Jump to content

Talk:Accurizing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Turning "how to" into just "how"

[edit]

The article has been criticized as having "how to" content. I think the "how" is important; for example, if you were writing an article on automotive tuning, do you just say:

One method of increasing performance is increasing the volumetric efficiency of the engine.

and leave it at that? Or do you list methods of increasing the volumetric efficiency, and describe how they work?

Altering or replacing the intake manifold is another way of increasing volumetric efficiency. Projections that distrub the flow of air can be removed, using a process such as extrude honing, allowing higher flow rates. A high rise manifold, which uses longer runners routing air directly to each intake value, uses the inertia of the air to allow more air into the cylinder after bottom dead center, and can allow higher than atmospheric charging under ideal circumstances.

This tells how things are done, but isn't what I'd consider a how to. I wouldn't trust someone, with the knowledge given, to work on the engine in my car, as it just says what to do (alter or replace the intake manifold) with no indication of what tools are used, or what the process consists of; it does mention extrude honing, but that's just an example, and not the only way to smooth an intake manifold. What I consider to be how to would be something more along the lines of:

To attach a high rise intake manifold, first remove the carburetor, choke, and existing intake manifold. You will need new gaskets for the manifold and carburetor. Be careful during the removal and installation process to not allow any foreign objects (such as screws) to fall into the engine head. Install the new manifold gasket according to the manufacturer's instructions, and be careful to torque the screws to the manufacturer's recommended tighness, as bolts taht are too loose can result in air leaks and a lean mixture, while bolts that are too tight can warp the manifold or strip the holes in the block, especially when attaching the manifold to an aluminum block.

Any comments upon my differentiation between how and how-to? I think an agreement on that distinction should be the first step before the article is altered. scot 02:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the original research?

[edit]

Certainly I haven't done any research on the topic, other than reading what others hace written. Anyone care to tag any specific items as OR, and I'll see what I can find to defend them? scot 19:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it gives advice, makes "should" statements and claims about what's ideal, and doesn't cite any sources. Without sources, every statement is original. Everything the article says needs to be tied to a reference, like [1]. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing howto angle

[edit]

Okay, here goes.

First consideration. The article is well-written and detailed as-is. It might be better off just transcribing the whole thing to Wikibooks. Surviving an AfD isn't that hard if it doesn't attract too much attention, and there doesn't appear to be a quick fix to prevent the article reading like a guidebook. Rather than messing with the prose, it could just be moved across. This gets my vote.

If it's going to be kept:

  1. Inline references are needed everywhere. There is literally no way to tell which parts of this come from sources and which are the opinion of the editor at the moment. As previous editors have said, the whole thing can be considered to be original research if it isn't obvious where it's sourced from.
  2. The second-person perspective ("you") needs to go. Especially bad are instructions like "click on the image to the right", which makes all sorts of assumptions about the reader's environment. Articles should try not to be self-conscious.
  3. Question marks in headers are always a warning sign.
  4. The first section, on why accurizing is needed, goes into too much detail on a random study. While examples are helpful, there should be more emphasis on the actual conclusion. At the moment it's almost like a review of the guns in question.
  5. There's very little need to say "should" anywhere. Present the fact, let the reader figure it out. One does not need to be told, given the factoid that a grip which doesn't fit the hand will reduce accuracy, that one should choose an appropriately-sized grip.
  6. The sights section assumes far too much familiarity with the subject. It should explain the differences between sights, and it should wikilink to appropriate articles for further reading.
  7. That a pistol shooter may drop his weapon on the floor is utterly irrelevant to the discussion of how to make a weapon more accurate. Remember that this is not a discussion of how to care for a weapon. It is a description of the process of making a weapon more accurate, and nothing more.
  8. Don't recommend brands. Don't even mention them unless there's an exceptional reason to do so.
  9. The example of having an ejected case go down one's shirt in the usability section is cute, but inappropriate.
  10. The tolerances section veers off into "look after your weapon" mode again. The AK-47's appeal to untrained conscripts in the woods is irrelevant to the point of making a weapon more accurate. The whole reliability argument can be canned.
  11. The "paradox" thing in the recoil section is chatty and schoolteacherish. Just explain the concept. Don't try to teach it.
  12. In harmonics, the free-floating concept is under-explained, and the "rule of thumb" is unnecessary.
  13. The article ends rather suddenly. It needs additional content to give more context to the subject. A single intro paragraph explaining that there are lots of factors which affect accuracy isn't enough. What exactly this content should be is unclear.

