Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

"closed bolt"

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 August 2004 at 9:47pm

Originally posted by rednekk98 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.

 

Back to Top
ImpyKing2 View Drop Down
Member
Member

Guested - Cannot follow any rules

Joined: 14 July 2004
Location: San Marino
Status: Offline
Points: 500
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ImpyKing2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 August 2004 at 9:49pm

www.pbtimes.com

www.warpig.com (I can't see how you can argue this one. It was done right and it was done from a clamped down table so nothing could affect accuracy excpet the gun itself)

Also they don't have phrases in the dictionary...moron.

(I'm a nob with no clue about almost anything...)
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 August 2004 at 9:55pm

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."

 

Back to Top
ImpyKing2 View Drop Down
Member
Member

Guested - Cannot follow any rules

Joined: 14 July 2004
Location: San Marino
Status: Offline
Points: 500
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ImpyKing2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 August 2004 at 9:57pm
Uh Huh Im sure it was the one you where thinking of...sure it was.. That plus the other test I read about is good enough for me to beleive that one is not more accurate then the other.
(I'm a nob with no clue about almost anything...)
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 August 2004 at 9:58pm

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.

 

Back to Top
ImpyKing2 View Drop Down
Member
Member

Guested - Cannot follow any rules

Joined: 14 July 2004
Location: San Marino
Status: Offline
Points: 500
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ImpyKing2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 August 2004 at 10:04pm
Well good while I go "look up" the scientific method maybe you should go take a look at a dictionary..you might realize there are no phrases in it.
(I'm a nob with no clue about almost anything...)
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 August 2004 at 10:08pm

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.

Back to Top
ImpyKing2 View Drop Down
Member
Member

Guested - Cannot follow any rules

Joined: 14 July 2004
Location: San Marino
Status: Offline
Points: 500
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ImpyKing2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 August 2004 at 10:19pm
How Im I suppose to know I didn't do the test...genius. Also I know what metaphora and all that are do you...mayb you should go look that up in the dictionary to.
(I'm a nob with no clue about almost anything...)
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 August 2004 at 10:21pm

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.

 

Back to Top
ImpyKing2 View Drop Down
Member
Member

Guested - Cannot follow any rules

Joined: 14 July 2004
Location: San Marino
Status: Offline
Points: 500
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ImpyKing2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 August 2004 at 10:34pm
Well I didn't understand ALL that stuff and Im not admiting Im wrong because I know I'm not. If you want to go trot around the field thinking an Autocrapper is more accurate then a open bolt gun then thats your problem but its wrong. Test where done and it proves that closed bolt guns are not more accurate then open bolt guns.
(I'm a nob with no clue about almost anything...)
Back to Top
†Sniper† View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
In soviet Russia, paintball guns own you

Joined: 25 December 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3714
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote †Sniper† Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 August 2004 at 10:38pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent 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.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 August 2004 at 10:38pm

Good god - can you even read?  What exactly do you think that I am saying?  If you want to argue against imaginary points, that is fine, but please don't attribute statements to me that I did not make.

You know, the main reason why your credibility is so low is that you keep making outlandish statements and refusing to back down.  You just make yourself look silly?

 

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 August 2004 at 10:39pm

Originally posted by †Sniper† †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.

:)

 

Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 August 2004 at 10:57pm
Impy would rather throw around insults than back something up. His handling of this proves him a tool if that hasn't already been established. However, yeah, you are being an ass and feeding the monkey. I have a feeling that if Rambino were around(and the promote thingy wasn't broken) you'd get a promotion. Your style is eerily similar.
Back to Top
jeep 98 custom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I can type in Nerd L33T!

Joined: 30 October 2002
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Points: 4580
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jeep 98 custom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 August 2004 at 1:58am
Originally posted by Clark Kent 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.

"Yes there are two path you can go back, but in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on"


Back to Top
LordJovian View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LordJovian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 August 2004 at 12:59pm
Hmmm... wow this is hilarious.  What moron would think this?? I'm not sure if its just me, but... the bolts move and strike the paintball in both bolt configurations, correct?  So...whats the difference? Oh yeah, and I love how everyone KNOWS the paintball stabilizes in the first 6-8 inches of the barrel, but suddenly now the bolt "moving around" prevents the barrel from doing its job?? This is great-

And whats the argument on Scientific Method? Here's an idea- you guys are looking for phrases, right? Pull your heads out and look it up in the ENCYCLOPEDIA. You know what that is, right? Good luck trying to counter that with a smart *edited* remark.

Ok, Mr. Kent- your turn. I'd like to have you write up an approach to this dilema, have it on my desk by next Friday. Then I'd like you to carry out your experiment, paying attention to every detail (don't forget about air flow in the room) and post every detail and give us your conclusion. Put your money where your fingers are.

Moose.
A-5
E-grip
Chipley Custom Carbon Graphite 16"
Evil Adapter(Spyder)
32 Deg New '03 XChamber
Remote Line
Gun Sling
Sniper f/x Stock
LPK
68/4500 HPA
R-5
CP Reg
JCS Duel Trigger
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 August 2004 at 1:34pm

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.

 

Back to Top
WUNgUN View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
100% Bonafied Jar Head

Joined: 15 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3812
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WUNgUN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 August 2004 at 3:46pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

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.


Recoil is a variable that is "subjective" for lack of a better word, so I would conclude that it must be removed from the study. Just like the effects of weather and weather conditions in other experiments. Maybe I am off...
[IMG]http://hometown.aol.com/hlwrangler/myhomepage/revised5_copy.jpg">
""...the Marines we have there now could crush the city and be done with business in four days."--LtGen Conway on Fallujah
Back to Top
LordJovian View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LordJovian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 August 2004 at 3:51pm
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.
A-5
E-grip
Chipley Custom Carbon Graphite 16"
Evil Adapter(Spyder)
32 Deg New '03 XChamber
Remote Line
Gun Sling
Sniper f/x Stock
LPK
68/4500 HPA
R-5
CP Reg
JCS Duel Trigger
Back to Top
Enos Shenk View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
~-o@

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: A comfy chair
Status: Offline
Points: 14109
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Enos Shenk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 August 2004 at 6:25pm
I dont see how any of that crap you listed applies to warpig kent.

Using the same gun with the same paint and same barrel and same power source and only changing the bolt operation to me says lots.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.187 seconds.