Which Is Better Nerf or Airsoft
Which Is Better Nerf or Airsoft
#1 
Blood Angel
-
- Members
- 67 posts
Member
- Location: California
- Country: California
- Country: United States
Posted 04 January 2014 - 01:41 AM
In the NIC there is a lot of threads and posts nearly range and velocity. It seems very clear that a lot of interest lies in knowing what a blaster chronos at or where the darts fall shooting parallel to ground. Merely recently Southern Brisbane Nerf Society (SBNC) wrote an article discussing FPS vs. Range. And there has always been a sort of immature obsession to getting increased ranges. As if increased range ensures consummate and total victory at your side by side game.
What good are 200 foot ranges and 120 FPS velocities if you cannot striking what you lot are aiming at? Accurateness has to be one of the nearly overlooked data points in the NIC. Merely why is that? I have a feeling it is because in that location really isn�t a standard by which to judge whether a blaster is accurate or not.
I accept asked a few people about the accurateness of their blasters and accept come back with dissimilar answers from every single person. Many of them replied, stating that they don�t have data on the accuracy of their blasters. Most replied with descriptions that in no fashion tell you anything about how accurate their blasters are. But that is to be expected, since most people don�t call up well-nigh how accurate they need to be before a war. Or they go a rough idea of how the equalizer performs during examination fires and what not. So, I gauge there really doesn�t demand to exist an accurateness standard. Or does there?
I have fabricated a few high powered homemades and modded a fair share of blasters. Some of you are great innovators and pioneers of the NIC. Just virtually are regular players who endeavour and duplicate already existing projects. And that is ok, considering one person�south idea may lead to other new ideas for the NIC. Like many of y'all, I have followed a write up or watched a video society. We all want to know well-nigh the performance of a blaster, homemade, or mod; earlier investing time, coin, and effort into information technology. Well folks. Accuracy is too a office of functioning. Wouldn't you like to know if the equalizer you lot are planning to make tin hit the broadside of a befouled with stefans? stock aristocracy darts? I certainly would like to know.
I empathize that accurateness is dependent on the darts used and that using darts in general limits merely how accurate whatsoever given blaster can be, by nature of the projectile existence made of foam. But range and velocities are also dependent on the darts used. Equally long every bit the aforementioned blazon of darts are used, the full general grouping of the blaster should not change. And if your stefans are so inconsistent that you can't practice an accuracy test, should you even be using them?
I have asked a lot of people, and 30 feet seems to exist a good altitude to guess the accuracy of a blaster. Nigh Nerf fire fights have place from 20 to 40 feet. This likewise pretty much indicates that the nigh common effective range is somewhere around there. 30 feet is not an arbitrary altitude I picked because I like information technology. An Hour of Bending (HOA) or a 1 degree angle creates a cone with a base of operations of nearly 6 inches at thirty feet. Using HOA measurement, predicting sprint spread and accuracy at varying distances becomes a piffling easier. But the offset step is to actually get data on the sprint groupings of darts
This isn�t some fabricated upwardly concept, but a tried and true manner of measuring accurateness. In firearms, at that place is a by and large accepted standard mensurate of accuracy determined past �infinitesimal of angle� or MOA. A minute of angle is only a fancy manner of saying one/60th of an angle. This mensurate is used out of convenience, because a MOA creates a cone with a base of about one inch at 100 yards. This in turn became a manner to measure accuracy. Because as that angle extends farther out the base of the cone becomes 2inches at 200 yards, 3inches at 300 yards, and so forth. This measure of accurateness makes it easier to guess shot spread or groupings at farther distances.
I think forming a generally accepted process of determining accuracy can exist as uncomplicated as figuring out a blaster�s dart shot spread at xxx anxiety. Merely that�s but a theory, a Nerf theory.