That'll do for now. As I say, a lot of work to be done if it's not going to be moved to WikiBooks. Chris Cunningham 10:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move it to Wikibooks, but I'm not sure of the process (especially issues such as preserving authorship). I'll start collecting and categorizing references first, so I can easily stick them inline (that being the most important issue), and then start working over the article once I have that ready. Maybe strip it back to an outline, and then start re-adding content? scot 00:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The transwiki process is described at m:help:transwiki if you want to go that route with the existing content. But yeah, your call on this one. Chris Cunningham 10:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you pointed out, it is fairly well written, though it could use some expansion which would be easier with looser sourcing requirements (such as that hot brass down the back of the shirt, that's why I personally don't like Glocks). That would also give me the ability to point to the Wikibook before I start gutting and re-writing the Wikipedia article. scot 13:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A copy has been moved to Wikibooks (cut and paste for now, I've requested a sysadmin there to do a full import), and a link inserted at the bottom. scot 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference collection

[edit]

Collection of reference sources and notes on content for easy addition of inline references to article. Anyone with good soruces feel free to add some below. scot 00:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. SAAMI glossary
    1. defines "accurize", "two stage trigger", "overtravel", "trigger stop", "sear", "trigger pull", "trigger shoe", "trigger, adjustable", "trigger, crisp", "trigger, double pull (two stage", "trigger, double set", "trigger, release", "trigger, single stage", "trigger, target", "glass bedding", "lock time", many more.
  2. Floating and Bedding: Accurizing Your Rifle from about.com.
    1. Free floating the barrel and bedding the action
    2. Thermal expansion and stringing
    3. Stiff heavy vs. flexible sporter barrels
    4. Pressure at end of barrel
  3. Tack Driving Tactical Rifle from Tac Ops
    1. Cartridge alignment in chamber
    2. Leade and throat must be matched to the bullet used
  4. Information on cryogenic treatment of steel for accurizing
    1. What is your opinion of the deep cryogenic processing of barrels? in Lilja FAQ
    2. Should I "cryo" my barrel? from Shilen FAQ
  5. The Custom-Built Handgun
    1. Larry Leutenegger, an article on how the M1911 is customized for bullseye shooting
    2. Fit an consistency
    3. Reliability
    4. Comfort
    5. Trigger pull
  6. Accurizing the Mini-14
    1. Discusses causes of poor accuracy; light barrel, gas action impinging on barrel, stock fit, sights, trigger pull
    2. Discusses bedding, a complex process
    3. New sights, better contrast and better adjustments
  7. Barrel tuners for the Mini-14
    1. Tensioned barrel
    2. Adjustable weight tuner
  8. Article on AccuMajic Accurizer
    1. internal barrel tuning system that uses an adjustable pressure point for damping
    2. Explains how damping certain nodes can help accuracy
  9. Overtravel adjustment for the Ruger MK II Target model
  10. Gun-Tests.com
    1. article on accurizing the Beretta 92F/FS pistol
    2. durability, ease of maintainence, and shootability are important
    3. consistent lockup is the key
  11. Performance Shooter
    1. .38 Special wadcutter test, December 1996
  12. The Benefits of Custom Grips John Dreyer, Encyclopedia of Bullseye Pistol
    1. Firm but relaxed grip, points well
    2. Consistency--identical hold every time
    3. Isolate the trigger finger, so pulling trigger doesn't disturb aim
    4. Recoil management, allowing quick return to target
    5. Gun must move under recoil the same way every shot or you can throw shots
    6. Psychological advantages, the grip fits well and is comfortable
  13. Accuracy: Gun, Cartridge, and Shooter by Bob Beers at Chuck Hawks web site

(numbered references) scot 15:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References needed

[edit]

TBD

Cutting this down

[edit]

I've stubbed this. The Wikibooks article still uses links from the Wikipedia namespace; these should be corrected (either by removal or by appending :w: to the start of the link.

