AMERICAN RIFLEMAN GUN TESTS

2.1K Views
Last Post 27 April 2020

CBA Member

joeb33050 posted this 30 November 2018

It appears that the National Rifle Association, NRA, is reporting gun test information that is not true.

The NRA magazine, “American Rifleman”, (AR), publishes the results of gun tests. These tests include tests for group size, of sets of five, 5-shot groups. (Group Size is the distance between centers of the two furthest-apart target holes in a group.)

The published group size measures, for each set, include: smallest group size, largest group size, and average group size.

Analysis

The Coefficient of Variation, CV, is the standard deviation / the average.

CV varies with the number of shots per group.

The EXPECTED CV average of group size of sets of five, 5-shot groups is .27. (“A Group Size Model&rdquo

The standard deviation = Range / d sub 2, and d sub 2 for n = 5, 5-shot groups, is 2.326.

(On the Extreme Individuals and the Range of Samples Taken from a Normal Population

L. H. C. Tippett

Biometrika

Vol. 17, No. 3/4 (Dec., 1925), pp. 364-387

d sub 2 = the number of standard deviations that the Range of a sample, from a normal distribution, encompasses; and varies with sample size.)

The AR largest group size / AR smallest group size = the AR Range.

The (AR Range / 2.326) / the AR average group size, = the AR CV = .18.

For 237 AR tests ending with the 12/2018 AR, the average AR CV is .18.

Sample CV values greater than the expected value are explainable; but sample average values less than the expected value are not explainable, by me or anyone to whom the question has been posed.

Similar analyses have been performed on data from the Cast Bullet Association 2015, 2016, 2017 Nationals, from the International Benchrest Shooters 2017 Nationals, from Larry Landerdasper and from my records. In all cases the sample average CV is greater than the expected CV.

My conclusion is that the NRA AR test results are not true, that at least one of the three reported results is false in a large fraction of the tests.

All supporting data is available on request to [email protected]

Attached Files

Liked by

68 Comments

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes

CBA Member

Scearcy posted this 30 November 2018

If it is true for the NRA, I would expect it to be true of the other gun rags as well. Publishing is a for profit business and gun/ammo manufacturers buy a lot of advertising. No different for cars, motorcycles, or long underwear I suspect. It is a very fine line, indeed, between being a critical reader and a cynic.

Thats why we test our own and enjoy it.

Jim

Attached Files

Admin Admin

JeffinNZ posted this 30 November 2018

I have been a contributing writer for NZ Guns & Hunting for 25 years since it began and this is the primary reason I write only about my own personal experiments/experiences and will not engage in reviews of firearms or other hardware. I believe there is an expectation of a favourable review regardless of findings.

Cheers from New Zealand

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

RicinYakima posted this 01 December 2018

Yes Jeff, that is why I write for the Fouling Shot and not the gun-zines from the trade.

Attached Files

CBA Member

Ed Harris posted this 01 December 2018

AR has not been produced to the old Walter Howe and Ashley Halsey standards for a LONG time.

Part of the reason I left was because I was unwilling to be a whore for the advertisers.

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Brodie posted this 01 December 2018

While I personally bemoan the passing of our beloved American Rifleman magazine Circa 1950's and 60's where the article were interesting and not just about collecting, and the reviews were honest, I feel that the NRA is doing very important and necessary work with all their fundraising in keeping us shooting. Remember the last election when one party ran on a platform of limiting fire arms ownership and trade.

Like it or not fellows we are in a real fight to protect and preserve our favorite pass time. And no magazine is going to cut off it's nose to spite it's face. Caveat Emptor should be your motto when reading any review or any product. Brodie

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

lotech posted this 01 December 2018

Agreed, the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN has suffered a significant deterioration in quality and types of articles over the past twenty-five years or so. It seems the editor either has no interest in correcting this or is prohibited from doing so.

Regardless, their method of evaluating rifle accuracy remains more stringent than any other publication. Results based on five, five-shot groups may be statistically flawed and imperfect, but it still provides at least some useful information. The original post here is about the same as one that was started several weeks ago. Perhaps the information is correct, but I'm not educated to the point I could make a qualified assessment. Unless AR can find a better method of evaluating accuracy, I see nothing wrong with they are doing.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

joeb33050 posted this 01 December 2018

They're lying.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

lotech posted this 01 December 2018

If so, you might approach AR with the facts.

Attached Files

CBA Member

joeb33050 posted this 01 December 2018

Have done, twice. One "thank you" sorta automatic reply.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Ed Harris posted this 01 December 2018

In the last 30 years the fundamental mission of NRA publications has changed from being an educational and technical information source, to simply a vehicle to sell advertising and to raise revenue.

When I was first on the Technical staff we went to local gun shops and bought production items off the shelf to evaluate.

After the Cincinatti Massacre ad salemen and managerial staff from Petersen Publishing were brought in to increase ad revenue. AR and American Hunter became the East Coast editions of Guns & Whammo and American Carnivore, receiving carefully prepped p[re-production samples from manufacturers and writing "puff" pieces" intended to drive enough orders to support production....

Before leaving for Ruger I suggested tongue and cheek that they could have a scantily dressed female holding the latest advertiser's product presented in a full color centerfold. They should sell that add for the price of both front and rear covers. I can see it now the cover banner, "Rosie Rotten Crotch presents the M1 Garand, [email protected]!"

At the same time they could change the name of the magazine to Guns & Gore, or Boobs and Bullets to attract a wider audience.

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 01 December 2018

.... i was kinda hoping for an annual " Remington's Secret " catalogue ...

... i have some more really good ones but we do have a lot of genteel ladies follow our posts here ...

ken

Attached Files

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 23 May 2019

I was reminded of this thread after reading the latest American Rifleman and receiving a special request in the same mail for additional money from the NRA. The AR accuracy tests of new firearms used to be the gold standard of what the public could find out about new guns. Other gun magazines were telling us things like "the best three shot group fired was .8 inch" and they still are for that matter. The AR's policy of the average of five 5-shot groups is a reasonable compromise for a practical number of shots. You could also compare the average ratos of the largest to the smallest group for each five group string and on average that ratio would be about 1.9 just as statistics tells us is likely.

Unfortunately the numbers that now appear don't pass the smell test. The latest issue reported on claimed firing tests on four firearms, each with three types of ammunition. This produced 12 strings of five 5-shot groups as usual. The ratio of the largest group in each string divided by the smallest should have been fairly close to 1.9. Instead, the average was 1.3. Nine of the 12 strings had a ratio of either 1.1 or 1.2. This is near perfect group to group consistency. It is conceivable that this could happen but it is about as likely as winning the Powerball lottery by buying one ticket.

To illustrate the unlikelihood of this happening, I compiled the results of the 5-shot group match at the 2018 CBA nationals. I computed the ratios of largest group to smallest group for the first 30 competitors on the list. Of course the match is only four 5 shot groups so the ratio of largest to smallest group should have been smaller that for five 5 shot groups. Instead the average ratio for 27 shooters (I disregarded three with ratios over 3.0) was 1.7. As far as average ratios like 1.1 or 1.2, the predominate ratios in the AR's latest reports, NONE of the thirty shooters managed to shoot a string of four 5-shot groups with that amazing consistency.

Yes, I know all this was well proven earlier in the thread and I know that the NRA fights gun control efforts. I also know the other gun magazines lie just as much. I'll admit that as a 60 year plus member of the NRA I am a bit obsessive about this but it really pisses me off because the NRA is our organization and it is using our dues money to publish a magazine that won't do honest gun tests. That it insults our intelligence by thinking we are too stupid to tell the difference is only a minor irritation by comparison.

John

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

45 2.1 posted this 23 May 2019

Maybe using jacketed bullets has benefits over using cast.....for one accuracy is noticeably better when you're dealing with varmint rifles or bench rest rifles. I've seen and experienced groups at various ranges with jacketed acting like the report. Do you have any tests with jacketed to support your assertion that they do indeed act just like cast does per your example? Inquiring minds want to know what the truth is.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Dukem posted this 23 May 2019

I support the NRA for their lobbying efforts. I simply recycle the American Hunter magazine when it comes. They could save some of the much needed money by not sending me any magazine at all. The magazines are pretty much useless.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

RicinYakima posted this 23 May 2019

How would they pay for Wayne's $200,000 wardrobe budget?

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 23 May 2019

I wasn't going to bring that up but it is sad to think that my 64 years worth of dues plus whatever extra donations I have given to fund raising requests wouldn't even pay for one of his suits.