#2
Xellah
-
- Members
- 178 posts
They phone call his chin.... Captain Underpants
- Location: Columbus, OH 43201
- Land: Ohio
- Land: United States
Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:47 AM
I didn't have a problem with your statement until this part:
I accept asked a lot of people, and 30 anxiety seems to be a good distance to judge the accuracy of a blaster. Most Nerf fire fights take place from 20 to 40 anxiety. This also pretty much indicates that the most common effective range is somewhere around in that location. thirty feet is not an capricious distance I picked because I similar information technology. An Hour of Angle (HOA) or a i degree bending creates a cone with a base of about half dozen inches at thirty feet. Using HOA measurement, predicting sprint spread and accuracy at varying distances becomes a little easier. But the first step is to really get data on the dart groupings of darts
This isn't some made up concept, but a tried and true way of measuring accuracy. In firearms, there is a mostly accustomed standard measure of accurateness determined past "minute of angle" or MOA. A infinitesimal of angle is but a fancy way of saying 1/60th of an angle. This measure is used out of convenience, because a MOA creates a cone with a base of operations of most one inch at 100 yards. This in turn became a mode to measure accuracy. Because as that angle extends farther out the base of operations of the cone becomes 2inches at 200 yards, 3inches at 300 yards, and so forth. This measure of accuracy makes it easier to guess shot spread or groupings at farther distances.
I call up forming a mostly accepted process of determining accuracy tin be equally simple equally figuring out a blaster's sprint shot spread at thirty feet. But that'south just a theory, a Nerf theory.
Who are "a lot of people"? Why are you under the assumption that 30 anxiety is the magical average engagement range? Have you never been to an NIC war before? Correlating anything Nerf related to firearms is silly. They aren't comparable.
Edited past Xellah, 04 Jan 2014 - 02:53 AM.
#3
Blood Affections
-
- Members
- 67 posts
Member
- Location: California
- Country: California
- Land: United States
Posted 04 January 2014 - 06:47 AM
Who are "a lot of people"? Why are you nether the assumption that 30 feet is the magical average engagement range? Have you never been to an NIC war before? Correlating anything Nerf related to firearms is silly. They aren't comparable.
I have been to NIC wars before. I have been to several unlike kinds of NIC wars. Some have been long range stand offs at distances of 70 to 80 anxiety. Others have been more aggressive, where players have rushed in to distances of xv to 25 feet. I accept also been to many stock wars. In my area (Northern California), where I play (s bay) there are about 4 to half-dozen stock wars (including HvZ) and about 1 NIC war a calendar month. In that location might be more than NIC wars in my area; but if at that place are, I oasis't heard of them.
And then, in my experience (which is express, I acknowledge) average (not median) engagement range - overall - is more around xxx feet. I understand it might be different for you and where y'all alive. NIC wars are very popular and I know players are known to appoint each other with relative accuracy at ranges of +100 anxiety (I've never been to those NIC wars). And I respect that level of Nerf play and the NIC war customs that has the talent to play at that level. But if I am to include the whole of the Nerf customs, then the upper echelon of NIC wars doesn't outset the number of minor local stock blaster games overall. Which I am assuming is much more based on my knowledge and experience; plus the ease and relative depression cost of simply ownership stock blasters compared to the time, endeavour, and know-how of modding and creating homemades.
30 anxiety isn't some magical random altitude I pulled from thin air. It has a advise of measure. The really distance of xxx feet is simply an easy distance to use for calculation purposes. You can use sixty feet, 120 anxiety, or any other distance you choose. The translation from altitude to HOA (hr of bending) is just easier with 30 anxiety, lx feet, and 120 anxiety. Given that that calibration is meant to work with all blasters (stock, modded, and homemade) 60 feet seems far for stock blasters and pretty far for bodily accuracy testing purposes. For example: My flat isn't sixty feet long, but if I open up upward a bed room and employ the hallway I can do a 30 feet accurateness test. If you don't intendance about rating your accurateness in HOA, and then don't interpret your grouping into HOA. Merely say you are shooting a *blank* inch group at whatever distance you feel like testing your accuracy. Like I said before HOA numbers just go far easier to figure out what your overall group is like at variable ranges.
