GlockTalk.com
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 06-23-2012, 07:42   #161
magman687
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: southern ohio
Posts: 92
Was thinking about getting a sport so I'm very interested in this test thanks for doing it.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
magman687 is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 07:44   #162
WoodenPlank
Who?
 
WoodenPlank's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 7,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by glocksterr View Post
would it matter that much if both where tested in the same manner and was repeatable?
Maybe not, but it's always a good idea to eliminate as many variables as possible.
__________________
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
WoodenPlank is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 07:50   #163
Matthew Courtney
CLM Number 285
Instructor #298
 
Matthew Courtney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 5,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphertext View Post
Sorry Matthew, there have been so many posts in this thread, I forgot about that....

Now I am really surprised on those numbers! Are the rifles locked down in a sled, or is this shooting from a bench with sandbags?
We are shooting from a bench with a Caldwell adjustable rest under the handguard and sandbags under the buttstock. The Blackhills group had 3 shots in a .75 inch group and 2 shots off to the left through one hole that resembeled a figure 8. Given that these barrels are not free floated, my guess is that the pressure on the handguard changed during the 5 shot string. The degree to which normal pressure changes on the handguard affects point of impact is an aspect of this evaluation. Remember, we are not evaluating the ammo to see which ammo is more accurate, we are using a sample of available ammo to evaluate the rifles. If I were going to do an ammo eval, I would use free floated rifles to eliminate the variable of changing pressures and forces against the barrel.
__________________
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 06-23-2012, 08:01   #164
cyphertext
Senior Member
 
cyphertext's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by glocksterr View Post
would it matter that much if both where tested in the same manner and was repeatable?
It would make a difference because the sled doesn't suffer from fatigue, anticipate recoil, etc. And if you want to be truly scientific, you would have to eliminate all variables. That would mean shooting indoors where you can control humidity, temperature, wind, etc. You can't shoot outside on two different days and compare those two samples against each other. Too many variables to be a meaningful comparison.

However, I was asking out of curiosity though more than anything though. I was surprised by the numbers is all I am saying, especially with the premium ammo. With the targets that I have seen posted from other shooters, I expected tighter groupings. I wouldn't expect Wolf to outshoot Black Hills! Guess I can save my money.

Matthew, don't take this as a knock against your test. I'm more interested in the life expectancy of the parts than anything. Look forward to seeing the results.
cyphertext is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 08:05   #165
Matthew Courtney
CLM Number 285
Instructor #298
 
Matthew Courtney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 5,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by WoodenPlank View Post
Maybe not, but it's always a good idea to eliminate as many variables as possible.
You are absolutly right! Are you aware of a sled which is set up in such a way that rifles with standard capacity mags can be strapped into them? The Caldwell leadsleds, along with several others we have, cannot be used with AR style rifles and standard magazines.
__________________
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 06-23-2012, 08:09   #166
Airhasz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Bad Axe
Posts: 535
Being a pony owner, I will get a kick if the sport out preforms the colt their will be a lot of excuses from many loyal colt owners...
Airhasz is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 08:11   #167
WoodenPlank
Who?
 
WoodenPlank's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 7,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Courtney View Post
You are absolutly right! Are you aware of a sled which is set up in such a way that rifles with standard capacity mags can be strapped into them? The Caldwell leadsleds, along with several others we have, cannot be used with AR style rifles and standard magazines.

Not offhand, as I don't really use rests. However, for the sake of simplicity, I wouldn't see an issue with using a short mag in both rifles only during accuracy testing. Since you're firing relatively short strings in that case, mag reliability won't really be an issue, and can be eliminated as a variable.
__________________
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
WoodenPlank is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 08:12   #168
Matthew Courtney
CLM Number 285
Instructor #298
 
Matthew Courtney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 5,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphertext View Post
It would make a difference because the sled doesn't suffer from fatigue, anticipate recoil, etc. And if you want to be truly scientific, you would have to eliminate all variables. That would mean shooting indoors where you can control humidity, temperature, wind, etc. You can't shoot outside on two different days and compare those two samples against each other. Too many variables to be a meaningful comparison.

However, I was asking out of curiosity though more than anything though. I was surprised by the numbers is all I am saying, especially with the premium ammo. With the targets that I have seen posted from other shooters, I expected tighter groupings. I wouldn't expect Wolf to outshoot Black Hills! Guess I can save my money.