Several images used in the Wikibooks article are broken because the main image needs to be moved to Commons.

Chris Cunningham 09:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got the links fixed in Wikibooks, image still needs to be moved (never done that before). scot 14:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed outline

[edit]

I think this is still deserving of it's own article, as the topic is very complex and involved. Looking back at the basic outline of the article, I think it's still sound. I've included the references listed above that will be used to support each section.

  1. Introduction. References #1 (definition), and #3, 5, 6, 10 (general process)
  2. Defining accuracy. The first paragraph can probably go, but the second two paragraphs are well referenced (drawn straight from the Gun Tests article) and serve the important purpose of demonstrating the complexities involved when looking for the greatest accuracy, as both the smallest and largest groups of the test were fired with the same gun. Reference #11
  3. Usability. Repeatability, control, comfort, and confidence. References #12 (grips, repeatability, confidence), #6, 9 (trigger, sights), #5 (trigger, grips)
  4. Tolerances. Ammo to barrel, bolt to barrel, bore characteristics, sights, recoil. References #3 (matching barrel to ammo), #4 (wear), #5, 6, 10 (fit)
  5. Harmonics. Stiffness, tuning, floating, thermal expansion. References #2 (bedding, floating, thermal expansion), #7, 8 (harmonic damping)
  6. Miscellaneous. Lock time, dwell time

Let me know what you think. scot 15:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added misc. section scot 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. Thanks for working on this. Chris Cunningham 15:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

[edit]
Resolved
 – Moot; merge did not take place, and article is no longer tagged for merging. Too much material to merge anyway.

DISAGREE - I think this has plenty of unique into to make a fine article all it's own. I'm against a merge into Firearm. Arthurrh 17:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comments

[edit]

Here's some comments I have from assessing the article quality.

  1. Illustrations are needed to help people understand the issues
  2. Defining Accuracy needs to somehow be simpler to understand. A short lead sentence with something about repeatability, for example Accuracy is defined as the ability to hit the same point on the target over and over again and after that have the description of ways people measure accuracy. see "Accuracy: Gun, Cartridge, and Shooter" by Bob Beers at Chuck Hawks
    1. Plus explanation of expected group sizes
      1. 3-shot groups vs 5-shot groups vs ...
      2. center-to-center measure vs overall group size
      3. distance to target for comparing groups (50 yds, 100 yds, ...)
    2. methodology - bench vs standing vs machine-rest, etc.
  3. Structure I think the overall structure needs some work to better layout the issues and have some kind of flow. I haven't figured out yet what it should be, but once you have all the sections done maybe an idea will pop out.
    1. Usability doesn't seem to be quite the right section header, considering the subsections under it.
    2. Trigger section contains lots of info, but lacks helpful flow, it ends up being difficult to follow even though it says almost everything that it needs to.
    3. Sights needs more of a description of sight plane length and how it affects accuracy, tang and peep sights (IE why one type of sight is more accurate than another) and more about optical sights.
    4. Stock doesn't discuss how proper fit helps the gun point in the same direction consistently (see repeatability in the definition)
    5. Tolerances doesn't seem to discuss blue-printing the action
    6. Barrel may need a subsection or separate section for Chamber
    7. Rifle stocks needs to discuss/compare/contrast floating and bedding, it makes them look like the same thing.
    8. Harmonics doesn't discuss various metals, for example carbon-fiber vs steel, etc.
    9. Stiffness is a good example of a place where a picture will help
    10. Harmonic Tuning could use a graphic of some kind, like showing a oscillation wave and how shooting at the peak vs the valley would product a different point of impact
  4. Ammunition isn't discussed
  5. Twist isn't discussed
  6. Gun rests and shooting positions aren't discussed

Useful online sources:

