Originally Posted by
rsilvers
Yes, and also - the data I gave may be the first time in the history of guns that a gun company both gave the actual accuracy data and also there being enough shots to make it statistically significant. I could have picked out three shot groups from that which were 1/4 MOA - as common industry practice - but I know how irrelevant that is and I can't play that game. Lots of companies have made their guns appealing by giving three shot accuracy guarantees and it is meaningless. Reporting accuracy is normally a joke - and about as trustworthy as looking at the 'mile range' of a walkie talkie or the 'dynamic contrast ratio' of an LCD TV. But those sell a lot of LCD TVs to people also.
The industry needs a standard precision test. I would like it to be radial standard deviation, but true - it is somewhat abstract to understand and requires a computer to get the results. So I would settle for average mean radius, as I reported. It should be generated from AT LEAST 30 shots (my data is from a few hundred shots on 7 uppers) but I would be much happier if the industry test was 100 shots - and actually, it should require five guns. So 500 shots. This could do for the gun industry what SAE certified net horsepower did for the car industry - cut out the BS. And then people should not trust anything not tested to this new industry standard. But in reality, people don't even seem to demand SAE certified HP numbers, and likewise, people are all too ready to believe fanciful accuracy numbers, so I see little hope for people to demand real testing.
Basically, I don't want to know the best group a gun can shoot is. I want to know typical results. I know what you are thinking - a car's 1/4 mile time is the best that it has done, not the average. Well, true... but at least that is a significant test. I would be perfectly happy to have the 'best' results from a 500 round 5-gun (100 per gun) precision test based on average mean radius!
Bookmarks