PDA

View Full Version : Picture of the 0,0077 group?



From Iceland
08-06-2013, 07:22 AM
Gentelmen!

Has a picture of the 0,0077 group been posted
and I missed it?:(

Regards,
Magnus Sigurdsson
Reykjavik
ICELAND

abintx
08-06-2013, 12:14 PM
Has a picture of the 0.0077 group been posted and I missed it?

Visualize one .308 bullet hole in a target; that's what it's going to look like. :)

David Halblom
08-06-2013, 06:08 PM
Visualize one .308 bullet hole in a target; that's what it's going to look like. :)

But no cigar

David Halblom
08-06-2013, 06:13 PM
But no cigar
.002 (the effective difference) is the thickness of the average piece of typing paper. Mike deserves a real "Hooraw" for what he did. But it is another record. And it makes the one that was most suspect irrelevant, plain and simple.

David Halblom
08-06-2013, 06:16 PM
[QUOTE=David Halblom;713354].002 (the effective difference) is the thickness of the average piece of typing paper. Mike deserves a real "Hooraw" for what he did. But it is another record. And it makes the one that was most suspect irrelevant, plain and simple.[/QUOTEanyone asks "have you been even close?", in a word NO. Does not change a damn thing. Mike did great. But let us not lose sight of reality.

abintx
08-06-2013, 11:10 PM
But no cigar

David, Would you please translate your three posts above into plain English. I'm not sure what you were trying to convey given the original question about whether or not a picture had been posted.

Five shots through pretty much the same hole, enlarged by only .0077", is going to look like one hole.

I'm looking at a target on my wall with a .084" 5-shot group made by a .224 bullet and It looks like one very small hole to me.

How 7.7/1000ths or 77/10,000ths was discernible by something other than a very precise instrument is amazing. Can't wait to hear the details of how the jagged edges of the hole were taken into consideration since we all know that bullet holes aren't cut with razor sharp precision. :)

mks
08-06-2013, 11:22 PM
[QUOTE=David Halblom;713354].002 (the effective difference) is the thickness of the average piece of typing paper. Mike deserves a real "Hooraw" for what he did. But it is another record. And it makes the one that was most suspect irrelevant, plain and simple.[/QUOTEanyone asks "have you been even close?", in a word NO. Does not change a damn thing. Mike did great. But let us not lose sight of reality.

Having a bad day, David?

The difference is actually 0.0013" and typing paper is more like 0.004", about three times larger. But it's still a FORTY YEAR OLD RECORD that fell. How many records in sports have lasted longer than that? OK, Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game from 1962 (Wilt has a lot more, too). But Mike's accomplishment is right up there with those other records that have gained mythical status. I am in awe of it, and don't expect it to happen again in my lifetime.

Respectfully,
Keith

caroby
08-06-2013, 11:54 PM
Is there a picture out there to post?...

.0077... Just GOOD GREEF..! :DWow Mike and congrats!:D..... Man that's HARD to do in a tunnel with a rail 30PPC (or 6ppc) and hundreds upon hundreds of attempts...... Hu... Thousands even...
Amazed with such performance! Mike has come a LONG way in this sport.. Atta-boy!:)


Gentelmen!

Has a picture of the 0,0077 group been posted
and I missed it?:(

Regards,
Magnus Sigurdsson
Reykjavik
ICELAND

abintx
08-07-2013, 10:29 AM
[QUOTE=David Halblom;713355]The difference is actually 0.0013" and typing paper is more like 0.004", about three times larger.

That's right. The difference, .0013" or 13/10,000ths is extremely small.

If a person was having their brain operated on by a neurosurgeon, and was dealing with measurements of either 13/10,000ths or 77/10,000ths of an inch, I'm sure for the doctor's peace of mind, and the patient's peace of mind, both would prefer the use of a powerful microscope, to discern the fine differences.

Anyone know what type of instrument was used to measure the .0077" difference in group enlargement?

Is it possible that this group could even be Smaller?

Andy Cross
08-07-2013, 06:40 PM
[QUOTE=mks;713376]

That's right. The difference, .0013" or 13/10,000ths is extremely small.

If a person was having their brain operated on by a neurosurgeon, and was dealing with measurements of either 13/10,000ths or 77/10,000ths of an inch, I'm sure for the doctor's peace of mind, and the patient's peace of mind, both would prefer the use of a powerful microscope, to discern the fine differences.

Anyone know what type of instrument was used to measure the .0077" difference in group enlargement?

Is it possible that this group could even be Smaller?

Yep I would like to know what type of instrumentation was used as well. Rest assured I can't see how a pair of optically assisted digital venier calipers could achieve that in combination with the human eye. I also hope the target has been kept in a humidity and temperature controlled environment that same as those it was shot under. Because when you are looking at measurements that small even small changes in temp and humidity will expand and shrink the paper.
Andy.

John Kielly
08-07-2013, 07:57 PM
What does it matter?

The rulebook defines the conditions under which the group must be shot, the method of assessment for the match & the procedure that must be complied with to deliver the target, measure & certify a group. If those conditions are met & a measurement of less than the previous record is achieved, then it's a record.

It doesn't matter if an electron microscope or any other gadget might arrive at a different result or that the weather when the target was shot differs from that experienced by the officials. If it's done by the rules, it's good.

Butch Lambert
08-07-2013, 08:50 PM
You are correct John. The committee that measured it are beyond reproach and very honest. They knew the possible repercussion of their job. They did a great job.

Andy Cross
08-08-2013, 05:38 AM
You are correct John. The committee that measured it are beyond reproach and very honest. They knew the possible repercussion of their job. They did a great job.

