H."Snuffy"Smith
New member
The record has stood for XXX years, right ? Now do NBRSA records say that a group must be .009" smaller than that ? a moot point ? Soo, it is impossible to break that record....RIGHT ?
"Snuffy"
"Snuffy"
.009 world record ?
- Thread starter H."Snuffy"Smith
- Start date
C
Con Cross
Guest
The record has stood for XXX years, right ? Now do NBRSA records say that a group must be .009" smaller than that ? a moot point ? Soo, it is impossible to break that record....RIGHT ?
"Snuffy"
Mr. Snuffy Smith, why would you worry about that?
Con
J
j mckinnie
Guest
Is it
An IBS or NBRSA record?
An IBS or NBRSA record?
JerrySharrett
Senile Member
Snuffy, just don't let that keep you from trying!!!The record has stood for XXX years, right ? Now do NBRSA records say that a group must be .009" smaller than that ? a moot point ? Soo, it is impossible to break that record....RIGHT ?
"Snuffy"
You can also try to break the NBRSA HV 5-100 record of 0.027". That should be easy enough for an old Cavalier hawk eye like you.
If you will just move the bullet seating out about 0.005"......
H."Snuffy"Smith
New member
S
Sonof A. Gunn
Guest
Since it is admitted current group measurement with the existing materials and methods has a +/- factor of at least a few thou., how can it be accurately (what this game is all about) established anyway?
T
twalker
Guest
M
mike in co
Guest
probably not plus or minus a few thou.....
me thinks this is what the record process is about. multiple people see the target and score it.....the results is what the multiple people decide.
if one person with no expereince did it...yes to a few thou..but once you have done it for a while...it gets easy to be consistant. then average(yes?) the number from each person to measure it,to get a single number.
a modern program could be written to center on a hole, then call it a 6mm hole, measure the difference to the next defined hole.....but this would not be from edge to edge because the computer would define the hole, not the eye.
you might think that in THE world of accuracy, there would be a technical current process, but the bottom line is people arent that bad at it.... with the old tools.
mike in co
S
Sonof A. Gunn
Guest
If it is FACT that there is NO inherent error in the measurement methodology currently used, then I will withdraw/delete my post and stand corrected. Otherwise no.
Seems that since multiple individuals measuring the same target get different results, then there IS error present.
Seems there just is no simple way to increase the precision of the results. Too bad when thousands of $$ and hours are being expended.
It's not a problem with me if not with the BR "Gods" here.
Guns are built to +/- .001" or better; bullets made to .0001" or better, but targets measured to +/- .00X(unknown).
Wowee, indeed.
Seems that since multiple individuals measuring the same target get different results, then there IS error present.
Seems there just is no simple way to increase the precision of the results. Too bad when thousands of $$ and hours are being expended.
It's not a problem with me if not with the BR "Gods" here.
Guns are built to +/- .001" or better; bullets made to .0001" or better, but targets measured to +/- .00X(unknown).
Wowee, indeed.
B
Big Al
Guest
I don't know what effect on the paper has hanging on the wall at the McBros shop for decades would have on the paper, but that hole looks round to my eyes.
D
Dennis Sorensen
Guest
The range measurement that day for that group was .0". At the range they could not measure it any different as it appeared to be one round hole...
It is my belief that some sort of device at a later date measuring the amount of light able pass through that hole compared to the amount of light passed through a single hole on the sighter, made the calculation that the group was .009".
At that time that measurement was accepted as a record. It does not get much more precise in my mind.
Records are not measured by just one individual, once a range measurement and the registered target is submitted, it will be measured using the best equipment by a few knowledgeable individuals before a consensus is arrived at. Once it has an official declaration as to the group size, it is then published.
Any record that would beat an existing record by only a few thou would be very carefully scrutinized before being declared.
It is a precise game and the officials are very precise in what they do.
I was match and records chairman for Benchrest Canada for a few years in the 70's and had to measure hundreds of targets... some were forwarded to the US for record verification.
J
JSchopper
Guest
Yeah, Right
As long as they dont "loose" the record target as they did with Bryn Boras's record unlimited record target
As long as they dont "loose" the record target as they did with Bryn Boras's record unlimited record target
S
Sonof A. Gunn
Guest
Absolutely precise group measurement could be done with a more sophisticated moving backer system:
The movement of the moving backer (each target would have its own unit) would be controlled by a small computer. When the bullet impacts the target and its backer, a simple acoustic pickup would let the computer know exactly WHEN the bullet hit. The computer would also "know" exactly where the backer was at that moment. Subsequent scanning of the backer would indicate the EXACT position of each bullet's impact yielding precise group size determinations. A built in scanner could give instant results and match results would be available virtually in real time.
Once a design is worked out, building of such units could be fairly inexpensive with the incredible amount of surplus electronic and mechanical components available.
See also: http://www.benchrest.com/forums/showthread.php?p=417447#post417447
The movement of the moving backer (each target would have its own unit) would be controlled by a small computer. When the bullet impacts the target and its backer, a simple acoustic pickup would let the computer know exactly WHEN the bullet hit. The computer would also "know" exactly where the backer was at that moment. Subsequent scanning of the backer would indicate the EXACT position of each bullet's impact yielding precise group size determinations. A built in scanner could give instant results and match results would be available virtually in real time.
Once a design is worked out, building of such units could be fairly inexpensive with the incredible amount of surplus electronic and mechanical components available.
See also: http://www.benchrest.com/forums/showthread.php?p=417447#post417447
Last edited by a moderator:
R
Rangerat
Guest
Isn't something like this done to score at the Olympics? At least I know it is done for air pistol where it is not unusual for the pellet to hit almost the exact same spot regularly. Certainly for most ranges the cost of this is impractical. But for world record competitions it could be done. You may not like a computer making the judgment but at least it is not biased.
