"closed bolt"

rednekk98 wrote: The fact is that if you have a heavy mass moving prior to the shot, it's going to throw off your initial aim. But this is of course moot when you're firing a string of shots. It effect first shot accuracy only, but depending on the gun, not by much.

But what you are suggesting is user error, so to speak.  If two clamped guns would perform the same, and the difference is caused by a shaky gun, is it really fair to say that one gun is more "accurate" than the other?  Isn't the better statement that "this gun is easier to aim"?

"Accuracy" is a bit of a tricky concept in paintball.

 

Ok - back to remedial science class for you.

That was the study I was thinking of, and it, by itself, does not support your claim of a "proven fact."

 

It may be enough for "you to believe," but that isn't a very high standard.

Like I said, back to remedial science class for you.  Once you understand how the scientific method works, you will understand why you are wrong.

 

Good god, you just don't understand metaphors or rhetorical statements, do you.

By the way - what was the standard deviation on the shot spread in that study?  I also missed the part where they mentioned the level of statistical significance.  What was their alpha level again?  And what do you think the external validity of the study is? 

Please.

Why is it so hard for you to admit that you are wrong?  If you actually understood my last post you would also understand why that article is practically worthless.

 

Clark Kent wrote: Why is it so hard for you to admit that you are wrong?  If you actually understood my last post you would also understand why that article is practically worthless.

he won't admit he is wrong because he is an ass, and because you are acting like an ass.

†Sniper† wrote: he won't admit he is wrong because he is an ass, and because you are acting like an ass.

lol - fair enough, I am being a bit of an ass.  IK2 just brings out the best in me.  My apologies to all other incidental readers.

:)

 

Clark Kent wrote: Good god, you just don't understand metaphors or rhetorical statements, do you. By the way - what was the standard deviation on the shot spread in that study?  I also missed the part where they mentioned the level of statistical significance.  What was their alpha level again?  And what do you think the external validity of the study is?  Please.

 

4.

While I have neither the time nor the inclination to conduct actual experiments, I can briefly explain some of the problems with the WARPIG study.

First - what are we studying?  As red hinted at, "accuracy" is relative.  The WARPIG study clamped their guns, but if recoil (for instance) is an element of accuracy, then clamping probably isn't correct.

However, for purposes of this discussion, I propose that the "accuracy" we are discussing excludes all human factors, so I will assume a clamping scenario.

Second, we need an operational definition of "accuracy."  The WARPIG people measured max spread.  This, IMO, gives unfair weight to a singel outlier.  I would suggest that all shots are measured, and measures of variability be determined based on individual distance from the mathematical center.

Third, actual statistics would have to be run.  The WARPIG people observed that 11.5 inches is more than 11 inches, "but not by much."  That is insufficient for a scientific study.  The statistical significance would have to be properly established (or not established), using any of several available statistical tools.  Of course, 20 shots is nowhere near enough shots to create a suitable statistical baseline.  Hundreds or thousands of shots would have to be fired for the mathematics to be reliable.

Fourth, numerous confounding variables would have to be accounted for.  Shots should be fired at different ranges, using different barrel/paint combinations (perhaps even a Flatline), at different elevations, using HPA and CO2, etc.  High pressure and low pressure guns should be employed, as well as some high performance guns.  An Angel or a B2K with a Morlock board, for instance, can be set to fire from closed or open bolt, and would presumably show better accuracy than a Stingray.  As it stands, there are too many variables that could affect the results that have not been accounted for.

Finally, the study would have to be replicated.  It is central to the scientific method that a study must be replicatable before it is legitimate.  A single study never leads to a "proven fact."  A single study only leads to partial evidence.

Bottom line - the WARPIG study was an admirable but hopelessly amateurish first attempt at scientifically addressing open v closed bolt discussions.  It does provide some useful information on the subject, but should be taken with a great big grain of salt.

 

BTW - air flow in the room cannot be controlled completely, but the study should of course be conducted both indoors and outdoors, to determine whether wind affects one type of gun more than the other.  Beyond that, assuming that the air flow is generally fairly consistent, the affect thereof on any given individual shot (and the effect of a myriad of other minor confounding variables) would be accounted for mathematically by simply firing thousands of shots instead of 20.

 

Good job- it's not even next Friday yet. I do agree it wasn't a good experiment, nor was it enough to be a proven fact. I wasn't arguing that. It does, however, amaze me that this topic is even worth that grand of an experiment. Of course, if you would have presented your supporting points before, you would have had no need to argue with the validity of the experiment because that shows how invalid it is.

Of course, you should know that not even your experiment repeated thousands of times with every closed/ open bolt imaginable would make it a "proven fact." A "proven fact" would be that I have fingers. Even gravity isn't a proven fact, it's a theory.

I, however, applied simple logic based off accpeted theories/ hypotheses-

1. The ball enters the breech for the purpose of being propelled at a velocity acceptable for "firing" a paintball
2. The barrel is designed to stabilize the ball once it's fired.
3. 6-8 inches is accepted as the length needed to stabilize a paintball
4. The upgraded internal accesories for the 98C and A-5 don't improve anything (even the bolt that "hits" the ball evenly)

Using these, it can be applied that the bolt is used only for projecting the ball at high speeds, not for accuracy.

Moose Call.