Quote:
Originally Posted by cjottawa  Bryce,
Define "proof."
If I were to: - mount the Redux in a bench vice
- set up a target indoors with no wind and stable conditions
- connect regulated HPA via remote
- measure ALL of my paint to ensure consistency
- test fire 10 shots from each barrel, measuring the group size
Would that constitute "proof" to you that one particular barrel on one particular gun was capable of a tighter grouping than another?
I play with the Redux at least once a week.
I don't drink, smoke or use any kind of substance that would alter my state of mind. (a SINGLE cup of coffee in the morning excluded).
I have a critical mind.
Do I NEED to do all of the above to generate "proof" or is critical observation valid?
I may not be able to "measure" my observations with a ruler but perhaps that falls under the statement "not everything important is measurable" hrm? 
Adding to what DSA wrote, one barrel may not be more accurate but added to other variables such as which gun it's attached to may make a measurable difference in the net accuracy. |
That test sounds perfect. You don't need to measure the paint, just buy good paint for the test. A Sample of 20-25 shots, record impact location and velocity. That my standard.
Here are a few accuracy tests we've conducted:
PunkWorks Paintball - The Science Side of Paintball - PunkWorks Paintball - The Science Side of Paintball - PunkWorks Paintball - The Science Side of Paintball - PunkWorks Paintball - The Science Side of Paintball - PunkWorks Paintball - The Science Side of Paintball -
There are variations test to test based on paint - but we've never seen statistically significant accuracy differences from ANY barrel we've tested. Paint, yes, First Strikes, hell yes.
Observation isn't useful in this instance. I've been the shooter on dozens, maybe hundreds of tests shooting at gridded targets. Almost every time as you're shooting your brain starts to try to find a pattern. I've turned to people who were helping with the test and said something like "this one looks really good" or "this one is terrible". Neither were true. Once you look at the numbers those two were exactly the same. We're just wired to try to see patterns in random data.
As to the question about not being measurable - this one is easy to measure. You're talking accuracy - that's easily quantifiable.
Now, gun ergonomics - hell yeah, that can certainly help or hurt accuracy. Maybe this is just easier to point because it gives you a barrel to sight along like most other guns.