Industry Accuracy Testing Is Non Existent!

[quiettime]

my assumption is that savage,ruger,etc,etc already has good specs on their COTS items. not sure why this is hard to follow.

Someone who says they're as knowledgeable as you do should know that mass producers of firearms do not often change or sharpen their cutting tools and therefore adopt a larger acceptable tolerance than a true precision shop.

You should really understand that some of the people involved in this thread are respected industry professionals. Some of us should listen rather than argue when they speak

[TROOPER]

my assumption is that savage,ruger,etc,etc already has good specs on their COTS items. not sure why this is hard to follow.

Someone who says they're as knowledgeable as you do should know that mass producers of firearms do not often change or sharpen their cutting tools and therefore adopt a larger acceptable tolerance than a true precision shop.

You should really understand that some of the people involved in this thread are respected industry professionals. Some of us should listen rather than argue when they speak

This made more ironic by the fact that even within this thread, he remarks that tolerances for commercial cans are sloppy compared to F1 cans (paraphrase). But then when it comes to threading, he claims the opposite; that commercial tolerances for thread-jobs are tight, simultaneously implying that small-shop thread-jobs are sloppy.

It's that inconsistency that drives me nuts.

[doubloon]

...
It's that inconsistency that drives me nuts.

It's consistent with the last first result when you google all you knowledge on a topic.

[silencer_kid]

my assumption is that savage,ruger,etc,etc already has good specs on their COTS items. not sure why this is hard to follow.

Someone who says they're as knowledgeable as you do should know that mass producers of firearms do not often change or sharpen their cutting tools and therefore adopt a larger acceptable tolerance than a true precision shop.

You should really understand that some of the people involved in this thread are respected industry professionals. Some of us should listen rather than argue when they speak

your quoting is off.
OP is talking about std COTS AR platform in 300blk or 556. i didnt see anywhere where the test item is a $4k rifle where $2k of that is the barrel.

so are you saying the accuracy improvement using a can only comes if you have a one-off precision rifle? if so then the OP's argument is still valid for testing on COTS, and, my assertion that a can will likely hurt accuracy is valid. blame it on the poor machining of the commercial guys, but 20 different cans will all show some diff, and it is this diff the OP is seeking.

lets say his 300blk AR is 1.2MOA, but w/ canA its 120dbSPL and .75MOA vs canB that is 112dbSPL but 1.3MOA, now there's more data than just SPL to use in the knoggin process. both cans are $375, which one to buy?

[300sniper]

lets say his 300blk AR is 1.2MOA, but w/ canA its 120dbSPL and .75MOA vs canB that is 112dbSPL but 1.3MOA, now there's more data than just SPL to use in the knoggin process. both cans are $375, which one to buy?

Again, just because the can affects that one rifles accuracy that way, you can not assume it will affect every rifle the same way, even if configured the same.

People spend a lot of time fine tuning their hand loads to their rifle. The load they find the most accurate in their rifle may not be the most accurate in an identical spec'd rifle. That load that was the best in their rifle may or may not still be the best once you hang a pound of weight 2' off the barrel attachment point. A load that wasn't the best without the can may be the best with the can. When a couple tenths of a grain of powder can make the difference between a good load and bad load, there is no way that anyone could predict the exact affect a can will have on every platform it may be installed on.

[quiettime]

Again, just because the can affects that one rifles accuracy that way, you can not assume it will affect every rifle the same way, even if configured the same.

Exactly.

[doubloon]

Actually I think it's been proven the assumption can be made.

[RJT]

My super secret squirrel suppressors come with an accuracy guarantee, but unless you're a hard core operator, operating operationally, you'll never get your hands on one.

[Maser]

He seems a lot like Maser.

Nope.

[silencer_kid]

Again, just because the can affects that one rifles accuracy that way, you can not assume it will affect every rifle the same way, even if configured the same.

People spend a lot of time fine tuning their hand loads to their rifle. The load they find the most accurate in their rifle may not be the most accurate in an identical spec'd rifle. That load that was the best in their rifle may or may not still be the best once you hang a pound of weight 2' off the barrel attachment point. A load that wasn't the best without the can may be the best with the can. When a couple tenths of a grain of powder can make the difference between a good load and bad load, there is no way that anyone could predict the exact affect a can will have on every platform it may be installed on.

so if i buy 20 savage 308's (or bushmaster XYZ 556), all the same model, you think such testing is not valid with these 20 rifles because why? i understand it wont be 100%, but the results should be a indicator.

[whiterussian1974]

so if i buy 20 savage 308's (or bushmaster XYZ 556), all the same model, you think such testing is not valid with these 20 rifles because why? i understand it wont be 100%, but the results should be a indicator.

Sounds like you've got a great idea to start a Consumer Reports - Firearm Edition. You may want to find a different name though. Maybe Squib's Reports.