John

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 23 May 2019

45 2.1 asked:

=========

Good question and it always a breath of fresh air when inquiring minds want to know the truth.

The truth is, strange as it may seem, accuracy level has nothing to do with the amount of variation between individual group sizes in a string of groups. The "tests" I referred to in the current issue were of guns averaging over 2 moa but that doesn't matter.

I do have many tests to support my assertion, but you don't have to take my word for it. You can easily check it out yourself. Anytime you shoot a string of four or five 5 shot groups you can see this surprising variation between groups for yourself -- no matter the precision level of the rifle. I encourage everyone who is curious to give it a try with a couple of strings. You may think your rifle is an exception but don't bet serious money on it until you have shot a few strings.

When I buy a new rifle I usually shoot a batch of four 5 shot groups with at least one brand of match grade jacketed bullets to see if it is worth fooling with with cast bullets. I just looked in a couple of my notebooks and quickly found eight such strings. The level of average accuracy was about .8 moa and the ratios of the largest to the smallest group sizes were: 3.1, 1.7, 2.0, 1.9, 2.1, 2.2, 1.4, and 2.1. (None close to the 1.1 and 1.2 ratios reported for 9 of the 12 "tests" in the The Rifleman for five 5 shot groups which should have higher ratios than for four group strings) The eight strings ran higher than statistics would predict but this is a very small sample and would have probably come down if I had looked up more strings.

Anyone doubting that the current Rifleman accuracy tests are fishy can look at the similar tests in old ARs in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. where the ratios AVERAGED about 2 for everything from stubbie 38s to match rifles. Or try to shoot a string of five 5 shot groups with a ratio of largest to smallest groups of 1.1 with any gun available.

John

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

GP Idaho posted this 23 May 2019

While I believe the NRA is the best option we have as a gun lobby, sadly the leadership has been corrupted by power and money. They have associated too long with the enemy, the high power politicians of Washington. They have learned how feathering their own nest works. Lying for profit and embezzlement become second nature when you run in those circles. Things have to change in a profound way at the top of the NRA if they expect my continued financial support. Gp

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Eutectic posted this 10 July 2019

Any magazine or writer which/who accepts products for testing from manufacturers is suspect.
Any manufacturer who does not pre-test and select the product to send to "test" is being stupid.
Full page adds are frequently in the same issue as the reported "testing". This should tell you something.
Not to preferentially bash AR, it is under the same pressure as any other magazine that accepts advertising.

I support the NRA as a member, they are the most effective national organization we have.
I ignore their weekly pleas for more money.
I give my support to local and state organizations.
I believe they are better stewards of my money and state offices are where national politicians come from.

Steve

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Ed Harris posted this 10 July 2019

When I was first on NRA staff we went out in the marketplace and bought guns from local shops at retail, tested them, honestly reported the findings, then the guns were resold as used.

After the Cincinatti massacre all of that changed and most of the older tech staffers were fired and they brought in a bunch of sleasy ad-men from Petersen Publishing which gradually turned American Rifleman and American Hunter into Guns and Ammo East, getting prepped guns direct from the manufacturers and tied favorable articles to ads as a revenue stream.

The process was completed by 1984 when I left to go to Ruger.

Eutectic is correct.

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

M3 Mitch posted this 11 July 2019

Ed, please remind me when the Cincinnati Massacre happened. Somehow I doubt Google is going to give me the "straight dope".

Maybe because I have worked in the nuclear industry most of my life, I'm used to working with honest and intelligent people who really do want to know the truth, because, as Richard Feynman said in a different context (Space Shuttle Challenger) "Nature will not be fooled". So I would actually be more influenced to buy a particular gat if I thought it was tested the "old way" as I think Consumer Reports still does with appliances. And I am going to be peeved, to say the least, if I buy a gun based on dishonest testing, and the example I hold in my own hand can't live up to the hype.

I guess there are not enough of us who are honest and intelligent to make up into a viable market. Sad but true.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Ed Harris posted this 13 July 2019

1977.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/08/revolt-cincinnati-molded-nra-did-you-know-jeff-suess-schism-within-national-rifle-association-led/404628002/

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Ross Smith posted this 14 July 2019

Something might just hit the fan with the current investigations of the NRA. I know they are politically motivated, but

Attached Files

CBA Member

RicinYakima posted this 14 July 2019

Actually, as an outsider (annual member at that time), both sides won. The Raton Center is a beautiful place and very affordable to shoot at. The political activists got an organization to fight for the Second amendment. Because the two sides could not compromise, they ended up like the Republicans and Democrats of today.

