this test is absolutely fine for GlockTalk. You're just insiting that the level of science is higher than it is and your ego won't let you admit that it's not for whatever reason.

Quote:
Relax, all I expect to find is that there are trade-offs when selecting a rifle and our goal is to simply document those trade offs for people thinking of buying a rifle.
Excellent, I think it's a great idea.

Quote:
The chances against us getting a defective rifle are pretty high. We have had thousands of firearms come through our courses and I haven't seen a defective one yet. Dirty ones, unlubricated ones, worn out ones, abused ones and firearms that needed to be broken in.... But no defective ones.
You are aware that it happens yes? Having more than one example would eliminate possible variables. Say for instance the bolt goes out on the Sport within 5K rounds. How do you know this isn't common? You only have one example.

Now in this test I understand you can't afford more than one or whatever..... and again.... in plain english..... I'm not discrediting the results for posting on Glocktalk or an AR forum. I am saying that if you were on the level of science of the people you posted, your test would be conducted differently.
MD357 is offline  
Old 06-03-2012, 18:49   #131
bigmoney890
Senior Member
 
bigmoney890's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boone, NC
Posts: 1,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD357 View Post
I am saying that if you were on the level of science of the people you posted, your test would be conducted differently.
I agree with this. If this were a test pitting the Sport vs the 6920, then a wider test sample would be used to ensure no defect of either rifle skewed the results. I'm not trying to say that your tests are scientifically incorrect or your methods are wrong, just that a wider test sample size would yield more "reliable" results .With that being said, I think this test is going to be a good representative of the two brands. Not necessarily a "true" test for the two rifles in the sense of reliability, accuracy, etc. of both brands as a whole, but of what the average person is likely to receive off the shelf! Definitely good enough for the average user. I'm greatly looking forward to the results!

Last edited by bigmoney890; 06-03-2012 at 18:50..
bigmoney890 is offline  
Old 06-03-2012, 19:38   #132
Matthew Courtney
CLM Number 285
Instructor #298
 
Matthew Courtney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 5,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD357 View Post
I'm not really in argument of the validity, rather that you believe that you are up to industry standards. I'll say it again, what you're doing IS probably up to "consumer reports" standards. However, in the learned scientific community said standards are much higher. Just like I said, if you believe that what you are doing is analgous the Manhattan project or what your "friends" publish, you're smoking crack.



Actually, the results not the test have to be repeatable for the data to move closer to a fact.



Ah yes.....when in doubt.... take the knuckle dragging route of Ad hom. Fanboy? I really don't think you understand what that means as I have stated no preference of either rifle. I own both so I'm interested in the results though.

Show me one place where I "attacked your procedures." I've said all along, in plain english, that the protocol for this test is absolutely fine for GlockTalk. You're just insiting that the level of science is higher than it is and your ego won't let you admit that it's not for whatever reason.



Excellent, I think it's a great idea.



You are aware that it happens yes? Having more than one example would eliminate possible variables. Say for instance the bolt goes out on the Sport within 5K rounds. How do you know this isn't common? You only have one example.

Now in this test I understand you can't afford more than one or whatever..... and again.... in plain english..... I'm not discrediting the results for posting on Glocktalk or an AR forum. I am saying that if you were on the level of science of the people you posted, your test would be conducted differently.
Testing every rifle ever made by Colt and S&W would not eliminate all of the variables. Testing 2 more Rifles certainly won't.

Since you are claiming to be an expert about how scientists would conduct this type of test, why don't you describe how we should be doing it? We will then review your testing protocols and take them under advisement.

By the way, anyone with even marginal math skills would know that the cost of the rifles constitutes less than 10% of the cost of our test. We're not testing more than 2 rifles because keeping track of multiple rifle, ammo, and magazine sets when some of the sets are identical wouldn't be easy in our training environment. I want my trainers focusing on our students, not tracking which Colt did what. Since the Colt will be used with 20 rd Colt mags and the S&W will be used with 30 rd pmags, keeping accurate track of the data will be much easier testing only two rifles at a time.

