Test for ammo reliability (self-defense ammo)
- Thread starter cpileri
- Start date
- Status
Well, here it is in words anyway
Words only.
Relibility Algorythm
Why? To test a type of ammo for suitability for defense purposes
How much faith should I put in it?
This test has a
95% chance to eliminate any cartridge with a > or = to 1% chance of misfeeding
(i.e. a 5% chance to allow a ‘bad’ type of ammo to pass)
and,
95% chance to give a pass to any cartridge with a < or = to 0.11% chance of misfeeding
(i.e. a 5% chance to mistakenly flunk a cartridge that in reality does have a 1-in-1000 or less chance of misfeeding)
start:
Fire 320 rounds and count the misfeeds (jams):
If ZERO misfeeds, the ammo passes. You're done.
If 1 misfeed, proceed to pathway A below.
If 2 misfeeds, proceed to Pathway B below.
If 3 or more misfeeds, the ammo flunks. You're done.
Pathway A:
Fire 280 more rounds:
if ZERO additional jams in this 280 rounds, the ammo passes.
if 1 or more additional jams in this 280 rounds occurs, the ammo flunks.
Pathway B:
Fire 560 more rounds:
if ZERO additional jams, the ammo passes.
if 1 or more additional jams, the ammo flunks.
Buying ammo: minimum 320 rds needed, max 880; average 405.
Other causes of failure could be your choice of platform, or weak wrist grip in semi-autos, etc. This just tests the ammo.
The chart looked so much better, i just wanted to share. But better luck next time. Unless someone can tell me how to save a word document as a jpeg?
C-
Words only.
Relibility Algorythm
Why? To test a type of ammo for suitability for defense purposes
How much faith should I put in it?
This test has a
95% chance to eliminate any cartridge with a > or = to 1% chance of misfeeding
(i.e. a 5% chance to allow a ‘bad’ type of ammo to pass)
and,
95% chance to give a pass to any cartridge with a < or = to 0.11% chance of misfeeding
(i.e. a 5% chance to mistakenly flunk a cartridge that in reality does have a 1-in-1000 or less chance of misfeeding)
start:
Fire 320 rounds and count the misfeeds (jams):
If ZERO misfeeds, the ammo passes. You're done.
If 1 misfeed, proceed to pathway A below.
If 2 misfeeds, proceed to Pathway B below.
If 3 or more misfeeds, the ammo flunks. You're done.
Pathway A:
Fire 280 more rounds:
if ZERO additional jams in this 280 rounds, the ammo passes.
if 1 or more additional jams in this 280 rounds occurs, the ammo flunks.
Pathway B:
Fire 560 more rounds:
if ZERO additional jams, the ammo passes.
if 1 or more additional jams, the ammo flunks.
Buying ammo: minimum 320 rds needed, max 880; average 405.
Other causes of failure could be your choice of platform, or weak wrist grip in semi-autos, etc. This just tests the ammo.
The chart looked so much better, i just wanted to share. But better luck next time. Unless someone can tell me how to save a word document as a jpeg?
C-
robear
Member
Try a screen dump... 
Get the image you want on the screen, and then press 'Print Scrn' Usually over by the F12 key...
You now have an image of the current screen in the clipboard...
Open any image editing program (you should at least have Mspaint.exe somewhere) and paste it in.. Edit the borders out, or whatever you want, and then save as a .jpg...
There is probably a more straightforward way, but this should work for you..
R
Get the image you want on the screen, and then press 'Print Scrn' Usually over by the F12 key...
You now have an image of the current screen in the clipboard...
Open any image editing program (you should at least have Mspaint.exe somewhere) and paste it in.. Edit the borders out, or whatever you want, and then save as a .jpg...
There is probably a more straightforward way, but this should work for you..
R
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,231
Just being a devil's advocate.
If one changes the attitude of the weapon during testing (e.g., shooting with the gun tilted 90-degrees to the left/right, upside down) or with one hand, or with different mounts (weaver, modified weaver, isoceles), how does this affect, if at all, the 95 percent reliability calculation? How about when more than one magazine is used?
If one changes the attitude of the weapon during testing (e.g., shooting with the gun tilted 90-degrees to the left/right, upside down) or with one hand, or with different mounts (weaver, modified weaver, isoceles), how does this affect, if at all, the 95 percent reliability calculation? How about when more than one magazine is used?
no worries
You're right, this tests one type of ammo, one magazine, in one platform. I doubt you'd use a firearm that is not reliable ppointing at an angle but is reliable when held level, or whatever.
But since if you have good magazines that you trust (or an 880 round super high cap!) then you can eliminate that variable effectively and concentrate on the ammo.
Also the screen dump worked but in 2 pictures. Anyone can take both and paste them in a document, float them over text so they line up properly. and save/print the chart out.
Thanks! and here they are.
C-
p.s. for ascreen dump, the whole image was too small so that's why I split them up.
p.p.s. what would a 880-rd mag be? not a beta-C, more like a
'beta-DCCCLXXX' or something!
C-
You're right, this tests one type of ammo, one magazine, in one platform. I doubt you'd use a firearm that is not reliable ppointing at an angle but is reliable when held level, or whatever.
But since if you have good magazines that you trust (or an 880 round super high cap!) then you can eliminate that variable effectively and concentrate on the ammo.
Also the screen dump worked but in 2 pictures. Anyone can take both and paste them in a document, float them over text so they line up properly. and save/print the chart out.
Thanks! and here they are.
C-
p.s. for ascreen dump, the whole image was too small so that's why I split them up.
p.p.s. what would a 880-rd mag be? not a beta-C, more like a
'beta-DCCCLXXX' or something!
C-
Attachments
robear
Member
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Cute idea, but the 'test' does not just test ammo reliability. There don't seem to be any controls for other factors such as magazines, lubrication, and other aspects already mentioned.
In short, this is not just an ammo test and isn't valid for determining if a given type of ammo is reliable, contrary to the thread title.
In short, this is not just an ammo test and isn't valid for determining if a given type of ammo is reliable, contrary to the thread title.
Steve Smith
Moderator Emeritus
Cpileri, it is interesting that your sig line is, at times, ten times the length of your posts.
ok
Yes, I admit there are limitations to the test. So use it if you want with that knowledge firmly grasped. I just put it out here for sharing purposes. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you.
Steve Smith,
Yeah, I know.
Its like that quiet guy in the back of class who never says anything but always wears a t-shirt with some message on it.
C-
Yes, I admit there are limitations to the test. So use it if you want with that knowledge firmly grasped. I just put it out here for sharing purposes. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you.
Steve Smith,
Yeah, I know.
Its like that quiet guy in the back of class who never says anything but always wears a t-shirt with some message on it.
C-
blue86buick
Member
heh...not only limitations, but say you're shooting frangible ammo, or Gold Dots, Hydrashocks, or some other uber ammo...that's a LOT of money! True, cheap compared to your life...but even CCI Blazer HP's are 150% the cost of Blazer FMJ. ($12 vs $8 here for .380)
psst! I think (just my opinion!) that he may have been trying to say "::wink, wink:: sig's a bit looong, eh? ever think of....ah...shortening it?"
psst! I think (just my opinion!) that he may have been trying to say "::wink, wink:: sig's a bit looong, eh? ever think of....ah...shortening it?"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked