Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "Correcting Gun Myths w/ Bloke on the Range: StGs, Carbines, and M16s" video.
-
@domenik8339 " AKM is by far the more reliable weapon day to day "
I shoot a bit, and the only rifle which jams almost every time I see it, is the AR15.
It's usually squeaky clean, then drenched in oil. AKs look neglected in comparison. They never jam.
What I actually heard: "ARs don't jam if you clean them. Americans are so lazy, that they have a spray-on butter. That's why their ARs jam."
And I've seen this very guy carefully disassembling an AR that jammed!
" Maybe in the mud test the AR would win "
That depends on the design of the test. If you just drop a rifle in the mud, pick it up and even think you could safely shoot it, AKs do just fine. They shoot. If they initially cycle slowly, they clean themselves after a few shots.
Yes, ARs do better on the tests which totally cover every moving part in mud, while keeping the muzzle clear !. That rarely happens in the wild, though.
BTW - Obviously, AKs are much easier to clean after the test.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@zackzittel7683 Okay, let's call it "survivor bias". A bunch of guys have average shooting ARs and they rarely say anything about it. Those few who own a bad shooter will surely keep quiet about it, so in the end we have skewed expectations. Like 3 MOA shooter might be considered bad, while it's possibly good.
Of course, it goes the same way when reporting groups. Almost nobody will report groups with "fliers" in them, or excuse them somehow, yet they do matter. The end result is that just because somebody said something, we can't know how close to the truth he is, even if the report is perfectly honest.
It's just, humans are human and act accordingly.
" it was built for accuracy and I got lucky "
How lucky do you have to get, to shoot an 0.5 MOA group, though?
I mean, I'm just watching a pro builder testing his own creation. The first two groups turned out to be 0.3 MOA. So it surely is an 0.5 MOA gun, not? Well, his third group was 0.8... (And the first two were stringing in different directions, so it was likely luck.)
Well, the guy surely knows his craft, so he claimed subMOA. Maybe you are just like him and consistently shoot holes touching at 100, and that's why you can claim 0.5MOA, but I honestly doubt it.
1
-
@zackzittel7683 " I don’t blame you for doubting the word of someone on YouTube "
Actually, I believe your word. I don't trust your understanding of the issue at hand, though.
Let me put it this way. Recently I'm trying to improve my pistol shooting skills, so I bought a CO2 pneumatic. The other day I managed to hit the string my target was hanging on, oh, I don't exactly remember, but maybe 10 times in a row? Definitely more than 5.
Is it a true statement? Yes, it did happen.
Does it reflect my shooting skills? No! Not even close!
For a true assessment I would have to at least mention those days, when I'm struggling to hit a palm sized target at the very same distance. And I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but I'm just not hitting. I check the sights and they are fine. I check my pistol and it's working correctly.
It's just that it's not my day.
So the true assessment of my skill level would have to include the bad days together with the good days, but I"m very unlikely to brag about my bad days. Actually, I did brag to my friends about my good day and obviously did not mention my bad days, so I truly do it!
It's the same story with reporting groups. People tend to "explain away" bad groups, while at the same time they tend to overvalue good groups, while it's just a luck of the draw.
You may think I'm wrong on this, but I'm not. There is a guy on YT, who analyzed what would it take to reliably detect an even quite sizable effect, and it takes a lot of shots. Practically impossible amount of shots for any high pressure cartridge.
The video is titled: "Science agrees: 5-shot groups are pointless"
It is a "sciency" video, with software simulating dispersion, but they also shot 100 shot groups with a bunch of rifles too, so "It's just computer magik!" crowd has no leg to stand on.
I'd try my best at summarizing the indisputable findings of the video:
1. The "statistical analysis" we often use to assess the significance of the group sizes we shoot is based on a wrong model.
Our model assumes that shot dispersion has a normal distribution, where the center is the most likely to be hit. That's incorrect. If you ever shot bottlecaps, you know from experience that it almost never happens that you hit the middle, it's always the rim.
That's because guns hit a doughnut shape around the center, which never gets hit. They confirmed it in practice too.
2. What are the chances that a five shot group would tell you the truth? Minuscule! The effect size would have to be huge for it to really show anything.
It becomes clearer when you see the blob of a 100 shot group and realize that any five hole group has equal chance of happening.
In other words: "Fliers are not fliers". They are usually legit shots, that simply happen a bit less often.
For example, they shot a 100 shot group with a 10-22 and there were literally 2 fliers there. Two shots which hit outside of the main blob. Every other "flier" you could chance upon was well within the main blob. Just less likely to happen, is all.
3. You mentioned tuning the load to the harmonics of the gun.
Oh my, I've no time. I gotta go.
The take home message is that it's all about luck. If your 5shot groups truly reflect reality, stay away from lotteries , because you likely already used up all your luck for a few years.
No disrespect intended, none at all. I believe your words! I'm convinced your shooting ability is easily twice better than mine and your guns are not even comparable to the best stuff I ever shot (okay, maybe comparable, still much better).
Best regards. Sorry for the misspells. I've no time to check and I'm mildly dyslectic. I gotta go.
1
-
1