Maybe this will bring the shooters and activists together again.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

loophole posted this 15 July 2019

How can anyone expect a word of truth out of an organization run by crooked incompetent Wayne La Pierre and his wife--the Jim and Tammy Baker of the 2nd Amendment--paid $2 million a year plus bonuses like a 5 figure clothing allowance. The NRA does immeasurable damage to gun rights by soaking up millions of dollars and spending it on La Pierre and his cronies and on ridiculous contracts with various blowhards like those whom it is suing. The times is long since past for gunowners to disavow the NRA and defund it.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

docsama posted this 11 August 2019

How effective can the NRA board be with seventy-two members? No wonder the head shed is living high on the hog. Fundamental changes are required to get back on track. I’ve been a life member since 1963. They have had their last dollar from me.

Attached Files

CBA Member

Squid Boy posted this 11 August 2019

Interesting thread. I am a NRA member and have been but I have also been continually disappointed that they never get anything published in the regular media, not even join the NRA ads. I don't need to see arguments for the 2nd Amendment in AR. I want to see them in Good Housekeeping and Cooking. OK, maybe not them exactly but not getting even a rebuttal to some anti-gun BS in the Times really grinds me. I have to write the letters myself. Do they lie about test results. I am fairly sure they do. Business is business these days. Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

mashburn posted this 11 August 2019

Hello Ken.

I hope everyone appreciates your sense of humor as much as I do. Keep it up please.

Mashburn

David Cogburn

David a. Cogburn

Attached Files

CBA Member

Boschloper posted this 20 February 2020

Last Sunday I was shooting my Super Blackhawk Hunter with a Nikon 2.5X scope off the 100yd. bench. Load was 429421 over 23 grains of 296. I shot 4 groups, 5 shots each, groups were 4.4, 4.5, 4.9, and 3.5. Ratio of the largest to smallest is 1.4. I am surprised that the ratio is that much smaller than the expected 1.9. Is 4 groups not a large enough sample for the 1.9 to apply?

Attached Files

CBA Member

joeb33050 posted this 20 February 2020

Last Sunday I was shooting my Super Blackhawk Hunter with a Nikon 2.5X scope off the 100yd. bench. Load was 429421 over 23 grains of 296. I shot 4 groups, 5 shots each, groups were 4.4, 4.5, 4.9, and 3.5. Ratio of the largest to smallest is 1.4. I am surprised that the ratio is that much smaller than the expected 1.9. Is 4 groups not a large enough sample for the 1.9 to apply?

Yes, 4 anything is too small a sample to conclude or even suggest anything.

For example, m\y new CZ 457 MTR has recently averaged ,5-shot 50-yard groups, 63 groups, .423". Yesterday, 20, 100-yard groups averaged an even .800". Does the gun etc. shoot smaller moa at 100 than 50? No, the sample size is too small to make any conclusion.

For sets of 10, 5-shot groups, largest/smallest is expected to be 2.41. My records of 2290 5-shot groups averaged 2.701. This with several different guns, different ammunition, etc., making me confident in the calculated 2.41.

Checking my statistics, I went to the Rifleman, and was surprised that the ratio was < calculated, = not true. And the Rifleman sample size is large enough to strongly suggest. That's where this started.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

45 2.1 posted this 20 February 2020

joeb33050 said:

Yes, 4 anything is too small a sample to conclude or even suggest anything.

The first thing learned in college from a full professor teaching Statistics was this: Statistics is based on an infinite sample. Anything less involves confidence levels. I haven't seen large sample groups here, so what you've determined has problems of being absolutely true.

For example, m\y new CZ 457 MTR has recently averaged ,5-shot 50-yard groups, 63 groups, .423". Yesterday, 20, 100-yard groups averaged an even .800". Does the gun etc. shoot smaller moa at 100 than 50? No, the sample size is too small to make any conclusion.

There are several situations involving spin and stability where it does shoot smaller MOA groups at longer distances that closer ones. So this is not an absolute rule. It depends on caliber and situation.