---------------------------------------------
I understand that the it is taboo to compare anything Nerf related to firearms for media paradigm purposes. In no fashion practice we as an NIC desire people to think about guns and firearms when people play with toy Nerf blasters. For fear that they will be banned, at certain places the NIC like to play. But maxim that I cannot use techniques and processes that are used to measure firearms and correlate them to Nerf is just non true. The measuring of muzzle velocity and range for nerf blasters is as well washed in the same manner for firearms. I understand what you mean when y'all say that the ballistic data is just to extreme to compare the two. But I am proposing a technique for measuring accurateness, not comparison information.
Firearms are actually more comparable to Nerf and then say paintball or airsoft. Not from raw data and a numbers stand up point, but from a philosophical stand indicate. Stock aristocracy streamlines, slug, domes, and other stefans alter velocities, accuracy, and ranges of blasters in the aforementioned fashion that different calibers, bullet weights, and powder loads change the velocities, accuracy, and ranges of firearms. The firearm comparison was an example of how those accurateness measuring techniques piece of work and how it can and does translate to Nerf. Considering whether a firearm, airsoft system, paintball marker, or nerf blaster each has a spread that can be measured as a grouping. And that group becomes the base of a cone with a specific angle and that angle tin exist used to predict groupings at dissimilar distances. I used firearms, specifically, as a comparing because that is where the technique originated from.
Edit: spelling and puctuation
Edited past Claret Affections, 04 January 2014 - 07:47 AM.
#4
Daniel Beaver
-
- Moderators
- two,085 posts
HQRSE CQCK
- NerfHaven Subscription Supporter
- Location: Minneapolis
- Country: Minnesota
- Country: United States
Posted 04 January 2014 - 08:30 AM
Accurateness has to be one of the most overlooked data points in the NIC.
It is, admittedly.
People overlook it because in that location isn't a unproblematic exam. If you can come with a test that is useful, it will get used.
#5
Samurai kidd
-
- Members
- 43 posts
Fellow member
- Location: Depths of Georgia
- State: Georgia
Posted 04 January 2014 - 01:12 PM
The main problem I see with trying to practise something like this is that there'due south currently no fashion to distinguish poor accurateness of a equalizer from poor accuracy of the user. Y'all could construct some kind of structure that would keep the blasters level and aimed in the exact same way for every test, but that would take attempt and resources and you would demand a new i for every blaster since every blaster is shaped differently. How exactly would y'all measure groupings, anyhow? You would either have to make holes in your target or create some kind of marker system for normal darts. Making holes isn't a terrible thought as it tin be achieved past most NIC worthy blasters, but you're using stock blasters. Is there actually a purpose to testing the accuracy of stock blasters? Accuracy problems traditionally arise from darts, which is why we brand them now, and stock blasters can ONLY apply stock darts. Fifty-fifty at lower stock velocity these things tin can fly anywhere. What'southward the point of knowing if your blaster is more/less authentic if the darts are still going to fly forth a 30 degree bend? If the darts themselves weren't problematic, at that place's nonetheless the fact that most blasters are going to have the exact aforementioned accuracy because nearly blasters are manufactured with the exact same internals. Information technology's not something like a mod that'south decumbent to lopsided couplers; these things are made by machines to exact specifications.
Equally far every bit homemades/mods go, unless you really screw up and your barrel is bent or your couplings are lopsided, y'all are probably able to hit stuff with your blaster. If you can;t hit stuff you wouldn't be using it, and since y'all tin it'due south "accurate enough". Even testing with homemades has a ton of problems considering at present there's non only room for human being mistake in testing, but in construction. Unless you tin guarantee testing with a perfect rendition of X mod/bootleg and a dart standard so would you even become usable results from a test similar this?
Plainly accuracy is of import and this endeavor isn't an unworthy cause but like many mods go, is the attempt input actually worth the results? Are our blasters really so inaccurate that there'south pregnant room for improvement? I think a sprint-type accuracy test would be much more beneficial than a equalizer accuracy exam.
#6
Exo
-
- Members
- 391 posts
Fellow member
Posted 04 January 2014 - 01:15 PM
Oooh,Doom'south near to post. This is gonna exist proficient.
Gah, psychic powers have failed.