Funny that you mention bolt issues at 5000 rounds. 5000 rounds is when people in our industry expect bolt issues with Ar's of any make. Having bolt issues after several thousand rounds is in no way indicative of a defect. It is simply indicative of service life of a part. Since we will replace parts with factory eom parts, and this will be at least a 20,000 round test, if the replacement part makes to the 20,000 rd count we will have tested that part twice and we will have a Minimum 10,000 rd average service life for that part.
__________________
You will never begin in the fight you have planned for. You will begin in the fight the other guy has planned for. Retreat in a manner that leads him into your fight should he press his attack.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Matthew Courtney is offline  
Old 06-03-2012, 19:45   #133
JaPes
Rimfire 1010101
 
JaPes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NW Burbs, IL
Posts: 1,687
Can we just get on with it already instead of arguing & nit-picking.

Mr. Courtney, thank you for offering to run both a S&W M&P 15-Sport & a Colt LE 69-something in your classes. I'm sure that these two rifles will see more rounds and use than one held by an average firearms enthusiast like myself.

As long as lube is used, I don't care what it is. As long as it shoots, I don't care what ammo is used. As long as they are periodically cleaned, I don't care what process is used.

I'm sure both rifles will be treated the same, and the small factors will average out.
__________________
NRA Life Memeber | 2nd Amendment Foundation Member | Illinois State Rifle Assoc. Member | GSSF Member
-------------------------
Glock 26 Gen4 | Glock 29SF | Glock 22 Gen4 | Glock 17 Gen4
JaPes is offline  
Old 06-03-2012, 21:52   #134
MD357
Senior Member
 
MD357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,961
Quote:
Testing every rifle ever made by Colt and S&W would not eliminate all of the variables. Testing 2 more Rifles certainly won't.
Testing every rifle wouldn't be necessary, testing more than one would.

Quote:
Since you are claiming to be an expert about how scientists would conduct this type of test, why don't you describe how we should be doing it? We will then review your testing protocols and take them under advisement.
Something is wrong with you, you have repeatedly ignored what I have said. How you conduct your test is fine with me....and as I've said.... good enough for a gun forum.

Just to review....

Quote:
I'm not the one that will require you to repeat the results as we are on a gun forum and my standards aren't that high. I was merely stating that in reference to that particular test and your test, while neither completely up to scientific standards, they will be quite a bit more info than most relay.
Quote:
I'm with you though, just shoot the guns and report back. This is GT not the NEJM.
Quote:
Again, I'm not requiring multple samples... but don't say this "test" is up the standards held by many scientific communities
Quote:
I've said all along, in plain english, that the protocol for this test is absolutely fine for GlockTalk.
Quote:
I'm not discrediting the results for posting on Glocktalk or an AR forum. I am saying that if you were on the level of science of the people you posted, your test would be conducted differently.
So, if you need to know how someone would conduct a PR study that would see honest publication then hit up your Ph.d friends and relay an abstract, and start naming possible variables, null hypothesis, and increase your sample size.... for starters. NONE OF THIS IS NECCESSARY IN MY OPINION, UNLESS YOU INSIST ON COMPARING YOUR TEST TO MANHATTAN PROJECT.

Quote:
We're not testing more than 2 rifles because keeping track of multiple rifle, ammo, and magazine sets when some of the sets are identical wouldn't be easy in our training environment.
Understandable, as I understand the priority. However, comments such as this definately validate what I've been saying. Lotsa variables to account for eh?

Quote:
Funny that you mention bolt issues at 5000 rounds. 5000 rounds is when people in our industry expect bolt issues with Ar's of any make. Having bolt issues after several thousand rounds is in no way indicative of a defect.
You're not getting it. Notice I said within.... it was for a reason and I've seen quality bolts go much longer on a larger scale so I expect more than 5K out of one, YMMV. Now say a sport has a failure WITHIN ~5K rounds and the colt goes much longer. The specifics of what I'm saying doesn't matter, as I'm trying to relay a fundamental and basic point of scientic study. Without a doubt could you say that all Sport bolts will fail around a specific round count after ONE example? Nope. or that a Colt will most likely go longer given ONE example? Having one example of each could definately compromise ~ equality on a LARGE scale.
MD357 is offline  
Old 06-04-2012, 20:17   #135
FriscoCHL
Senior Member
 
FriscoCHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: TX
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by vettely View Post
Huh? What?
if i remember correctly, its used motor oil that has been shown to cause cancer...?

good lord fellas it went form a guy willing to test a couple rifles that we all want compared in that kind of setting to a 4 page debate on lube, to instructors, now to scientific testing procedures.. dad gum this baby is gonna get locked before the damn test even starts....

just let him test the rifles and we can argue over the results, procedures and lube / cleaning methods when they are not the results we want...
__________________
Beer is good and people are crazy...

Last edited by FriscoCHL; 06-04-2012 at 20:19..
FriscoCHL is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 20:52   #136
Matthew Courtney
CLM Number 285
Instructor #298
 
Matthew Courtney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 5,959
The lead researchers from the Ballistics Testing Group are coming in Sunday June 17, 2012 to do some sea level mirroring of tests that they did in Colorado Springs earlier this year. We'll get their help and guidance in setting up the tests and doing initial measurements on the rifles components, so that we can gauge wear. I am also waiting for a throat gage and trigger pull scale to come in.
__________________
You will never begin in the fight you have planned for. You will begin in the fight the other guy has planned for. Retreat in a manner that leads him into your fight should he press his attack.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Matthew Courtney; 06-06-2012 at 22:51..
Matthew Courtney is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 22:44   #137
WoodenPlank
Who?
 
WoodenPlank's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 7,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Courtney View Post
The lead researchers from the Ballistics Testing Group are coming in Sunday June 17, 2012 to do some sea level mirroring of tests that they did in Colorado Springs earlier this year. We'll get their help and guidance in setting up the tests and doing initial measurements on the rifles components, so that we can gauge wear. I am also waiting for a throat gage and trigger pull scale to come in.
Whats with the photo?
__________________
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
WoodenPlank is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 22:48   #138
Matthew Courtney
CLM Number 285
Instructor #298
 
Matthew Courtney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 5,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by WoodenPlank View Post
Whats with the photo?
oops!
__________________
You will never begin in the fight you have planned for. You will begin in the fight the other guy has planned for. Retreat in a manner that leads him into your fight should he press his attack.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Matthew Courtney; 06-06-2012 at 22:52..
Matthew Courtney is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 23:08   #139
WoodenPlank
Who?
 
WoodenPlank's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 7,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Courtney View Post
oops!
__________________
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
WoodenPlank is offline  
Old 06-21-2012, 19:00   #140
Matthew Courtney
CLM Number 285
Instructor #298
 
Matthew Courtney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 5,959
Initial measurements and data:

Our Colt 6920 was recieved with 4 position Rogers SuperStock. The SuperStock turns 5-8 degrees on the reciever extension axis under about 20 ft pounds of torque. It cannot be moved forward or back with handstrength when locked and no movement is observed when getting a cheekweld in normal shooting positions. The handguard rotates 10-12 degrees on the barrel axis under 10 ft pounds of torque and moves forward and back about 3/32's of an inch. There is minimal play between the upper and lower. When pushed together, no light passes through. When pushed apart, light and the corner of a 20 lb sheet of printer paper can pass through the gap, but 2 sheets of paper will not. The carbine weighs 6 pounds 14.8 ounces. The bolt carrier group weighs 11.6 ounces and the bolt is marked "MPC". Our three measurements on an RCBS trigger pull scale were 7-14, 6-8, and 7-8, for an average pull weight of 7 pounds 4.667 ounces.

The M&P 15 Sport has a regular M4 style stock which moves easily forward and back about 1/16 of an inch in all 6 positions and rotates 5-8 degrees with minimal torque. The handguard rotates 3-4 degrees under about 10 ft/lbs of torque and moves forward and back a detectable, but less than 1/64 inch amount under about 30 pounds of force. The Sport weighs 6 pounds 2.7 ounces. The complete bolt carrier group weighs 11.2 ounces and the bolt is marked "MP". The extractor has a doughnut o ring around its spring. Play between the upper and lower is on par with the Colt. Trigger pull measured 6-2, 6-12, and 6-4 for an average of 6 pounds 6 ounces. Pictures will be on our facebook page in a few days and our accuracy and ballistics test should begin tomorrow afternoon.

Since the Colt was recieved with 2 20 round Colt magazines with black followers, we have purchased 8 of the same for the evaluation. Ditto for the 30 round Pmag shipped with the S&W in that we bought 9 more so each carbine begins with 10 magazines identical to what it was recieved with.

The Colt has a forward assist, an ejection port cover, and a grenade launcher cut which the Sport does not. Both have A2 style flash suppressors and bayonette lugs.

What other initial measurements or information should we report at this time?
__________________
You will never begin in the fight you have planned for. You will begin in the fight the other guy has planned for. Retreat in a manner that leads him into your fight should he press his attack.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Matthew Courtney; 06-22-2012 at 09:35..
Matthew Courtney is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:17.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 934
284 Members
650 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31