For sets of 10, 5-shot groups, largest/smallest is expected to be 2.41. My records of 2290 5-shot groups averaged 2.701. This with several different guns, different ammunition, etc., making me confident in the calculated 2.41. For you... Don't expect everyone to fall into your subset of data.... they have their own.

Checking my statistics, I went to the Rifleman, and was surprised that the ratio was < calculated, = not true. And the Rifleman sample size is large enough to strongly suggest. That's where this started.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

joeb33050 posted this 20 February 2020

joeb33050 said:

Yes, 4 anything is too small a sample to conclude or even suggest anything.

The first thing learned in college from a full professor teaching Statistics was this: Statistics is based on an infinite sample. Anything less involves confidence levels. I haven't seen large sample groups here, so what you've determined has problems of being absolutely true.

NO SAMPLING IS GOING ON, AS YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE. FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS.

\

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

joeb33050 posted this 20 February 2020

For sets of 10, 5-shot groups, largest/smallest is expected to be 2.41. My records of 2290 5-shot groups averaged 2.701. This with several different guns, different ammunition, etc., making me confident in the calculated 2.41. For you... Don't expect everyone to fall into your subset of data.... they have their own.

Checking my statistics, I went to the Rifleman, and was surprised that the ratio was < calculated, = not true. And the Rifleman sample size is large enough to strongly suggest. That's where this started.

SEE THE ABOVE. THESE RATIOS APPLY TO ALL PEOPLE, GUNS, AMMO AND HAIR STYLE. IT'S ABOUT MATHEMATICS, NOT SAMPLES. QUESTIONS? JUST ASK. BTW, YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN

Attached Files

CBA Member

45 2.1 posted this 20 February 2020

joeb33050 said:
NO SAMPLING IS GOING ON, AS YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE. FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS.

Interesting Joe. If no sampling is going on, then you shouldn't have any data at all. A sample is a set of data... like a group of so many shots. I see many groups represented here. Your column headings need some revision to be clear, which they aren't now.

\

Attached Files

CBA Member

45 2.1 posted this 20 February 2020

Joeb33050 said:

Checking my statistics, I went to the Rifleman, and was surprised that the ratio was < calculated, = not true. And the Rifleman sample size is large enough to strongly suggest. That's where this started.

You seem to be saying that if someones else's data doesn't agree with yours, then it's not true. They have there own sample of a lot of groups also, but the numbers don't match yours. You don't seem to know that Statistics was invented by one of the Renaissance mathematician/scientist for giving odds on gaming/card playing. It's odds that something will happen a certain way. You're trying to make more of it than it is.

SEE THE ABOVE. THESE RATIOS APPLY TO ALL PEOPLE, GUNS, AMMO AND HAIR STYLE. IT'S ABOUT MATHEMATICS, NOT SAMPLES. QUESTIONS? JUST ASK. BTW, YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN

I'm not really interested in a military generated table, especially when it involves new green shooters. Try the same with a sharpshooter and an expert marksman competing against each other.... these figures won't match yours either.

Attached Files

CBA Member

joeb33050 posted this 21 February 2020

This table has nothing to do with any military, it is

(On the Extreme Individuals and the Range of Samples Taken from a Normal Population

L. H. C. Tippett

Biometrika

Vol. 17, No. 3/4 (Dec., 1925), pp. 364-387

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

45 2.1 said:

I'm not really interested in a military generated table, especially when it involves new green shooters. Try the same with a sharpshooter and an expert marksman competing against each other.... these figures won't match yours either.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

M3 Mitch posted this 21 February 2020

I think part of what's wrong here is that "Joe Average" has very poor math skills anymore, at least here in the US. Back in the day, anyone who graduated high school would have at least some grasp of statistics. Now with public schools catering to the "lowest common denominator" - not so much. I have noticed working in Russia and Ukraine, that over there at least, math is still taken seriously. I think this is true in most of Asia as well.

If you have the old AR Cast Bullets book, the one written by a retired Army colonel, Colonel Harrison or Harris IIRC, he goes through a good first principles discussion of why a cast bullet is unlikely to "strip" the rifling, regardless of how hard you drive it. Kids anymore can't do any math at all without a computer or at least a calculator.

Attached Files

CBA Member

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 21 February 2020

hey, everybody: go back to:

" if we had all possible samples, we wouldn't need statistics."

we could just ( slowly ) measure all possible samples and there you are ...

statistics tell us something about less than all possible samples; saves time and money and storage space.

statistics doesn't make anything do anything, it just observes what is there. but of course, you don't have to observe, the samples really don't care. ( in our newtonian world ).

hope this helps.

ken

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

joeb33050 posted this 21 February 2020

I think part of what's wrong here is that "Joe Average" has very poor math skills anymore, at least here in the

If you have the old AR Cast Bullets book, the one written by a retired Army colonel, Colonel Harrison or Harris IIRC, he goes through a good first principles discussion of why a cast bullet is unlikely to "strip" the rifling, regardless of how hard you drive it. Kids anymore can't do any math at all without a computer or at least a calculator.

US. Back in the day, anyone who graduated high school would have at least some grasp of statistics. Now with public schools catering to the "lowest common denominator" - not so much. I have noticed working in Russia and Ukraine, that over there at least, math is still taken seriously. I think this is true in most of Asia as well.

First, the USA does a great job of educating kids. Compare their curriculum with yours, back in the steam airplane days.

Second, most people don't know much about statistics. Or dentistry. Or vectors and matrices. Or organic chemistry. Or molecular biology. Or celestial navigation. Or viniculture. Few members here could make a quality violin.

Statistics is unusual, in that there's always a person, who took a Statistics course in the Eisenhower years, and who climbs onto statistical discussions and acts silly before falling off. Why not offer criticism to a luthier?

Attached Files

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 21 February 2020

I agree with Joe. Most of us couldn't pass a ninth grade math exam if we had all day. Public schools expect far more out of kids than when I was in school and I go back in the day about as far as anybody. If you have a ninth grader handy try it.

The nice thing about statistics is that we can use it without doing any math. IF you can understand the principles and have a set of tables like Joe has provided us, for various chores, we can use statistics to help us get to the truth quicker and have a better concept of how likely we are right about what our groups tell us without anything more difficult than adding and finding averages.

We can even tell, with a high level of confidence, that the ARs editors of the Dope Bag are fudging the results and it's not that 5 five shot groups isn't a reasonable sample -- it is. But they aren't reporting all the shots. I think that it's pretty neat we can tell that without being there. Just as a good auditor can sometimes pick up cheating with statistics.

The problem is that some of us won't accept the principles of probability and statistics because we have the idea that what we think of as "common sense" or how things "seem" to us should overrule the principle we are having explained to us.

The example in this thread is the difficulty some obviously have in accepting the principle that the average variation in group size in a string of groups has nothing to do the quality of the rifle, load, size of the groups, or skill of the shooter. Once we get over that hangup we can use the table with elementary school math.

John

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

RicinYakima posted this 22 February 2020

So right John. "Common Sense" said the world was flat in 1400, but 1% of the population knew it was round, including the Egyptians 1000 years before that. I am as guilty as most people. If I shoot a thousand shots trying to prove a point, and I win the next match, is it because I was correct, or practiced for a thousand shots?

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Paul Pollard posted this 22 February 2020

My math skills are mediocre, at best. Therefore, in reloading, I fiddle around.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Squid Boy posted this 22 February 2020

They had to knock my school down to build the old school and I can navigate a ship by celestial. Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Ed Harris posted this 23 February 2020

They had to knock my school down to build the old school and I can navigate a ship by celestial. Squid Boy

And if you can use the old cirular slide rule to calculate fuel consumption and plot a return course to where the CVA is supposed to be on the return leg you can land feet dry...

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

BigMan54 posted this 23 February 2020

I agree with Mitch & John about our current math skills.

I used to be able to add & subtract 3 digit numbers and figure sales tax in a few seconds. Remember my Multiplication tables thru 12.

Now, I gotta use my fingers and toes. Thank the Good Lord we only wear sandals in SoCal.

Long time Caster/Reloader, Getting back into it after almost 10yrs. Life Member NRA 40+yrs, Life S.A.S.S. #375. Does this mean a description of me as a fumble-fingered knuckle-draggin' baboon. I also drool in my sleep. I firmly believe that true happiness is a warm gun. Did I mention how much I HATE auto-correct on this blasted tablet.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Squid Boy posted this 23 February 2020

Interesting photo Ed but wheels down a little early don't you think? Luckily I never worried much about Ceiling & Viz with the radar on but in 30 footers and spin drift it doesn't work that well. What is that aircraft by the way? Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

CBA Member

Ed Harris posted this 23 February 2020

Interesting photo Ed but wheels down a little early don't you think? Luckily I never worried much about Ceiling & Viz with the radar on but in 30 footers and spin drift it doesn't work that well. What is that aircraft by the way? Squid Boy

A/C is a C2B.

Here is a better photo taken on the Kitty Hawk during Summer Pulse 2004, about 30 years after my time...

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

JimmyDee posted this 24 February 2020

wheels down a little early don't you think?

Right after launch, perhaps?

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

RicinYakima posted this 24 February 2020

With you jimmyDee. Unburned hot exhaust and torque on the props at maximum RPM.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Squid Boy posted this 24 February 2020

Well guys you are right, I never gave a thought that it might be taking off from a carrier. Thanks, Squid

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

beagle6 posted this 24 February 2020

I like the pictures of aeroplanes better than the long columns of numbers.

beagle

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 24 February 2020

When I was nine I felt exactly the same way. Lots of WWII planes overhead with distinctive shapes. Great for looking, not so great for some in the planes.

John

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

joeb33050 posted this 24 February 2020

That plane looks a lot like a C2 A Greyhound bringing the mail. Never saw a C2 B variant.

Interesting photo Ed but wheels down a little early don't you think? Luckily I never worried much about Ceiling & Viz with the radar on but in 30 footers and spin drift it doesn't work that well. What is that aircraft by the way? Squid Boy

A/C is a C2B.

Here is a better photo taken on the Kitty Hawk during Summer Pulse 2004, about 30 years after my time...

Attached Files

CBA Member

Ed Harris posted this 25 February 2020

B model has upgrades in GPS satellite nav, encrypted comms and electronics.

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

joeb33050 posted this 25 February 2020

I cannot find any reference to a "B" variant. Wikipedia:

The 36 C-2A(R)s underwent a critical Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). The C-2A(R)'s lifespan was 10,000 hours, or 15,000 carrier landings; plans require the C-2A to perform its mission supporting battle group operational readiness through 2015. The lower landing limit was approaching for most airframes, and the SLEP will increase their projected life to 15,000 hours or 36,000 landings. Once complete, the SLEP will allow the 36 aircraft to operate until 2027. The SLEP includes structural improvements to the center wing, an eight-bladed NP2000 propeller, navigational upgrades including the addition of GPS and the dual CAINS II Navigation System, the addition of crash-survivable flight incident recorders, and a Ground Proximity Warning System. The first upgraded C-2A(R) left NAVAIR Depot North Island on 12 September 2005, after sitting on the ground for three and a half years while the SLEP was developed and installed. All aircraft will receive SLEP by 2015.^[5]

A VRC-40 C-2A after SLEP on USS Carl Vinson, July 2009

In November 2008, the company also obtained a $37M contract for the maintenance, logistics and aviation administration services over five years for the C-2A fleet assigned to VX-20 test and evaluation squadron at Patuxent River. Northrop Grumman worked on an upgraded C-2 version, and offered to modernize the fleet with components common to the E-2D Hawkeye.^[6]

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Ed Harris posted this 25 February 2020

Wikipedia info is ten years old.

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

joeb33050 posted this 25 February 2020

Wikipedia info is ten years old.

And yet:

A/C is a C2B.

Here is a better photo taken on the Kitty Hawk during Summer Pulse 2004, about 30 years after my time...

16 years ago the C2B flew, and 6 years later WIKIPEDIA wasn't aware?

Attached Files

CBA Member

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 25 February 2020

... i don't often watch tv ... but when i do, i often watch the Smithsonian channel ... season four episode three is on the C2 . they also have a series on " Air Warriors " ...

************

i once landed a j3 piper cub and walked away ... but i am not sure about a carrier landing in a tricky wind ...

ken

Attached Files

CBA Member

Ed Harris posted this 25 February 2020

All I know Joe is that I got the photo off the official US Navy web site and that is how it was identified, if you have problems with that, take it up with SecNav.

Talk about thread drift...

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Squid Boy posted this 25 February 2020

I seem to have thrown an unintentional wrench into this thread. Sorry about that. Squid

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

CBA Member

joeb33050 posted this 25 February 2020

All I know Joe is that I got the photo off the official US Navy web site and that is how it was identified, if you have problems with that, take it up with SecNav.