Well it's a lot of stuff, which may be misleading. I think it's a cool article, but these are just things that would make it better. Arthurrh 21:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 I plan to work on, once things get more complete.
2, the definition of Accuracy is in the SAAMI glossary, and I may want to split out "accuracy" and "precision", but I need to find a good source.
My problem is that the "defining accuracy" section mostly tells you that it's tough to define, but it doesn't seem to actually define it. Arthurrh 00:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point of including that test is that you can use the results to state that each of the 3 guns is the "most accurate"; the Python has the best best-case performance, the 686 has the best average case performance, and the 52 has the best worst-case performance. While the article was a test of ammunition, I think the variation in the guns' performance is far more fascinating. Maybe I can work on that by elaborating on how each gun is the "most accurate". scot 14:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I think the test IS interesting, but just needs to be clarified more that it's part of the difficulty of measuring/reporting/determining accuracy. Caveat Emptor when reading firearms reviews. I planned on adding a paragraph on group size in the lead, and I think that would put the testing in better context. Arthurrh 17:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3, like 1, should probably wait until most of the content is in place; maybe the text of the headings will become better then.
4 Ammunition is not really part of accurizing; if anything this should probably be a stub of a section pointing to handloading, internal ballistics, and external ballistics. I've done this with sights as well, though more content could go in there.
5 is discussed to some extent in barrel characteristics, but should be discussed more in a section on bullet stability. Lilja has lots of good info there, including advanced stability calculator source code and applications.
6 This is tangential to the topic, I think, since it's not really part of the accurizing. There should probably be a mention in the "Defining accuracy" section, however, that points out that differences in rests and shooting positions will change point of impact, and in the "usability" section to cover how shooting position impacts the "user interface" of the gun (wide, flat forends for sandbags, high combs for standing, maybe a bit on slings).
Also, if you can find sources for any of the additions you suggest, please stick them in the list (URLs are best, so I can read them and make sure they match what I'm saying). scot 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be checking my refs for sources for all of this for you. Is there a way to share PDF files with you? Arthurrh 00:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent an e-mail to you through Wikipedia; anything you want to send to me you can send through the return address. scot 13:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

We need pictures, lots of pictures. There are a lot of interesting little things explained in this article. Imagine that you were a new gun user at a gunsmith trying to figure out what he was telling you he was going to do. We need to break out the digital cameras and take some little pictures that will help illustrate the information in this article. For example:

  1. Example target with group measurement
  2. trigger, especially one in partial break-down to show the parts
  3. stock bedding
  4. barrel internals (maybe someone can talk Dan Lilja into allowing use of one of his)
    1. rifling
    2. headspace
    3. chamber showing lead (cutaway?)
  5. harmonic stabilizer

Arthurrh 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airgun section

[edit]

I've put in a stub at the bottom for airgun powerplant accurizing, and I'm going to flesh it out once I have some references.

scot 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC), updates scot 17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC), scot 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-tagging

[edit]

