Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Testing Friction Reduction of Bullet Coatings
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael Courtney" data-source="post: 682584" data-attributes="member: 28191"><p>We've always considered most accuracy testing as more anecdotal (possibly valid for one rifle and shooter in a given circumstance) than scientific (most likely applying to a broad class of rifles and ammunition rather than just the specific test cases).</p><p></p><p>The way most accuracy testing is conducted, there is simply too much room for confounding factors to draw convincing conclusions from small sample sizes. We've considered possible accuracy testing to answer various scientific questions that arise (including bullet coating and more fouling) but the sample sizes and facility costs to do rigorous scientific testing seem prohibitive. None of our team feels personally confident to be a reliable shooter for such testing. Have you priced machine rests that are good to 1/4 MOA? Also, we feel that reliable accuracy testing over the required sample sizes would most likely require an indoor range on the order of 300 yards long like Barnes has (to remove wind as a confounding variable). </p><p></p><p>Finally, we think we'd likely need between three and five bullets in the coated and uncoated states, so with 200 shots in each condition (coated and uncoated), we're looking at 1200-2000 shots to compare HBN with uncoated. Of course, everyone will want their coating included in the study, so we're talking about 600-1000 more shots for MS2 and WS2 (each). Of course, by this point, we're beyond the life of the barrel for most cartridges and whether a given coating was tested early or late in the barrel life is now a confounding factor, so we need a multi barrel test where the test is repeated with each coating occurring at a different stage of the barrel life.</p><p></p><p>Accuracy tests are very hard to do with the level of scientific rigor needed to infer with confidence that the results can be expected to apply broadly to situations other than the rifle and bullet combinations included in the actual test.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Courtney, post: 682584, member: 28191"] We've always considered most accuracy testing as more anecdotal (possibly valid for one rifle and shooter in a given circumstance) than scientific (most likely applying to a broad class of rifles and ammunition rather than just the specific test cases). The way most accuracy testing is conducted, there is simply too much room for confounding factors to draw convincing conclusions from small sample sizes. We've considered possible accuracy testing to answer various scientific questions that arise (including bullet coating and more fouling) but the sample sizes and facility costs to do rigorous scientific testing seem prohibitive. None of our team feels personally confident to be a reliable shooter for such testing. Have you priced machine rests that are good to 1/4 MOA? Also, we feel that reliable accuracy testing over the required sample sizes would most likely require an indoor range on the order of 300 yards long like Barnes has (to remove wind as a confounding variable). Finally, we think we'd likely need between three and five bullets in the coated and uncoated states, so with 200 shots in each condition (coated and uncoated), we're looking at 1200-2000 shots to compare HBN with uncoated. Of course, everyone will want their coating included in the study, so we're talking about 600-1000 more shots for MS2 and WS2 (each). Of course, by this point, we're beyond the life of the barrel for most cartridges and whether a given coating was tested early or late in the barrel life is now a confounding factor, so we need a multi barrel test where the test is repeated with each coating occurring at a different stage of the barrel life. Accuracy tests are very hard to do with the level of scientific rigor needed to infer with confidence that the results can be expected to apply broadly to situations other than the rifle and bullet combinations included in the actual test. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Testing Friction Reduction of Bullet Coatings
Top