Matthew, don't take this as a knock against your test. I'm more interested in the life expectancy of the parts than anything. Look forward to seeing the results.
If you check those targets posted by other shooters, I expect you would see two things.

1. Many of those shooters had free floated barrels.
2. Many of those shooters did not report 100% of their data.
__________________
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 06-23-2012, 08:21   #169
cyphertext
Senior Member
 
cyphertext's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Courtney View Post
We are shooting from a bench with a Caldwell adjustable rest under the handguard and sandbags under the buttstock. The Blackhills group had 3 shots in a .75 inch group and 2 shots off to the left through one hole that resembeled a figure 8. Given that these barrels are not free floated, my guess is that the pressure on the handguard changed during the 5 shot string. The degree to which normal pressure changes on the handguard affects point of impact is an aspect of this evaluation. Remember, we are not evaluating the ammo to see which ammo is more accurate, we are using a sample of available ammo to evaluate the rifles. If I were going to do an ammo eval, I would use free floated rifles to eliminate the variable of changing pressures and forces against the barrel.
So, am I correct in saying then that this first set of data points, the sight in, is not even meant to be compared between rifles? It is just a beginning data point set, so that you have something to measure against as the test progresses? For example, if in 4000 rounds, the groups open up to 3 inches, then you know that the barrel is no bueno?
cyphertext is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 09:10   #170
Matthew Courtney
CLM Number 285
Instructor #298
 
Matthew Courtney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 5,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphertext View Post
So, am I correct in saying then that this first set of data points, the sight in, is not even meant to be compared between rifles? It is just a beginning data point set, so that you have something to measure against as the test progresses? For example, if in 4000 rounds, the groups open up to 3 inches, then you know that the barrel is no bueno?
That is a fair assessment. Some folks will invariably pick data along the way to support their beliefs, and that's ok for them, I guess. We do not anticipate evaluating the data until we have about 4800-5000 rounds through each carbine. At that point, we may seek to have the study published in a peer reviewed journal. Drs. Michael and Amy Courtney of the Ballistics Testing Group think that the study should be published. We have been co-operating with BTG for years on their research. They primarily test arms and armor for the military, and do BC research. Michael teaches at Air Force in Colorado Springs. Most of the sea level testing they do is conducted on my range during the Summer, so BTG is here now helping us set up our test. Full disclosure: Michael is my twin brother and today is our 45th birthday.
__________________
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 06-23-2012, 09:21   #171
MD357
Senior Member
 
MD357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphertext View Post
It would make a difference because the sled doesn't suffer from fatigue, anticipate recoil, etc. And if you want to be truly scientific, you would have to eliminate all variables. That would mean shooting indoors where you can control humidity, temperature, wind, etc. You can't shoot outside on two different days and compare those two samples against each other. Too many variables to be a meaningful comparison.

However, I was asking out of curiosity though more than anything though. I was surprised by the numbers is all I am saying, especially with the premium ammo. With the targets that I have seen posted from other shooters, I expected tighter groupings. I wouldn't expect Wolf to outshoot Black Hills! Guess I can save my money.

Matthew, don't take this as a knock against your test. I'm more interested in the life expectancy of the parts than anything. Look forward to seeing the results.
This sounds awfully familiar.

Last edited by MD357; 06-23-2012 at 09:33..
MD357 is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 09:43   #172
WoodenPlank
Who?
 
WoodenPlank's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 7,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Courtney View Post
That is a fair assessment. Some folks will invariably pick data along the way to support their beliefs, and that's ok for them, I guess. We do not anticipate evaluating the data until we have about 4800-5000 rounds through each carbine. At that point, we may seek to have the study published in a peer reviewed journal. Drs. Michael and Amy Courtney of the Ballistics Testing Group think that the study should be published. We have been co-operating with BTG for years on their research. They primarily test arms and armor for the military, and do BC research. Michael teaches at Air Force in Colorado Springs. Most of the sea level testing they do is conducted on my range during the Summer, so BTG is here now helping us set up our test. Full disclosure: Michael is my twin brother and today is our 45th birthday.

Happy birthday!
__________________
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
WoodenPlank is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 09:54   #173
cyphertext
Senior Member
 
cyphertext's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by WoodenPlank View Post
Happy birthday!
X 2 One Happy Birthday wish for each of you.
cyphertext is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 10:10   #174
MD357
Senior Member
 
MD357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Courtney View Post
That is a fair assessment. Some folks will invariably pick data along the way to support their beliefs, and that's ok for them, I guess. We do not anticipate evaluating the data until we have about 4800-5000 rounds through each carbine. At that point, we may seek to have the study published in a peer reviewed journal. Drs. Michael and Amy Courtney of the Ballistics Testing Group think that the study should be published.
Let's be a little realistic here, this study would never get published by an acredited journal and I'm not sure who you think your "peers" would be.