Darts have the biggest issue on accuracy. Well made darts are gonna shoot straight, and bad darts won't.
Edited by Exo, 04 January 2014 - 01:17 PM.
#seven
Xellah
-
- Members
- 178 posts
They call his mentum.... Captain Underpants
- Location: Columbus, OH 43201
- State: Ohio
- Country: U.s.
Posted 04 January 2014 - 01:31 PM
Darts have the biggest upshot on accurateness. Well fabricated darts are gonna shoot directly, and bad darts won't.
For once I hold with something a Nerfer from California said. Darts exercise have the biggest upshot on accurateness. Unless you manage this:
As far as homemades/mods go, unless you lot really screw up and your barrel is bent or your couplings are lopsided
If not, and so 99% of your accuracy comes from your darts and how well you guess the direction and range of what you're aiming at.
You can arrange tests and employ whatever philosophical rating you desire to employ as your logic for such tests, but to what end? These are nerf blasters we're talking well-nigh. You lot can find some magical grouping or adding of accuracy at 30 ft, only what is this going to accomplish?
tl;dr It comes downward to the darts. The physics betwixt firearms and Nerf blasters are comparable, only the measures associated with precision betwixt firearms and Nerf blasters/homemades is not. Best of luck in your testing to bear witness otherwise.
Edited by Xellah, 05 January 2014 - 03:27 AM.
#8
Bchamp22795
-
- Members
- 209 posts
Member
- Location: Bloomington, IL
- Land: Illinois
- Country: United States
Posted 04 Jan 2014 - 02:56 PM
In my experience, darts are the biggest factor with accuracy, but blasters do business relationship for some changes in accuracy, fifty-fifty with the most perfect darts. I'd propose a drill press vice and level for testing. Adjustable for unlike sized blasters, sturdy, yet mobile.
Disclaimer, the below text is speculation and has no valid data, just qualitative observation.
Funny you bring up accuracy, too. Terminal night I had a nerf war with some friends. I brought a agglomeration of nerf blasters of all sorts to supply the 14 of u.s.a. with primaries also as some darts. Because I didn't take that many, I asked them to make some before I arrived. These guys accept little to no feel dartsmithing, so the darts were pretty terrible. As the state of war went on, it was easy to tell that their gray foam-crap slugs were junior to the beige foam ones I had made last summer. Simply, about halfway through I noticed that my friends were switching blasters with each other, occasionally challenge that they wanted a particular one because they believed it was more accurate. They asked me, "Why don't you make all your guns this authentic?"
I hadn't thought of it earlier, but I realized the "authentic" blasters were my 4B'southward, one of two UMB's equally well every bit i of my many RBP's. What separates these blasters from the rest? Why was ane UMB more accurate than the other? Why was ane RBP more authentic than the rest? At the terminate we were just shooting cans/bottles and it was articulate that these blasters worked the "best," no affair who's hands they were in.
Speculating (no tests have been done), I call up that what causes a blaster to be less accurate is mainly "barrel wobble" and cage blast.
If you take ever watched someone shoot a high powered springer like a +bow, SNAP, or RBP, you may notice that the barrel wobbles ever so slightly during each shot. Peradventure my blasters just suck, simply maybe this butt wobble happens to everyone. I attribute this to all of the plunger motion in spring blasters. The plunger rod moving forward and the vibration caused past the sudden stop of the plunger rod (whether it be impact or tension from a dry-burn-able string) lead to this barrel wobble. If you have every been to a war with Beaver'southward SuperPAC, Ryan'south Latex Tubing Blasters, or anything with barrels stock-still on both ends, you may notice that they are inherently more accurate. Also, air guns seem to have much less butt wobble and are more accurate, even if secured merely by ane end. Materials and barrel design may also be a cistron to reduce barrel wobble. Nesting CPVC in PVC may help as I have noticed that sometimes CPVC comes slightly curved, and the thicker wall will vibrate less. My RBP had the updated Brithop blueprint where the CPVC runs all the way to the stub that connects to the bushing. Perhaps this somehow attributed to its accuracy? I know that the CPVC being hammered in PVC widens the OD of the PVC slightly, making it a tighter fit into the bushing.
Muzzle nail may cause some barrel wobble, but mostly I'd say it pushes the dart unevenly causing accuracy issues. Barrel porting and/or telescoping barrels may help this.
How secure your coupler/bushing fits your barrel is important, too. I accept a UMB from a merchandise with a gray PVC coupler, and it has terrible accuracy considering my make of PVC doesn't fit tightly and there is a lot of wobble and misalignment. I accept to wrap a few layers of tape around my PVC stub to secure information technology better, simply it is still compromised to a degree.
Edited past Bchamp22795, 04 Jan 2014 - 03:05 PM.
#9
Ivan S
-
- Members
- 123 posts
Member
- State: Virginia
- Country: U.s.
Posted 05 January 2014 - 12:28 AM
Nerfhaven's official in-house physicist, the aforementioned Doom, has some good tips on accurateness in his nerf engineering notes. Section 3.ten.1
Edited by Ivan S, 05 Jan 2014 - 12:31 AM.
You can never take nerf too seriously, simply you can easily take yourself too seriously.
~Talio
#10
Blood Affections
-
- Members
- 67 posts
Member
- Location: California
- State: California
- State: United States
Posted 05 January 2014 - 04:54 AM
The main trouble I see with trying to practice something like this is that there's currently no way to distinguish poor accuracy of a blaster from poor accuracy of the user. How exactly would you measure out groupings, anyway? Is in that location actually a purpose to testing the accurateness of stock blasters?
Unless yous can guarantee testing with a perfect rendition of X mod/homemade and a dart standard then would you even become usable results from a test similar this?
Obviously accurateness is of import and this endeavor isn't an unworthy cause just similar many mods get, is the attempt input really worth the results? Are our blasters actually so inaccurate that there'south significant room for improvement? I call back a sprint-type accuracy exam would be much more beneficial than a blaster accuracy test.
I wrote the OP as a means to understand a developed process by which to measure accuracy (the ability to hit what you are aiming at) not to test the precision (the power to consistently striking the same spot) of specific blasters and their darts. While I believe testing equalizer precision is a worthy try, the intent is to meant for both person and equalizer. I understand that one could brand a very precise blasters and exist a terrible shot. But the blaster precision information does him (specifically) no practiced, if he were to utilise the blaster. I, personally, was thinking about putting paint on the tips of darts and shooting them at paper targets. Lately I have been recording my shoots and playing them back in deadening motility using my jail cell telephone. Stock blasters: If you are a large proper noun nerf blogger or do youtube reviews on nerf products, then maybe it could exist worth information technology. With new stuff coming out and the mega serial, the data would be interesting none the less.
I think it is worth having accuracy notes on the potential of mod or bootleg forth with the ammunition used with it. Even if you brand it better or worse, at the very least you would have an idea of it capabilities. It would exist no unlike than asking for range or velocity information on a bootleg or modern (which people often exercise).
I think the effort to result ratio is what yous brand of it. If people are and then intent on getting more range, why not strive to have the most accurate blaster? Are our blasters really so inaccurate that at that place's significant room for improvement? We won't know until people start posting accuracy information, now volition we? I remember a sprint-type accuracy examination would be very beneficial too.
You can arrange tests and use whatever philosophical rating you want to employ equally your logic for such tests, but to what cease? These are nerf blasters we're talking about. Yous can observe some magical grouping or adding of accuracy at thirty ft, but what is this going to attain?
It accomplishes a standard by which the NIC can mensurate the accuracy of blasters and their darts. Now, people are free to create a different standard (like meter vs grand). Just the cease result is knowing more than most the capabilities of blasters and darts. Its the ability of saying that "this" is non just more than authentic than "that;" but it is exactly this much more accurate. The power to apply numbers to accuracy is a powerful footstep, in my stance. I, personally, would rather accept people brag about how authentic their blasters shoot, than much range and FPS is gets. I tin empathise if others don't feel that fashion, but I idea it worth sharing my opinion to the NIC.