[300sniper]

Again, just because the can affects that one rifles accuracy that way, you can not assume it will affect every rifle the same way, even if configured the same.

People spend a lot of time fine tuning their hand loads to their rifle. The load they find the most accurate in their rifle may not be the most accurate in an identical spec'd rifle. That load that was the best in their rifle may or may not still be the best once you hang a pound of weight 2' off the barrel attachment point. A load that wasn't the best without the can may be the best with the can. When a couple tenths of a grain of powder can make the difference between a good load and bad load, there is no way that anyone could predict the exact affect a can will have on every platform it may be installed on.

so if i buy 20 savage 308's (or bushmaster XYZ 556), all the same model, you think such testing is not valid with these 20 rifles because why? i understand it wont be 100%, but the results should be a indicator.

OK, after you test your suppressor on 20 salvages, how are you going to word your guaranty? Are you going to give your suppressor a max minute of angle guaranty, but only on salvage 308s, and only if it was one of the original 20 tested?

[silencer_kid]

OK, after you test your suppressor on 20 salvages, how are you going to word your guaranty? Are you going to give your suppressor a max minute of angle guaranty, but only on salvage 308s, and only if it was one of the original 20 tested?

doesnt have to be a guarantee, OP wasnt asking for a "guarantee". that word was thrown in along the way.

perhaps some here are just not grasping the idea of a data set. thus far your assumptions that canA and canB will act differently on every rifle. ok, where's the data to prove that?

here's another way, take 10 different 308's cots, 10 different AR 556's cots, 10 different 22lr's cots, and each group has similar specs (bolt action, semi auto piston, 16" barrel, whatever, etc), all shooting the same batch of cots ammo. then get 10 cots cans that are spec'd to work with each caliber. go shoot, report the results.

the data should reveal what can maker does the best job for the caliber it was spec'd for, meaning, what can improves or neg impacts accuracy.

your same argument for "too many variables" also applies to dbSPL, so not really sure what the dbSPL # really means that the makers post, way too many variables to be posting dbSPL #'s of a can, thus the dbSPL spec is kinda useless. the best that can be said is, "it will make it quieter".

[300sniper]

OK, after you test your suppressor on 20 salvages, how are you going to word your guaranty? Are you going to give your suppressor a max minute of angle guaranty, but only on salvage 308s, and only if it was one of the original 20 tested?

doesnt have to be a guarantee, OP wasnt asking for a "guarantee". that word was thrown in along the way.

perhaps some here are just not grasping the idea of a data set. thus far your assumptions that canA and canB will act differently on every rifle. ok, where's the data to prove that?

here's another way, take 10 different 308's cots, 10 different AR 556's cots, 10 different 22lr's cots, and each group has similar specs (bolt action, semi auto piston, 16" barrel, whatever, etc), all shooting the same batch of cots ammo. then get 10 cots cans that are spec'd to work with each caliber. go shoot, report the results.

the data should reveal what can maker does the best job for the caliber it was spec'd for, meaning, what can improves or neg impacts accuracy.

your same argument for "too many variables" also applies to dbSPL, so not really sure what the dbSPL # really means that the makers post, way too many variables to be posting dbSPL #'s of a can, thus the dbSPL spec is kinda useless. the best that can be said is, "it will make it quieter".

Do you realize COTS rifles can shoot greatly different from one serial number to the next?

Do you expect suppressor MFGs to advertise their suppressors as: Spec'd for Salvage 10 FCP-SR .308 with Federal Match 168 grain ammo?

[whiterussian1974]

Do you expect suppressor MFGs to advertise their suppressors as: Spec'd for Salvage 10 FCP-SR .308 with Federal Match 168 grain ammo?

That's actually a really great idea. I wish they DID publish their test environment and components. @ least on their website.

[silencer_kid]

Do you realize COTS rifles can shoot greatly different from one serial number to the next?

Do you expect suppressor MFGs to advertise their suppressors as: Spec'd for Salvage 10 FCP-SR .308 with Federal Match 168 grain ammo?

i am not aware of COTS being wildly different from one to the next serial #. what data suggests this? the big makers dont use garage sized machinery, they can pump out thousands of parts that all fall within spec. sure, there are a lot of variables that a rifle has, but we would see this during the initial non-can grouping tests, perhaps just two sets of 5 via a rigid mount just to see how the thing groups. if the set of COTS is wildly different then that would prompt some explaining by the maker. if they all group in similar fashion then proceed to do can testing. or if 7 of 10 are similar w/ non-can, then ditch the 3 odd balls, take the best 7 of 10 for each COTS item/model, etc.

and i am not asking for the maker to spec anything, but if i were a can maker, as said before, i would own all the others and make sure mine performed better than the others for a caliber or set of calibers the can was advertised for. how that better comes about (specific ammo, certain set of cots arms, etc etc) is up to the maker. the results however would always be caveated with "results may vary from rifle to rfile and because of varying ammo"

its rather simple.

[quiettime]

[quiettime]

"results may vary from rifle to rfile and because of varying ammo"

its rather simple.

It is rather simple. That's what everyone in the thread but you and the OP has been saying all along. None of us needs to see testing to know this or needs read it in print.

[thecameraman79]

So what if you or the OP are the receiver of the 3 out of 10 rifles that were discarded from the test and get groups that opened up instead of the 7 that it shrank? What does it prove by selecting the 7 best results? Why don't suppressor companies just throw away the highest 3 readings when doing sound testing and only average the best 7 results?

Do you realize COTS rifles can shoot greatly different from one serial number to the next?

Do you expect suppressor MFGs to advertise their suppressors as: Spec'd for Salvage 10 FCP-SR .308 with Federal Match 168 grain ammo?

i am not aware of COTS being wildly different from one to the next serial #. what data suggests this? the big makers dont use garage sized machinery, they can pump out thousands of parts that all fall within spec. sure, there are a lot of variables that a rifle has, but we would see this during the initial non-can grouping tests, perhaps just two sets of 5 via a rigid mount just to see how the thing groups. if the set of COTS is wildly different then that would prompt some explaining by the maker. if they all group in similar fashion then proceed to do can testing. or if 7 of 10 are similar w/ non-can, then ditch the 3 odd balls, take the best 7 of 10 for each COTS item/model, etc.

and i am not asking for the maker to spec anything, but if i were a can maker, as said before, i would own all the others and make sure mine performed better than the others for a caliber or set of calibers the can was advertised for. how that better comes about (specific ammo, certain set of cots arms, etc etc) is up to the maker. the results however would always be caveated with "results may vary from rifle to rfile and because of varying ammo"

its rather simple.

[silencer_kid]

So what if you or the OP are the receiver of the 3 out of 10 rifles that were discarded from the test and get groups that opened up instead of the 7 that it shrank? What does it prove by selecting the 7 best results? Why don't suppressor companies just throw away the highest 3 readings when doing sound testing and only average the best 7 results?

ok, if the testing shows 1MOA w/o can for 7 of 10 of them, an i buy the same model and i get 2MOA w/o can, i'd probably think the rifle serial # i have has an issue of some sort. at that point the w/ can test on my rifle is on hold because the rifle itself may be very off somewhere.

i never said to AVG anything. just list the data, the end user can AVG, or mean sq root it, or do bell curve distribution, whatever. throwing out the 3 that didnt shoot to cots spec (like the other 7 did) is valid, its not a "take the best 7". its take the ones that shoot withing spec.

ok, nevermind, totally beyond the comprehension of some here.

perfectly fine, a can only shoots good/accurate if the commercially made can is somehow custom matched to the rifle it is going on, so in essence the can maker is telling you "well, if our crud doesnt shoot good its because your rifle is just bad".

[whiterussian1974]

Weatherby Mark V ship w a paper target showing 3 shots. If you contacted the can Mnfr and requested to send your rifle for threading and fit on the 1 can serial# that will be transfered to FFL for your purchase, then you could ask them to fire 5 rds of commercial ammo into a paper target and email you a photo of the result. Then include the target in the box w the can.

This extra service would require a premium price of $35 w $75-120 for threading. Or $50-85 just to screw on the can, fire it and return shipping.

Seems a fairly equitable request and custom service.

[Tony M.]

The real theoretical problem is tolerance stacking, and operators care a lot about tolerance stacking. I once heard an operator say that he was completely intolerant of tolerances. I asked him how he felt about stacking things other than tolerances, and he said he could tolerate that.

Every operator (even skippy the squid) knows that theory always trumps practice, and trump only practices golf.

[doubloon]

...
Every operator (even skippy the squid) knows that theory always trumps practice, and trump only practices golf.

Trump may not be the best reference here, skippy argues like a democrat "you don't believe my utopia is possible so you're a dumbass".

Your might curry more favor if you invoked the name of one of the socialist candidates.

[Tony M.]

...
Every operator (even skippy the squid) knows that theory always trumps practice, and trump only practices golf.

Trump may not be the best reference here, skippy argues like a democrat "you don't believe my utopia is possible so you're a dumbass".

Your might curry more favor if you invoked the name of one of the socialist candidates.

You're probably right... Although I'm not sure what the quip would be...

"Every operator knows that adding a suppressor provides the modifiers stability +1 but accuracy -2 and if you Bern enough ammo, you'll know that too"

[whiterussian1974]

"Every operator knows that adding a suppressor provides the modifiers stability +1 but accuracy -2 and if you Bern enough ammo, you'll know that too"

Your Hillar(it)y is boundless.