Picture of the 0,0077 group?

consider this

David Halblom said:
But no cigar
Click to expand...
.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.
 
and before

David Halblom said:
.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.
Click to expand...
 
David Halblom said:
But no cigar
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
David Halblom said:
David Halblom said:
.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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
 
I'm with Magnus...

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!:)

From Iceland said:
Gentelmen!

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

Regards,
Magnus Sigurdsson
Reykjavik
ICELAND
Click to expand...
 
mks said:
David Halblom said:
The difference is actually 0.0013" and typing paper is more like 0.004", about three times larger.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinking along the same line

abintx said:
mks said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
 
What bothers me

Butch Lambert said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
The other possibility was that the requirement was to average measurements of .008, .008 & .007.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I have complete confidence in the scoring committee. I believe that they measured in thousandths and the average carried out to "tenths". James
 
Andy Cross said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Later
Dave
 
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
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top