Nerfhaven'southward official in-house physicist, the same Doom, has some adept tips on accurateness in his nerf engineering notes. Section 3.10.one
The OP is about measuring accuracy, not virtually how to obtain more or amend accuracy through initial, transitional, and exterior ballistics.
BUT this would be a good way to test the mentioned effects on ballistics to see which one affects accurateness and precision the well-nigh. The thought that transitional ballistics might be the downfall of stock dart performance in high powered blasters has the potential to change the manner some stock nerf wars are played.
#eleven
Doom
-
- Administrators
- 559 posts
NH'southward Official In-House Physicist
- Country: Texas
- Country: U.s.
- u/btrettel on Reddit
Posted 05 January 2014 - 12:52 PM
I'm seeing some confusion of terminology here. Just so everyone is on the same folio, let me reiterate the departure betwixt precision and accurateness. Accurateness is how close an average shot is to the target. Precision is the variability between shots. Precision is the issue in Nerf. Wikipedia has some nice illustrations of this. Have home point: what people usually think of as accurateness is really chosen precision.
In terms of measuring precision (not accuracy), I had planned a examination two years agone. I think others suggesting similar tests on SpudFiles or here years back. Find a long indoor surface area. Put some large sheets of paper (mayhap sometime newspaper) upwardly on 1 end. Set up a gun that is aimed roughly at the center of the paper. This gun is at a set altitude from the target. Lock down this gun such that it will not move when the trigger is pulled (clamps are ane style to exercise this). Dip the tip of a dart in pigment. Fire the gun at the wall many times. Yous tin can measure out the location of the impacts from an arbitrary point (say, the center of the papers). From this, you can calculate the standard deviation of the affect locations. This'll give you an idea of how precise the gun-dart combination is.
There is no user error here, equally this test does non measure accuracy (east.g., how shut the boilerplate is to the target because there is no specific target point). Information technology measures precision of the shot, that is, the variability. This variability is the issue in Nerf.
If you lot have some sighting device or something, you lot can measure out accuracy of that system with the sight aimed at the target (or perhaps you eyeballing it), merely I don't use sights, so I haven't idea much about that. You could more or less do the same sort of test, but instead of locking downwards the gun, you fire it yourself. If you eye-brawl your shots, and so accuracy is generally a role of how adept of a shot you are.
Who are "a lot of people"? Why are you under the supposition that thirty feet is the magical boilerplate date range?
30 feet seems concordant with my memory of when I took shots confidently at Nerf wars. A few years back, I had intended to watch a few rounds at local Nerf wars, have photos, and measure out distances later the fact to get an thought of how far abroad most shots are taken. Until someone does that, we'll take to go off of what we recall.
As I recall, you lot'd need a lot of luck to go a hit at fifty feet or more. I can simply think one hit from over 100 feet abroad, and that was a total fluke.
You could construct some kind of construction that would keep the blasters level and aimed in the verbal same way for every examination, but that would take effort and resources and you would need a new one for every blaster since every blaster is shaped differently.
As mentioned, clamps locked down to a table work. And they can exist used for basically every equalizer.
In my test, the blasters don't need to be aimed at the exact same point. The tip of the barrel just needs to be the same distance from the target. The examination but looks at variation from the center of the group, wherever that might exist.
I think a dart-type accuracy exam would exist much more than beneficial than a blaster accurateness test.
Hypothetically, you could blueprint a gun to have equally little barrel vibrations, cage boom, etc., variability every bit possible and practise that. The problem is that it'due south really hard to eliminate all the variability from the gun. I had plans to make such a gun a while dorsum, but I never got around to it.
You tin conform tests and utilize whatsoever philosophical rating you want to use equally your logic for such tests, only to what end? These are nerf blasters nosotros're talking about. You lot can find some magical grouping or calculation of accurateness at 30 ft, but what is this going to achieve?
If you don't see the value, then don't carp. Personally, I practise run across much value in designing a equalizer that hits my intended target more oft.
Speculating (no tests have been done), I remember that what causes a equalizer to be less accurate is mainly "barrel wobble" and cage blast.