It's a simple and valid "test" but again, nothing more, nothing less.... but let's not make it into something that it's not.
MD357 is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 10:19   #175
magman687
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: southern ohio
Posts: 92
Happy birthday
magman687 is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 10:25   #176
cyphertext
Senior Member
 
cyphertext's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD357 View Post
Hopefully this thread will last long enough to see the results of the test.
Remember when you posted this back on page 1? I think Matthew is being gracious to post his data here and being open to questions on his methods and validity. Even if you don't agree with the methods, please be civil. I don't want him to pack up his data and go home!
cyphertext is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 10:43   #177
MD357
Senior Member
 
MD357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphertext View Post
Remember when you posted this back on page 1? I think Matthew is being gracious to post his data here and being open to questions on his methods and validity. Even if you don't agree with the methods, please be civil. I don't want him to pack up his data and go home!
I am being civil, I'm just calling it like it is, no names, insults or ad hom. (unlike what I've recieved) I've said MULTIPLE times in plain english... don't change a thing.... it's glocktalk. It's only when there was an insistance of this being some acredited study that I will point out that it's far from. I will say this again....

It doesn't need to be. It's absolutly fine for the needs and standards of this forum or any other gun forum. However, don't tell me it's going to published in a scientific journal because I know better.

In fact, my initial comment on post #98 says that this test will be more substantial than any anecdotes posted on the net. IMO. This however doesn't mean it's the equal to a PRJ study.

Last edited by MD357; 06-23-2012 at 10:44..
MD357 is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 10:53   #178
Matthew Courtney
CLM Number 285
Instructor #298
 
Matthew Courtney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 5,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD357 View Post
Let's be a little realistic here, this study would never get published by an acredited journal and I'm not sure who you think your "peers" would be.

It's a simple and valid "test" but again, nothing more, nothing less.... but let's not make it into something that it's not.
In matters of my health, I usually defer to my physicians. In matters of law, I defer to my attorneys and rely upon their counsel. In this scientific endeavor, should I rely upon the suggestions of scientists who test arms and armor for the U.S. military, or on the opinion of an anonymous intermet persona?

In truth, I would not begin to know how to submit a study for publication or who to consider appropriate parties to review the data, which is why I sought counsel. I am an educator and trainer, an expert in how to guide and condition human behavior. My area of application of my expertise happens to intersect with an opportunity to collect this data in a way which may be beneficial, so we will gather the data.

To make a determination concerning the suitability of the data for publication before the data is collected seems premature to me, especially since vetted, credentialed scientists think the study may have value to those in the scientific community who may wish to replicate certain aspects. Perhaps no one will want to touch the study. As we must shoot the carbines to evaluate their suitability for various applications; We must study the data to determine its suitability for various applications. The more qualified people we can get to review the data, the better we can assess what it means and how best to move forward.
__________________
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; 06-23-2012 at 11:02..
Matthew Courtney is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 11:19   #179
glocksterr
DirtyGlockHippy
 
glocksterr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: NC,USA
Posts: 1,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphertext View Post
So, am I correct in saying then that this first set of data points, the sight in, is not even meant to be compared between rifles? It is just a beginning data point set, so that you have something to measure against as the test progresses? For example, if in 4000 rounds, the groups open up to 3 inches, then you know that the barrel is no bueno?

if a series of data points if good enough to be compared to each other, why would it not be good enough to be used against other sets under similar conditions? we are going to get a spectrum of data points here and they will paint a picture, for, against or neutral.

are sport owners already trying to make excuses? movement in the handgaurd if not FF is something that happens in the RW. its not some benchracer fantasy.


i think its as valid a comparison that is reasonally possible under the conditions. do we really need a double blind study by accredited groups to justify the colt is better?

maybe the sport kicks it in the nuts. i dont know. dont make excuses and backpedal before both guns are even out of the box.

Last edited by glocksterr; 06-23-2012 at 11:37..
glocksterr is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 11:42   #180
Andrewsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 7,780
$225 for a gallon of oil?! Haha!
Andrewsky 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 16:14.




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


Users Currently Online: 1,003
285 Members
718 Guests

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