Yet again, this article reads like a guide. I'm pretty convinced now that this article belongs on Wikibooks in its entirety, as it's impossible to avoid prescription when dealing with it. There's nothing wrong with the article not being on Wikipedia; Wikibooks is a valuable resource. But keeping an article here simply encourages people to add prescriptive information to Wikipedia, and interesting or not that's not what an encyclopedia is for. Chris Cunningham 10:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the featured articles Cryptography, Asthma, Prostate cancer, and Enigma machine. All of these have a degree of "how" information in them. I've looked back over the accurizing article and I don't see any place where specific how-to information is given. I see, for example, a section saying that bedding helps prevent things from shifting under recoil, but there is no mention of release agents; the section on triggers makes no mention of sear angle, or what to use to get a smooth finish; it mentions altering stock parts to make an interference fit and then lapping them to match, but doesn't mention how the parts are altered, or what method is used for lapping. I don't see enough information in this article to actually perform any of the operations it mentions, and therefore I don't think you can say it is a "how-to" guide. If you have any specific concerns, point them out and I'll address them; whether the article belongs in Wikipedia has already been determined by the AfD. scot 14:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before I start, I have to say that (a) yes, the article survived AfD, but AfD is a notoriously volatile process and WP in general is biased towards inclusionism; (b) we've already been round the "improve the article" loop, to the article's considerable benefit, but it hasn't addressed the concern that the article mostly concentrates on "describing what people recommend", which is basically just redirected prescription. The point I'm trying to make here is that this is an article which specifically documents a procedure which is in and of itself of fairly little encyclopedic value. Readers will draw value from discussion of the procedure itself, but unlike the articles you've drawn comparison to there's nothing much apart from the procedure which can be included in the article. Every section of the article is drawn around teaching content matter rather than describing something, and as such the article is prescriptive. I could pick an example out of every section. Chris Cunningham 16:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on "fairly little encyclopedic value". If I'm a firearms enthusiast and want to understand what accurized rifles are all about and what it entails, this tells me all about various aspects of it. Unarguably non-firearms people will not find the info helpful, although actually the media would be well-suited to read it. But there are LOTS of article in WP that aren't interesting for everyone. Probably the majority fall into that category. That's ok and even expected in an encyclopedia. If the info is reliable, accurate, it passes one tests. Is accurizing a valid topic, well there is a lot of it being done in the real world, so someone must care about it. A recent special issue on the topic was created by a major firearms publication. Topics in this area are common in most firearms publications, and even a regularly monthly feature in many firearms publications, so certainly it's notable. The how-to question "may" still remain, but if so, please point out specific cases and we'll work to fix them. Arthurrh 00:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that you want people to understand the article topic. But that doesn't make it suitable for a general encyclopedia. My area of expertise is system administration, but I'm under no illusion that the discussion of what my job entails (to the point of literally narrating the process, as this article does) is befitting a general encyclopedia. This article has a whole page devoted to the effect of the trigger action. In a general encyclopedia, it shouldn't need to be pointed out that this is unwarranted.
It's obvious that there's no desire on behalf of the current editors to remove good information from the article. I can understand this. But the correct thing to do would be to move the whole article to WikiBooks and continue to work on it in there. Chris Cunningham 08:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first, I reject the whole "suitable for a general encyclopedia" argument, because it's just not relevant. Wikipedia is MORE than that, because it is not subject to the constraints that have bound traditional encyclopedias. Size is irrelevant; I've got a half terabyte external USB drive on the Linux server across the room that is smaller and lighter than a paperback (well, Cryptonomicon at least). Assuming good bitonal TIFF document images, that will hold 5 million scanned pages; assuming moderately compact text files (PalmOS reader format) that jumps to 250 million pages. Printing costs are also irrelevant, since it's not printed, as are writing costs (monetary and temporal), as the labor force is both free and unbounded in size. So it's back to first principles...
The definition of "encyclopedia" is a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject (Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)). Since Wikipedia is unbound by the constraints of other encyclopeidas, then I truly believe that it should cover all branches of knowledge, and cover them far more thoroughly than has heretofore been possible. As far as sysadmin topics go, Wikipedia failed me this week; if the article on Domain Name System had even so much as a link to resolv.conf, I could have save myself a lot of digging when I set up that Linux system. In fact, I'll probably do just that, along with showing the file format of resolv.conf to that article, now that I've figured it out. Why? Because it's useful information that I needed and failed to find when I looked for it. It's not quite "narrating the process", but it certainly is within the scope of an article on the DNS process to describe the steps taken by each part, and one of those steps would be "the client checks the list of DNS servers (see resolv.conf etc.) to determine which name server to consult"; that's all I would have needed to find the information I needed to solve my problem.
As Jimmy Wales said, Our goal...is to get a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet. ...empowering people everywhere to have the information they need to make good decisions.[2] That's my guiding principle when I work on Wikipedia, and I feel that the accurizing article fits that perfectly. scot 14:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think with a bit more editing that the how-to aspects could be cleaned out, and we'd have a (rather long and detailed) but suitable article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't. This still doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, and I'd question whether this process can ever be addressed as such in its own article. Chris Cunningham 08:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you disagree, but you seem to be in the minority. I read the article and it definitely doesn't have how-to information in it. If you disagree with a specific section, please point it out as you've been asked to repeatedly. As to whether the topic belongs in an encyclopedia such as wikipedia or not, you're way off base. From the five pillars it says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." This definitely falls into that description. Please explain what criteria preclude such a common, notable topic from inclusion in a specialized encyclopedia. Failing that, I'm planning on removing the tag, since the article doesn't have how-to or prescription from what I can tell. Arthurrh 18:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the title be "accurize" rather than "accurizing"?

