A proposed measurement of performance

[Menace_AO]

Goatboy,

Just out of curiosity, what barrel were you using on the mag/spider comparison day?

Also, were you under- or overboring? I'm chasing a different rabbit and am wondering if our trails intersect.

[Spider-TW]

For instance, I ran the same batch of paint through the same barrel, same day, but on 2 different markers here:



Look at 2013-06-29, with Automag and Spyder. X is FPS, Y is frequency.

The center of the curves (the velocity setpoint) were different, but the shape of both curves appear very, similar. Standard deviation was 6.17 vs 6.19.

In that example, I was essentially holding the paint constant and varying the gun.

Those curves are interesting in that they are such nice bell curves. I have trouble believing that paint defects (or varying marker/barrel defects) would be so smoothly distributed. These look like consistently oblong paint being loaded into the breeches in a perfectly random fashion. Like out of a loader or something.

[blackdeath1k]

Those curves are interesting in that they are such nice bell curves. I have trouble believing that paint defects (or varying marker/barrel defects) would be so smoothly distributed. These look like consistently oblong paint being loaded into the breeches in a perfectly random fashion. Like out of a loader or something.

I could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure them are auto generated curves in excel based off of all of the points that are not as smooth. This way we have something clean to look at that represents the characteristics.

[GoatBoy]

Just out of curiosity, what barrel were you using on the mag/spider comparison day?

Also, were you under- or overboring? I'm chasing a different rabbit and am wondering if our trails intersect.

It was effectively the same barrel -- I used a Cocker Freak back on the Mag, and a Spyder Freak back on the Spyder. The insert (~0.685 brass) and tips were the same. One of the unusual benefits of a Freak system is it allows holding these things constant across guns. The fit was neither under- nor over-bore.

Those curves are interesting in that they are such nice bell curves. I have trouble believing that paint defects (or varying marker/barrel defects) would be so smoothly distributed. These look like consistently oblong paint being loaded into the breeches in a perfectly random fashion. Like out of a loader or something.

That might be a reasonable way to describe paint though. Paint is good, but it's measurably imperfect -- possibly also consistently imperfect. For argument's sake, if the main deformity in the paint is the seam itself, then... what would be the difference between randomly loading that and randomly loading consistently oblong paint?

And the chrono itself only displays with a granularity of 1FPS, so there's smoothing/bucketing/rounding action already built into the instrumentation itself. Obviously if there were more significant digits, for the same sample size, the thing might not look as smooth.

Chrono sessions and data for both are online (matter of procedure as writing FPS while shooting takes way too damn long, and I'm just one guy):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMtYTwWFNg0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo-Ea3bZ1pI

(Admittedly the Spyder one is not readable as is; I had to run it through a video editor and crank brightness/contrast to read the numbers. But the spreadsheeds should be linked in the descriptions.)

You guys are all encouraged to, you know, actually run your own testing and add to the available pool of data. I'm just one guy.

Imagine what would be possible with TWO people actually performing testing! *YAKAWOW*



Note: Just to clarify, those are actual plot points, not fitted curves.