Talk about thread drift...

It ain't about thread drift, Ed; it's about truth. NRA truth, my truth, your truth; truth suffers when untruth becomes expected.

Attached Files

CBA Member

harleyrock posted this 02 March 2020

CBA Member

Quote
Report

RicinYakima posted this 1 weeks ago

With you jimmyDee. Unburned hot exhaust and torque on the props at maximum RPM.

The props on that engine turned 1100 RPM all the time, whether at idle or full throttle. The turbine ran at varying RPMs up to 33,000.

Lifetime NRA since 1956, NRA Benefactor, USN Member, CBA Member

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

RicinYakima posted this 02 March 2020

Sorry, I guess the proper term would have been pitch.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Ed in North Texas posted this 05 March 2020

When I bother to read any gun test I'm looking for ergonomic information, calibers available, etc. For any new rifle I've bought in the past decade (very few) it needs to be able to shoot minute of hog. Most firearms I've bought over the past few decades have been "new to me" and about as old as I (70s) to much older (mid to late 19th century). When I shot any competition the AR could tell me about the M1, M-1917 and K-98 but accuracy statistics about issue rifles for the John C or Military Rifle match - not so much. And my older eyes and a couple of surgeries have knocked me out of competition.

I have been a member of the NRA seemingly forever (DDE was President) and I remain a member for the same reason I support SAF and JPFO - Second Amendment activity. As for NRA leadership, I'm partial to Save the Second to work on that problem. Best thing we can do about Wayne, et al, is vote (if a voting member). Few voting members actually bother to vote, which is how we got into this mess. I spent a little time on-line checking on which BoD candidates would work to fix the problems (savethe2A.org, Ammoland and NoLawyersonlygunsandmoney were my sources)

Attached Files

CBA Member

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 05 March 2020

.. about 1990 i bot a ruger 77h ... cutest little thing, the review hype was terrific, but me and some other 77h shooters formed a " Ruger 77H Victims " group and had postal shoot-offs ... 4 moa was about average.

( ok, after a lot of trickery we got them down to <1.5 moa )

anyway, a friend recently, after a lot of reading-up in the gun magazines, bot a Ruger American in 17 Hornady ... i warned him, reminding him of my mis-adventures with those cute 77h ... but he went ahead...

out of the box, it wouldn't eject and the trigger was 4 pounds ... 1 hour cured both, and so we benched it ... my first 6 shots ( at 30 yards, starling range ) were one hole 0.17 wide ... so i shut up and he was real happy.

moral: ignore magazine reports, and buy it if it talks to you ...

ken

Attached Files

Liked by

Standard Member

Wheel Weights posted this 26 April 2020

Being an old fart and NRA life member since 1960 I'm quite used to see the NRA bashing that is on every gun related website.

I enjoy the Rifleman and am not caught up in picking the fly poop out of the pepper as it relates to statistics on group size. (Although I do have an MBA in finance that involved hours of stats.)

For all who bash the NRA, I suggest you move to ANY first world country and see how well gun owners there are doing w/o a strong gun rights organization.

If YOU don't like how the NRA is run, whining on an obscure cast bullet blog will change nothing. Get involved in your state NRA projects, build a cadre and run for a directorship. Absent that you can stand on your front porch and scream. It will be equally effective.

On a lighter note: loosen your nuts and keep your tool lubed.

Attached Files

CBA Member

joeb33050 posted this 26 April 2020

Thanks for the lesson, Larry. Of course, truth doesn't matter.

How are you fixed for Lysol?

Got a syringe?

Being an old fart and NRA life member since 1960 I'm quite used to see the NRA bashing that is on every gun related website.

I enjoy the Rifleman and am not caught up in picking the fly poop out of the pepper as it relates to statistics on group size. (Although I do have an MBA in finance that involved hours of stats.)

For all who bash the NRA, I suggest you move to ANY first world country and see how well gun owners there are doing w/o a strong gun rights organization.

If YOU don't like how the NRA is run, whining on an obscure cast bullet blog will change nothing. Get involved in your state NRA projects, build a cadre and run for a directorship. Absent that you can stand on your front porch and scream. It will be equally effective.

On a lighter note: loosen your nuts and keep your tool lubed.