Umm the rules are the rules but what bothers me is when resolution figures are being quoted that exceed that of the instrumentation being used. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that the way we use to measure groups can't do that.
Andy.

John Kielly
08-08-2013, 06:20 AM
The other possibility was that the requirement was to average measurements of .008, .008 & .007.

mks
08-08-2013, 03:43 PM
The other possibility was that the requirement was to average measurements of .008, .008 & .007.

I think you are right, John. The rules say the group will be measured by three of the committee members and averaged. They don't say how record groups are to be measured, but do say that a "Sweany Type Reticle Rule" must be used for all registered matches, with measurements in thousandths. Curiously, the rules also say that individual group size will be designated officially to thousandths (aggs in tenths of thousandths). Using tenths for the average for such a tiny group seems like a good idea.

James M.
08-08-2013, 05:56 PM
I have complete confidence in the scoring committee. I believe that they measured in thousandths and the average carried out to "tenths". James

Dave Coots
08-08-2013, 09:12 PM
Umm the rules are the rules but what bothers me is when resolution figures are being quoted that exceed that of the instrumentation being used. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that the way we use to measure groups can't do that.
Andy.

Looks like the same measuring/math thing that happens at all matches.

Later
Dave

expiper
08-08-2013, 10:08 PM
James,,,your rite,,,I think 5 people do the measuring (designated on a committee) and then their measurements are divided by five to arrive at the average measurement,,,,that is the way Mac's was done wayyy bak when,,,,Roger

abintx
08-08-2013, 11:34 PM
Gentlemen, this is the year 2013 and a half. There have been 38 revisions to the rule book. It's time to bring the Association's measuring science into the 21st century. What year was the currently used apparatus introduced? Will we be using the same thing 50 or 100 years from now? Mr Stinnett's group could be smaller than actually proclaimed.

When was the last time the current measuring device was calibrated? When was the last time the members of the measuring committee had their vision corrected to 20/20 or better? [Butch, this is a rhetorical question] When my neurosurgeon operated on my back recently he was using a powerful microscope, not a handheld magnifying glass. If everyone thinks this is going to be the record that will last till "eternity", then it should be given the rightful science it deserves.

Mr. Stinnett should not have to go off on his own, and use modern day optical science to get a better reading of the dimensions. When a group is thought to be a world record, it's time to use world record-setting science. Heck, the electron microscope was introduced/co-invented by Germans, Max Knott and Ernst Ruska in 1931.

It's time to bring the NBRSA's measuring methods and technique into the 21st century. :)

alinwa
08-09-2013, 01:31 AM
ummm.....an "electron microscope" is of no conceivable use for measuring groups. Unless you've actually got a better way howsabout not assuming that groups are measured in an archaic fashion.

Andy Cross
08-09-2013, 05:24 AM
When I was forced to get out of BR about 16 years ago targets were being measured with an optical device assisting a pair of dial calipers being interpreted by the human eye. Last year I got back into BR and found many things had changed. With those advances in technology the aggs being shot at club, state and national level had dropped. But the only thing that had changed with target measuring was that the calipers now had a digital readout.

It seems as if that portion of the sport has gone by the way side and forgotten about. I am sure with the technology we have available today combined with some innovative engineering we could bring the measuring of targets into the 21st century. The only thing to do after that is convince the sticks in the mud to use it and that could take some doing.
Andy.

abintx
08-09-2013, 10:42 AM
ummm.....an "electron microscope" is of no conceivable use for measuring groups. Unless you've actually got a better way howsabout not assuming that groups are measured in an archaic fashion.

Hey, You got it! ;)

Butch Lambert
08-09-2013, 05:54 PM
Gentlemen, this is the year 2013 and a half. There have been 38 revisions to the rule book. It's time to bring the Association's measuring science into the 21st century. What year was the currently used apparatus introduced? Will we be using the same thing 50 or 100 years from now? Mr Stinnett's group could be smaller than actually proclaimed.

When was the last time the current measuring device was calibrated? When was the last time the members of the measuring committee had their vision corrected to 20/20 or better? [Butch, this is a rhetorical question] When my neurosurgeon operated on my back recently he was using a powerful microscope, not a handheld magnifying glass. If everyone thinks this is going to be the record that will last till "eternity", then it should be given the rightful science it deserves.

Mr. Stinnett should not have to go off on his own, and use modern day optical science to get a better reading of the dimensions. When a group is thought to be a world record, it's time to use world record-setting science. Heck, the electron microscope was introduced/co-invented by Germans, Max Knott and Ernst Ruska in 1931.

It's time to bring the NBRSA's measuring methods and technique into the 21st century. :)

Isn't it time for you to leave it alone or donate your time and money to solve the problem? You posted this same thing on another part of the forum.I answered you with this.

Why don't you leave this to the qualified people? You won't be here 50-100 years from now. I have had 5 different spine surgeries. I believe they used a spyglass!

abintx
08-09-2013, 07:44 PM
Isn't it time for you to leave it alone or donate your time and money to solve the problem? You posted this same thing on another part of the forum. I answered you with this.

Why don't you leave this to the qualified people? You won't be here 50-100 years from now. I have had 5 different spine surgeries. I believe they used a spyglass!

That's the point, Butch.

Why not contract with an independent source, that uses up to date measuring equipment, on an as needed, one-time basis, for the potential world record groups.

Since it's contracted out, there's no need for expensive in-Association scientific equipment. :)

Butch Lambert
08-09-2013, 07:53 PM
Go to bed old man!