In the notes Ivan S mention, I bring both of these up. No tests have been done to see what's worst, only I call up for most blasters the muzzle boom is the worst result.
While I believe testing equalizer precision is a worthy endeavor, the intent is to meant for both person and blaster. I empathize that 1 could make a very precise blasters and exist a terrible shot. But the blaster precision information does him (specifically) no skilful, if he were to employ the blaster.
A precision test is the most objective and useful exam we can practise. Improving precision besides does the user a lot of good, knowing that a college percentage of their shots will end up where they want them to.
Edited by Doom, 05 Jan 2014 - 01:09 PM.
#12
Xellah
-
- Members
- 178 posts
They call his mentum.... Captain Underpants
- Location: Columbus, OH 43201
- Land: Ohio
- Country: Usa
Posted 05 January 2014 - 11:52 PM
If you don't see the value, then don't carp. Personally, I do see much value in designing a blaster that hits my intended target more than often.
I need to analyze my viewpoint on this topic a bit further.
I meet the value of edifice a more precise equalizer. I don't see the merit of Blood Angel'due south argument toward measuring precision with MOA. That is pretty much my merely problem with his idea-process.
Once testing on the precision of whatsoever given Nerf blaster is underway, I'm fairly sure it volition become a problem of proper blaster construction, barrel to plunger volume configurations, and dart-smithing. Not a calculation of MOA at xxx ft.
My input on the thing is only in reference to bootleg springers. Testing on the precision of airguns would be an interesting venture as well.
#thirteen
Doom
-
- Administrators
- 559 posts
NH'due south Official In-House Physicist
- State: Texas
- Land: United States
- u/btrettel on Reddit
Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:45 AM
Once testing on the precision of whatever given Nerf blaster is underway, I'm fairly certain it will go a trouble of proper blaster construction, butt to plunger volume configurations, and dart-smithing. Not a adding of MOA at thirty ft.
I'grand confused. The standard departure I mentioned can readily be converted to a MOA. If you desire to make sure that your dart-blaster configuration is good then you'll have to do some testing. What don't you like about MOA aside from the fact that it's used in real firearms?
#14
Exo
-
- Members
- 391 posts
Member
Posted 06 January 2014 - 12:12 PM
I'm confused. The standard deviation I mentioned tin readily be converted to a MOA. If y'all want to make sure that your sprint-blaster configuration is good and so y'all'll have to practise some testing. What don't you similar almost MOA aside from the fact that it's used in real firearms?
I think at 10 range, you'll have Y spread is more than readily understood than something similar MOA. Some of us are mathematically challenged here, and we'd like to keep the confusion low.
#15
Blood Angel
-
- Members
- 67 posts
Member
- Location: California
- State: California
- State: The states
Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:30 PM
A precision test is the most objective and useful exam we tin can do. Improving precision also does the user a lot of good, knowing that a college pct of their shots will end up where they want them to.
Really, I agree with that and retract my previous argument. I just believe that people practice not demand to get every bit far as using a bench residuum to shoot blasters in order to eliminate human being error.
#16
Blood Angel
-
- Members
- 67 posts
Fellow member
- Location: California
- State: California
- Country: Usa
Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:45 PM
I would similar to remind anybody that calculations would be converted into HOA Hour of Angle, which is a i degree angle. HOA would be a measure out exclusive to nerf and have nothing to do with firearms
Firearms work off of MOA Minute if Angle, which is 1/60th of one degree.
I understand the complexity of the thought and keeping it simple would be for the best. For reporting accuracy measures, X inch grouping at Y altitude is fine. The HOA convertion just makes it like shooting fish in a barrel to understand how that grouping will await at further or closer ranges.
#17
azrael
-
- Members
- 393 posts
Fellow member
- State: California
- Country: Usa
Posted 06 January 2014 - 03:23 PM
Human error introduces a lot of dissimilar variables in testing precision, and particularly range. I don't encounter how y'all can deport an experiment where yous get meaningful results without taking out these variables.
Which Is Better Nerf or Airsoft
Posted by: lacosteseliestionce.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Which Is Better Nerf or Airsoft"
Post a Comment