The "Unbreakable" LV .009 WORLD RECORD Has Been Broken!!!
- Thread starter 333smitty
- Start date
Mike
Congratulations on the smallest 5 shot group ever shot. It had to take your breath away when each shot went into that tiny hole.
I would also say thanks to the measurement committee. They probably all had some sleepless nights when they measured the targets on mutiple days, mutiple times to be sure that this is indeed the new record. Lots of responsibility there for sure.
Again, way to go Mike.................
Later
Dave
I've shot lots of groups into that size hole.........
with a 6mm
lol
al
Kelby Panda "Speedy Shorty"
My actions are Kelby Panda LRL with static eject. I understand these were special orders as Speedy Shorty(s) with a shorter bolt throw. Design was many years ago between Speedy G. and Kelby.
My actions are Kelby Panda LRL with static eject. I understand these were special orders as Speedy Shorty(s) with a shorter bolt throw. Design was many years ago between Speedy G. and Kelby.
jackie schmidt
New member
I hate to throw a dampener on all of these festivities, but has anybody checked Mike for Steriod Use
mwezell
Mike Ezell
Who you going to get to check him? Dr. Tim?
joe
If he truly fires 10,000 rounds a year, that goes a long way toward his defense of not needing steroids...but maybe a psych evaluation. On the other hand....I would do the same if I could.
It's not just steroids any more Jackie -- there's Human Growth Hormone, and "stimulants" and "relaxers" & Lord only knows what else... Have to take hair samples -- at least, for those that still got hair -- as a lot of this stuff can clear the bloodstream quickly.I hate to throw a dampener on all of these festivities, but has anybody checked Mike for Steriod Use
John Kielly
Shari's fan club
Charles,
Is that what the expression got him by the shorts is all about?
John
Is that what the expression got him by the shorts is all about?
John
M
mks
Guest
Looks like the next longest-standing record is Ralph Landon's 0.027" HV100 group from 1975. Should be a piece of cake!
A
abintx
Guest
What was the controversy all about back then. Lack of a moving backer? Less than 5 bullets being fired? Inadequate measuring equipment? Poor eyesight amongst the evaluating committee? Have heard stories. Can you elaborate. Thanks.
A
abintx
Guest
.009" minus .0077" = .0013"
The difference in the old record and the new one is .0013" or 13/10,000ths of an inch, which is extremely small, to say the least.
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" or 77/10,000ths of an inch in group enlargement?
P.S. For clarification, I'm only interested in the science used to make these measurements. For example, were members of the measuring committee all flown to a central location to make the measurement on one piece of equipment, or was the target mailed around the country for independent measurements using a NBRSA magnifying tool similar to this: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2012/11/measure-groups-precisely-with-neil-jones-tool/
Is it possible that this group could even be Smaller?
The difference in the old record and the new one is .0013" or 13/10,000ths of an inch, which is extremely small, to say the least.
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" or 77/10,000ths of an inch in group enlargement?
P.S. For clarification, I'm only interested in the science used to make these measurements. For example, were members of the measuring committee all flown to a central location to make the measurement on one piece of equipment, or was the target mailed around the country for independent measurements using a NBRSA magnifying tool similar to this: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2012/11/measure-groups-precisely-with-neil-jones-tool/
Is it possible that this group could even be Smaller?
Last edited by a moderator:
Centerfire
Member
Just wondering?
There will be an Official 'Screamer Patch' issued by xxxxxxx for this achievement?
Centerfire
There will be an Official 'Screamer Patch' issued by xxxxxxx for this achievement?
Centerfire
Butch Lambert
Active member
abintx,
They used a yardstick! No, they didn't fly to a common place. They are only allowed to remeasure the target after a couple double shots.
They used a yardstick! No, they didn't fly to a common place. They are only allowed to remeasure the target after a couple double shots.
You know, Charlie, one of the questions that surrounded the .009 was that it might really have been smaller. One story (use to be) that it looked like a zero, but jeez, nothing could be that small, so they went with .009.
Probably happen with this one too. It'll start to be questioned any day now... Doesn't matter, it's official.
Charles
Probably happen with this one too. It'll start to be questioned any day now... Doesn't matter, it's official.
Charles
A
abintx
Guest
Gentlemen, this is the year 2013 and a half. There have been, what, 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 verified or corrected to 20/20 or better? [Butch, for you, 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, even the electron microscope [used as a reference point only] was introduced/co-invented by Germans, Max Knott and Ernst Ruska in 1931.
It's time to bring the NBRSA's equipment, measuring methods and technique into the 21st century.
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 verified or corrected to 20/20 or better? [Butch, for you, 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, even the electron microscope [used as a reference point only] was introduced/co-invented by Germans, Max Knott and Ernst Ruska in 1931.
It's time to bring the NBRSA's equipment, measuring methods and technique into the 21st century.
Butch Lambert
Active member
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!
It's all nonsense, Butch, given how much paper will change it's dimensions, changing the dimensions of the holes in it ... An order of magnitude larger than optical issues.
Someday, electronic targets will be cheap enough, and all ranges will have them for sanctioned matches. I'm sure that will bring other problems, but it'll solve this one. & then, all the old records will be retired and we'll (well, they'll) start over, with the appropriate nostalgia for the "dark ages."
Edit:
More exciting is -- at lunch, I filled a .30 PPC (plain Jane reamer) with H4198, and could get 31.5 grains in, with about .125 left over for a bullet. They moved the city limits in on me some years back, but soon I'll get to the range & b able to test it out. I'm sure Mr. Stinnett's reamer has other advantages, but I think powder capacity *might* not have to be one of them. Only have enough N-120 left for 1,000 rounds, & we may not be able to get more. It was looking like 1680, but if 4198'll work, that's great news.
Someday, electronic targets will be cheap enough, and all ranges will have them for sanctioned matches. I'm sure that will bring other problems, but it'll solve this one. & then, all the old records will be retired and we'll (well, they'll) start over, with the appropriate nostalgia for the "dark ages."
Edit:
More exciting is -- at lunch, I filled a .30 PPC (plain Jane reamer) with H4198, and could get 31.5 grains in, with about .125 left over for a bullet. They moved the city limits in on me some years back, but soon I'll get to the range & b able to test it out. I'm sure Mr. Stinnett's reamer has other advantages, but I think powder capacity *might* not have to be one of them. Only have enough N-120 left for 1,000 rounds, & we may not be able to get more. It was looking like 1680, but if 4198'll work, that's great news.
Last edited:
A
abintx
Guest
Why not budget some of the annual dues for that purpose? That way the entire membership will feel they were part of a groundbreaking achievement.
P.S. Better yet: 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.
Last edited by a moderator: