smaller always better? , .684 vs. .688

[nak81783]

Why not? I'll give it a shot.

Blow test with seams engaging the barrel ID. Then downsize .003-.005" (or closest increment down).

But if I get bunkered in the back while swabbing out a messy barrel...

[cockerpunk]

Why not? I'll give it a shot.

Blow test with seams engaging the barrel ID. Then downsize .003-.005" (or closest increment down).

But if I get bunkered in the back while swabbing out a messy barrel...

you'd be cleaning out that barrel either way. most barrel breaks are a function of the loading system and the ball/bolt/breach interaction, not the ball/barrel interaction.

[Frizzle Fry]

Cockerpunks tests do not account for several important factors that he refuses to acknowledge.

[nak81783]

Cockerpunks tests do not account for several important factors that he refuses to acknowledge.

Please elaborate, or link me to past discussions.

[cockerpunk]

Cockerpunks tests do not account for several important factors that he refuses to acknowledge.

Please elaborate, or link me to past discussions.

Frizzle can only ever be that vague.

is our testing incomplete? you bet. all testing, of everything is incomplete. thats why we still don't know everything there is to know.

but that doesn't mean its not useful, or we cannot learn to improve performance from it. i've been underboring for 4 or 5 years, as have many many other folks. and as i said, esp on our automags ... the extra efficiency is a godsend.

[GoatBoy]

i disagree on the grounds that we have been testing barrels for 5 years ... and EVERY SINGLE TIME we end up with the same conclusion. that repeatability is a sure sign of data convergence. anyone can do it themselves at there own field too

Then what you are talking about is a much larger aggregate of five years worth of data which represents effectively more shots. Which is fine, that is a way to tackle the problem. That data should be better collated or something -- you can't just point to some strings of 20 shots and expect a rational person to accept a conclusion regarding the standard deviation effectively. Based on that immediate data. I'm not disagreeing with your possible trend. I have no data either way.

Your five years of testing, however, has not proven that 20 shots alone is enough. Look at your data, look at my data, look at anyone else's data where you can pick a random run of 20 and compare it against the aggregate longer run. The data strongly shows that if you're looking for differences like what were indicated in that bore test, 20 shots is not enough.

i like that your testing things though, please come by punkworks and post up what you are working on! more data = more better ALWAYS.

Likewise, I appreciate your testing, I just... man, I wish I had the resources you guys have. I get to do everything myself, without proper facilities, without good equipment access, and without pretty much any assistance because quite frankly nobody quite understands what I'm doing anyways. That's why I can't tolerate errors in my own testing. It's literally too painful to go and redo it.

Trying to limit my forum exposure though. I'm actually probably going to start contracting it...

[djinnform]

Thanks for all the great info. guys.

I shot 3/4 a case of paint yesterday through the .684 back, (no breaks) and the needle on my air tank barely moved. I used the air from last week! So, I'm pretty sure that the smaller bore increased my air efficiency to a noticeable difference at this point. But, my gut feeling is that the .688 is still slightly more accurate, but slightly less air efficient. Next time I play, I will switch back to the .688 and report back.