Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About theWacoKid

  • Rank
    Calls Shots

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Charlotte, NC
  • Real Name
    Ben Langford

Recent Profile Visitors

2,208 profile views
  1. Imbalanced vertical forces absolutely counteract motion of the gun. Nobody says it doesn't. Balanced lateral forces do nothing to stabilize the gun, nor do they counteract other imbalances of lateral forces applied to the gun. There's physics, there's marketing, and there's intuition and they all aren't the same.
  2. Rocket science and aerospace engineering derive all principles from physics. It's not too simple if it's correct.
  3. Last I checked x lbf pushing to the right and x lbf pushing to the left is zero lbf of externally applied load. Unless physics has changed lately and fbd's no longer work.
  4. Double sided is a stiffer system. Can take out some dot wiggle and "explosion" from mount vibration. Some care, some don't.
  5. You mind measuring that resistor while it's off?
  6. Have the fastest total time at every match.
  7. Barrel length isn't relevant in this case. A fullsize gun does not cease to be a fullsize gun because you add a compensator. It's now just a fullsize gun with a compensator.
  8. Shorty is basically commander length (3/4" shortened from full size). Midsize is full size shortened 1/2". Destroking is just something you have to try and another tuning tool.
  9. I'm not, but they are magnetic. Don't see how that will play into this mystery.
  10. They're all just tools, do whatever makes it work better.
  11. "Seems like" is not objective. Engineering analysis is. Brandon, I think for this to happen there has to be non-controlled feeding. What I mean is the round is being released from the mag before it has come under control by the extractor. Probably can be fixed by some combination of playing with the mag lips, adjusting the height of the mag in the gun, and/or increasing the distance between the extractor hook and the breech face. Not sure why these cases seem to be the culprit, but there's always a reason.
  12. Locally I'm seeing reduced failure rate so far. Rumor is this is true globally as well. Still not bullet proof, but better.
  13. 95% plus classifiers still don't tell you WHICH scores are actually better. Speaking of that plot, what classifiers are the ones with 95% runs with <80% points? That seems worth investigating. Hit factor will tell you what you need to know because it takes into account the critical counterbalance to points. The typical wisdom is the lower hit factor the stage the more penal the dropped points and this is true. My conclusion is your plot demonstrates higher hit factor classifiers typically have more forgiving targets. And as a general rule, this is true
  14. You have the baseline high hit factor of some classifiers on the x-axis, you have percent of points shot on the y-axis, and you have plotted runs by shooters classified as GM? Yet at no point have you considered the actual hit factor shot by the shooters, just the percent of available points they shot? If anything, you should look at the relationship of percent of points shot to the actual hit factor shot. That's all that matters. The higher HF classifiers will typically have easier targets, which will result in better points being shot on the whole, but you have no idea if those "better points" runs actually resulted in "better scores". I don't care what some random GM shot, I care what the guy with the best hit factor shot. I'd venture a wild guess to stoke the fire that if the x-axis was actual hit factor shot the regression line would slope the other way.
  • Create New...