[edit]

In the SAAMI Glossary of Terms (reference [1] in the Article) the word defined is the verb "accurize" rather than the adverb "accurizing". Normally the article title uses the verb rather than the related adverb e.g. love not loving. I expect that is WP policy. I recommend amending the title and the article accordingly. Any comments? GilesW (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Accurizing" is actually a noun (or, more precisely, a gerund) and is as such preferable as an article title over a verb. See WP:NOUN. GregorB (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Accurizing/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
Here's some comments I have from assessing the article quality.
  1. Illustrations are needed to help people understand the issues
  2. Defining Accuracy needs to somehow be simpler to understand. A short lead sentence with something about repeatability, for example Accuracy is defined as the ability to hit the same point on the target over and over again and after that have the description of ways people measure accuracy. see "Accuracy: Gun, Cartridge, and Shooter" by Bob Beers at Chuck Hawks
    1. Plus explanation of expected group sizes
      1. 3-shot groups vs 5-shot groups vs ...
      2. center-to-center measure vs overall group size
      3. distance to target for comparing groups (50 yds, 100 yds, ...)
    2. methodology - bench vs standing vs machine-rest, etc.
  3. Structure I think the overall structure needs some work to better layout the issues and have some kind of flow. I haven't figured out yet what it should be, but once you have all the sections done maybe an idea will pop out.
    1. Usability doesn't seem to be quite the right section header, considering the subsections under it.
    2. Trigger section contains lots of info, but lacks helpful flow, it ends up being difficult to follow even though it says almost everything that it needs to.
    3. Sights needs more of a description of sight plane length and how it affects accuracy, tang and peep sights (IE why one type of sight is more accurate than another) and more about optical sights.
    4. Stock doesn't discuss how proper fit helps the gun point in the same direction consistently (see repeatability in the definition)
    5. Tolerances doesn't seem to discuss blue-printing the action
    6. Barrel may need a subsection or separate section for Chamber
    7. Rifle stocks needs to discuss/compare/contrast floating and bedding, it makes them look like the same thing.
    8. Harmonics doesn't discuss various metals, for example carbon-fiber vs steel, etc.
    9. Stiffness is a good example of a place where a picture will help
    10. Harmonic Tuning could use a graphic of some kind, like showing a oscillation wave and how shooting at the peak vs the valley would product a different point of impact
  4. Ammunition isn't discussed
  5. Twist isn't discussed
  6. Gun rests and shooting positions aren't discussed

Useful online sources:

Well it's a lot of stuff, which may be misleading. I think it's a cool article, but these are just things that would make it better. Arthurrh 21:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 18:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Accurizing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Accurizing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calculation of bullet flight time through barrel

[edit]

Would "bullet flight time through barrel" be the same as "dwell time"? I was wondering if a simplified calculation of this time could be included. I've tried to describe this time using a formula, but the numbers doesn't seem to match up. The article states "most rifle bullets travel through a high powered rifle barrel bore in 1.0 to 1.5 milliseconds". However, my sample calculation gives 0.3125 ms.

I think 500 mm (approximately 19.7 in) barrel and muzzle velocity of 800 m/s (approximately 2625 ft/s) are reasonable assumptions looking at cartridges like .308 Winchester and 6.5mm Creedmoor.

Why don't the numbers add up? See formula below:

Other examples:

  • 0.610 [m]/ 900 [m/s] = 0.68 [ms] (approx. 24 [in] barrel and 2953 [ft/s] V0)
  • 0.762 [m]/ 860 [m/s] = 0.88 [ms] (approx. 30 [in] barrel and 2953 [ft/s] V0)

Is this because the acceleration isn't constant? 37.191.139.164 (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accurizing&oldid=1212524482"