4 ms·

He's not hitting the target reliably, it took more than 60 tries, and would take just as many to do again

by thatguy0900 4y ago

thaumasiotes 4y ago
What's supposed to be impressive about "I hit a bullseye by coincidence"?
- bell-cot 4y ago
  Impressive that they were able to control things well enough that it only took 69 tries. (Vs. 69,000 or so.) (Yes, statistical "proof" that it wasn't 10,000-to-1 luck would require far more experimental data. With their setup, that wouldn't be quick or cheap to get.)
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > Yes, statistical "proof" that it wasn't 10,000-to-1 luck would require far more experimental data. With their setup, that wouldn't be quick or cheap to get. Saying that this wouldn't be quick or cheap to get is just an admission that you think it was 10,000-to-1 luck. Why wouldn't it be quick?
    - bell-cot 4y ago
      Read the article more carefully. Their hugely customized "gun" was only capable of 1 shot every 2 or 3 minutes (to limit heating and thermal expansion ). They had 5 spotters near the target, watching where every individual bullet landed. (Then reporting back to the shooter, so he(?) could make little adjustments.) And it sure looks like an amateur group of "extreme" performance enthusiasts - so who would pay for the collection of a large (say, n=25,000) data set? From a quick web search, just the ammunition (.416 Barrett) would cost ~$400,000. The barrel of their extreme-performance "gun" might need replacing a dozen times or more, and...
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      The probability of a 1 in 10000 event occurring in the first 69 attempts by chance is about 0.7%. The 1 in 10000 probability seems arbitrary and underestimated in my opinion though. What would that even mean? The probability of hitting the target with random aiming or purposeful aiming from a fresh start? The probability of hitting the target with a perfected aim and relying on random variance? The probability of doing it without the engineered gun?
spywaregorilla 4y ago
But given the precision required, wouldn't it make more sense to aim the gun where it would hit the target given median atmospheric conditions and then just fire with that exact aim until it does? Like you couldn't possibly dynamically aim to accommodate that.
- Enginerrrd 4y ago
  >Like you couldn't possibly dynamically aim to accommodate that. Yes, you can. Not doing so would result in dramatically reduced accuracy. That's just windage 101. The horizontal variation due to even slight wind is massive at this distance and would dwarf all other factors. Failing to adjust for this on a per shot basis would result in dramatically reduced accuracy.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    Seems to me you would not be able to adapt your aim to the wind to the level of precision required to hit a small target. You would be much better off trying to identify a working shot for an average wind condition and then trying to time your shot to match that condition.

He's not hitting the target reliably, it took more than 60 tries, and would take just as many to do again

thaumasiotes 4y ago

What's supposed to be impressive about "I hit a bullseye by coincidence"?

bell-cot 4y ago
Impressive that they were able to control things well enough that it only took 69 tries. (Vs. 69,000 or so.) (Yes, statistical "proof" that it wasn't 10,000-to-1 luck would require far more experimental data. With their setup, that wouldn't be quick or cheap to get.)
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > Yes, statistical "proof" that it wasn't 10,000-to-1 luck would require far more experimental data. With their setup, that wouldn't be quick or cheap to get. Saying that this wouldn't be quick or cheap to get is just an admission that you think it was 10,000-to-1 luck. Why wouldn't it be quick?
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    Read the article more carefully. Their hugely customized "gun" was only capable of 1 shot every 2 or 3 minutes (to limit heating and thermal expansion ). They had 5 spotters near the target, watching where every individual bullet landed. (Then reporting back to the shooter, so he(?) could make little adjustments.) And it sure looks like an amateur group of "extreme" performance enthusiasts - so who would pay for the collection of a large (say, n=25,000) data set? From a quick web search, just the ammunition (.416 Barrett) would cost ~$400,000. The barrel of their extreme-performance "gun" might need replacing a dozen times or more, and...
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    The probability of a 1 in 10000 event occurring in the first 69 attempts by chance is about 0.7%. The 1 in 10000 probability seems arbitrary and underestimated in my opinion though. What would that even mean? The probability of hitting the target with random aiming or purposeful aiming from a fresh start? The probability of hitting the target with a perfected aim and relying on random variance? The probability of doing it without the engineered gun?

spywaregorilla 4y ago

But given the precision required, wouldn't it make more sense to aim the gun where it would hit the target given median atmospheric conditions and then just fire with that exact aim until it does? Like you couldn't possibly dynamically aim to accommodate that.

Enginerrrd 4y ago
>Like you couldn't possibly dynamically aim to accommodate that. Yes, you can. Not doing so would result in dramatically reduced accuracy. That's just windage 101. The horizontal variation due to even slight wind is massive at this distance and would dwarf all other factors. Failing to adjust for this on a per shot basis would result in dramatically reduced accuracy.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  Seems to me you would not be able to adapt your aim to the wind to the level of precision required to hit a small target. You would be much better off trying to identify a working shot for an average wind condition and then trying to time your shot to match that condition.