Accuracy, Never Enough to Go Around
We've completed not one but two rounds of accuracy testing and we've hit a bit of an obstacle. Initially, I wanted to have the data out in a "one or two week" timeline from the posting date but, for reasons we'll get into below, I'm not comfortable releasing it yet.
The problem in my accuracy tests, is accuracy. I'm not getting as much as I should be getting. Take a look at the below comparison of X-component deviation* in the baseline groups from Punkworks and our first shooting session. Punkworks is getting a final result that is more than twice as accurate.
Edit: Ha, I knew I remeber seeing a video about this: Tiberius First Strike Test Thoughts by cockerpunk. It touches on the damping effect that correcting the groups has.
I applied (ostensibly) (confirmed) the same mathematical methodology to my groups and it made a difference. We got about an inch off the group, which is pretty significant. Definitely closing the gap but certainly not all the way there.
Thinking about it some more, it could be the barrel setup. There is a short stretch of smoothbore before the rifling in my MR5 setup that could be throwing off the accuracy. We know that smoothbores don't do much to the spin of the round; in some cases it can even rotate in the wrong direction. It's possible that the smoothbore presection is allowing some rounds to get a counterproductive spin before they hit the rifling and that those rounds aren't being stabilized as well as they otherwise would be.
It could also just be that my paint settling methodology didn't work as well as long-term nose down or centrifugally settled paint. I might have just grabbed and visually inspected a couple of rounds that were naturally settled right.
Another possibility is that I'm botching something about the mathematical theory here.
So basically I need to shoot a group that has been centrifugally settled, shoot a group from a system that doesn't have the smoothbore presection, and mess with the numbers more/shoot a larger group size/get confirmation on the Punkworks math.
Once I figure out what's going on with my accuracy I'll feel batter tackling my 121 accuracy/drag data.
The issue going forward is money. It's a finite resource for most of us, and I definitely include myself in that number. It would be a serious kick in the dick to shell out money for the only tested rifled barrel that works natively with the MR5. That would of course be the Hammer 7 threaded Tiberius/Lapco barrel. The other less dick kickish option is to buy the threaded Hammerhead back for Ion/Impulse threads and do a test group on my Ion. There are a couple of concerns there but it's a decent solution from a trouble shooting standpoint. Anybody have the Lapco barrel or a Hammerhead back in Ion/Impulse they'd be willing to loan out? I'd of course be willing to put up collateral through a third-party for the full replacement value. I can float the money easy as pie, but I'd rather avoid sinking it when I need to restock my paint. Other than that, I'm gonna move some gear on craigslist and buy paint as sales allow.
Oh and the studio/warehouse owner shot some behind the scenes stuff when we did our first shooting session. Bro did it gratis and I think it turned out pretty cool. Check it out here.
*I prefer to compare accuracy using just the X-component rather than the vector. I'll get into the specifc reasoning in another this post, but for now bear with me.
What's the consistency over the chrono for you gun? and how far are you shooting?
to be honest, i wouldn't even bother comparing your results to other peoples results. the gun is not the same, the paint is not the same, etc. just get the data for YOUR tests, and let the results speak for themselves.
at least, that is how i look at paintball accuracy tests. i view each one as unique, and only compare data in one test (ie, i don't compare punkworks results to rntlee's results, etc).
Honestly, I would say scrap the MR5.
I own and have used with FSR:
Milsig Paradigm Pro
And used on an outdoor gun range a buddy's DAM against all of these. The 468 after I put a reg on it, is pretty accurate, but the best, shot-shot velocity consistency, and total accuracy, is my BT Tracer by FAR. I made up a little side mounting sten like mag for it. It takes cocker threads, is closed bolt, and would be easy enough to put a reg onto for further velocity improvement.
I lowered my MR5's spring strength, adjusted the pressure with a plamer reg, have a barrel/breach adapter for it so I can use other spyder threaded barrels, but it still kicks quite a bit when shooting and has lots of moving parts and the rounds don't sit in a breach. It's just not that great of a platform to be using for such a precise set of tests, in my opinion.
If you want, I can mail you out my Trracer. The mag system can be a bit tricky at first but its nothing an engineer can't figure out. You can also have it right side up too and remove the variable of the round not being fired/seated properly each time due to the open bolt aspect of the MR5. I'm not using it much anymore so if you want, and think it will help as I do, I can send it your way.
Also you'll need to get the centrifuge thing going too. I don't think the tapping is cutting it. I've got a game in a few weeks in Houston I'll be going to, but after that I can send the centrifuge out too if you want. You'll just need a cordless drill to spin it.
As for First Strike Rounds, From box to box, year to year, there has been very little change in the first strike rounds. The weights and sizes have largely remained the same. The most significant thing I've observed would be an improvement to the injection point on the nose (the last couple years have been improved over the first couple years).
IMHO, I'd just post your data and test methods, maybe make a note that your data and the punkworks data do not align. Let the community peer review it. Hell, maybe your data is correct and theirs was flawed. In either case, I'm sure your data (even if flawed) has value to the community.
but i'd go along with lordkyleofearth and just get your tests wrapped up and posted. if you really think there is an error, hit up bryce and cockerpunk to go over your data and testing methods. i'm sure they wouldn't mind.
Our velocity standard deviation averaged around 3. Sometimes as good as the mid 2s and sometimes as bad as the high 4s. Were shooting at 75ft, the same as the Punkworks test.
Its certainly possible that the paint was somehow different. But it seems unlikey considering that we have evidence suggesting an improvement in manufacturing consistency.
In so far as the markers, I do think that there might be some difference between platforms (for the moment ignoring my concerns about the smoothbore presection). When I had the high FPS camera I did some slow-mo of the barrel in the MR5 during firing. I did it because FS are so accurate/long range that barrel harmonics might actually start to matter as a contributing factor to accuracy and I wanted to see if the barrel experienced any flex during firing. It definitly showed some flex. Not exactly like an AK but still noticable.
I tested it in my first and second round of shooting, but didnt find anything to conclusivly support the idea. Whatever is throwing off my groups could also be masking the effects of the harmonics (if they matter at all). If they do end up mattering then it stands to reason that the characteristics of the markers operation will alos matter. You might expect long slow impulses to be less disturbing than hard fast ones. Or inline internals to disturb the shot less than the assymetric forces of stacked tube blowbacks.
For now, Ill put together a rough cut of the data. I dont think it matters a whole lot, but it's been asked for a couple of times. I gotta properly describe and qualify everything, so I'll get that up tomorrow afternoonish.
I'll PM you tonight or tomorrow afternoon, scott. I gotta get back on the road to Jax.
Also here's some relevent info from another disucssion. And a link to my argument in favor of the x-component.
And... heres the rough cut of the data. Be sure to look at the below before you dive in.
In the first round, my process with the variables was to create a baseline using a speculative "most accurate" combination of factors and then test each factor one at a time, while the others remain constant with the baseline. In the second round, I wanted the test to be more "apples to apples" with the Punkworks test so that the two sets could be readily compared or used together. Hence the difference in variable schema between the first and second round.
The chrono in the first few groupings of the second test was malfunctioning due to a dying battery. Those cells have been highlighted in a darker orange. The battery was replaced, and the reading became more reasonable and consistent with previous testing.
The rigid variable test group in the second test suffered from a shifting POA every four shots due to operator error. The groups are seperated by dashed lines. I might artificaily center them later (or let someone with excel skills take care of it). Edit: I ran the numbers and unsurprisingly the more groups you break a population into, the more exaggerated the corrective effect of the mathematical centering.
Some quick notes on the variable terminology:
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:36 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC