Correction: Whitworth Accuracy and Figure of Merit vs MOA
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 11. 2017
- Support Forgotten Weapons: / forgottenweapons
In my recent video on the Whitworth rifle, I made a rather embarrassing mistake, interpreting "figure of merit" accuracy measurements as complete group sizes. This was incorrect, and caused me to seriously overestimate the accuracy of the Whitworth. It was indeed a outstandingly accurate rifle, but not to the levels I originally stated. In actual fact, the Whitworth was capable of about 3 MOA at 500 yards; not the sub-1 MOA I originally stated.
The numbers recorded at the 1857 test of Enfield vs Whitworth were figure of merit, aka mean radial dispersion. This is the average distance from the center of a group (20-shot group, per British standards) to the point of impact. While much more involved to calculate, this type of measurement provides a more useful measure of accuracy than simple overall group size.
Thanks to John Simpson, David Minshall, and Rob (BritishMuzzleLoaders) for spotting and correcting this mistake!
You can see David's article on this issue here: www.researchpress.co.uk/index....
Rob has a video on Figure of Merit, which is here: • A Figure of Merit: Mea...
And John's book on sniping can be found here: amzn.to/2hNHt9d
or on Scribd here:
www.scribd.com/document/17394...
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg...
If you enjoy Forgotten Weapons, check out its sister channel, InRangeTV! / inrangetvshow
Wow 7:18min correction , don't ever fuck with this guy
Roham Pasha I respect the intellectual honesty of it. Gun Jesus jokes aside, it's one of the many reasons Forgotten Weapons is such an awesome and valuable resource.
Gun Jesus wants to make sure you have the gospel!
Omg lol!!!
I do think Ian should have flogged himself at the end for the correction to be complete 😄
Amen
3 moa in the 19th century? That would have beat some of the rifle accuracy standards for WW II
With 20-shots groups.
it's at about the standard the US Army requires for the M4 today. WWII? You had a lot of guns 4-6 MOA or worse.
Some years later...
Annoying gun myth: Whitworth rifle was capable of sub 1 MOA at 500 yards.
How in the world can somebody DISLIKE a video where somebody says "I made a mistake, here is where I was wrong, and here's what the correct info is.". Then goes to take the time to expand on the original subject matter. SMH
FW videos (and other gun channels I assume) get 9-12 dislikes virtually as soon as they are posted. This is because there are bots designed by anti-gun groups which automatically do this. This is why FW weapons videos will have only about 8-24 dislikes despite thousands of likes and often many hundreds of thousands of views.
Maybe someone was hoping to see a gun, or as in the comment above, random vendetta. Could have nothing at all to do with the video itself.
lol does anybody realize how easy it is to tap dislike on accident when you're on the mobile site? Guaranteed that's mainly the case
that's gonna be some confederate snipers
When a video is first posted, CZcams will show it in a wider range of recommendations and searches than it otherwise would. This is in order to test whether people outside of the normal viewership would be interested. Hence, dislikes are most likely from people who were looking for, say, Whitworth's Chocolate Raisins reviews, and instead got to this video.
The value of your credibility just went up. Taking the time to correct an easy mistake well done
This correction just goes to show what a great channel you have. Even when you're correcting yourself, I'm still learning something.
Takes a big man to publicly admit he made a mistake and to take the time to correct oneself.
Kudos!
Well, that's Ian (hope I spelled his name correctly) in a nutshell.
iatsd i think you mean precision
For you.
He is literally gun jesus, so i dont get surpised
i go with what he said in the first video it was a great sniper rifle in its day enough said.
3 people from reputable backgrounds watch your channel and think well enough of you to correct you. That's a good a channel and you hold attention of great people on the subject
I love how there is a one inch think book titled Uzi Sub Machine Gun sitting next to him. He's not at home where you may find this book sitting on a shelf, this is his light reading in a foreign hotel room.
Thanks for being willing to own up to the mistake. Still, 3.1 MOA is damn good for 1857!
I learned more from this man's mistake than I do from what most people get right.
Good work. “Honesty is the best policy.”
I love that you are so academically honest
very interesting. i was very surprised with the sub-MOA at 500yd figure, then I read the description so thanks for the correction video. Still, 3 MOA at 500yd is extremely impressive for the time and tech.
Thank You, so much, for this video.
Not only did you explain the terms used to an understandable format, but you admitted you were wrong, and clearly explained why.
Kudos to you, sir. This is a refreshing change from the typical "expert", and I (along with most of your audience) salute you for your integrity and resolution.
Carl Wilson only lacks charts and figures.
I appreciate the additional information you provided regarding the minute of angle, as well as your willingness to self-correct your videos. I believe your audience can feel secure that the information received will be accurate. I do not mean to speak for all your viewers, but if they are like me, they watch because they love to learn new things. Thank you for your work documenting the forgotten weapons of the world.
It's not bad to be wrong it's only bad if you refuse to admit it. Being wrong can be a positive thing as in this case it allowed you to learn something new. That by the way is always cool, you do great videos by the way.
Apart from being an interesting piece of history in itself, this can only add to Ian's credibility. An information source who goes out of his way to correct his own errors is a good one.
I like the figure of merit system better.
Anthony Mayor It actually tells you a statistically significant measure of precision. It's how the military measures accuracy.
Linear regression In statistics, in a case of target shooting more precisely cubic regression or Radial Standard Deviation (RSD).
The Victorian Accuracy Measuring defined as "Figure of Merit" is the most correct evaluation of gun accuracy.
It's gives a typical Gaussian bell shape dispersion in two dimensional plane, as you fire more the calculation get more and more close to the real accuracy of the apparatus (cannon, bow and arrow, slingshot...) and the materials (bullets, gun powder, atmosphere...),
it can allso evaluate and eliminate the shooters skills
and calculate the "Circular Error Probable" (CEP) the prbability of hitting points
at radius of 50% of the rounds
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial_regression
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable
BTW any student Casio calculator include it.
I have only been watching these videos maybe 2 years. I greatly enjoy them. Thank you for all the effort in trying to make the most informative firearms videos I have ever seen in my almost 70 years. Thanks again.
This is quality programming! Damn, Ian, nice retraction. Keep up the good work - you will be immortalized for it. ... unless CZcams takes down all of your videos.
Thank you for this discussion - I learned a great deal, you and your channel are amongst the very best.
Great video and it's really great that you take time to correct errors like this, I know some would just add a small written correction that people would miss but this, this is really great and hard to miss.
A great video! Here's fodder for a great video. The Figure of Merit is one of the finest ways to determine the consistency of the accuracy of a rifle. Get the "What would Stoner do" rifles and run them through the Figure of Merit and also straight scoring for M.O.A. Would be a great set of videos. Please, please, please.
Kudos to you for producing this video to not only admit your unintentional error but also explain the background behind it.
Thanks for the update Ian. Still very cool gun. And impressive group sizes. Awesome to have some many knowledgeable fellows following and fact checking. Got to be a good feeling.
I️ friggin’ love this channel. His correction videos are even educational!
Now if only other CZcams 'firearms figures' could follow suit. Admitting a mistake is one thing. Following it up with an explanation of the nature of the error and the correct information is quite another. I've seen 'apologies' on some channels that amounted to "I was wrong, but......basically I was right", because their ego or internal sense of delusion won't admit actual error on their part.
Very impressive video, showing the progress FW is making as a reliable source of information.
What an interesting rabbit hole to explore. It has historical, cultural, and technical implications, and probably in ways that go beyond firearms.
Best work Ian.
I really appreciate the fact that you made a full video for a correction. Not just an edit to the original description. It is something to say of the quality of your channel. This is why I subscribed. Quality speaks for itself. And I always learn something awesome. I am a major fan of the WW2 guns that you've done. But I haven't had a video of yours that I didn't like :)
This is integrity at its finest i actually enjoyed this never heard of this concept great stuff Ian
Good information to supplement the original video. Nice to see a clear discussion on the subject of measuring accuracy. Thanks for the link above to my article. Keep up the great work.
you, sir, deserve a round of hearty applause.
Great info. I have heard of mean radial dispersion before. It makes sense, and is more descriptive than simple group size. It gives a much better idea of consistency. Thanks for explaining it, and for calculating MOA. Great video as always. Thank you
Fantastic channel. Ian, you're the best.
This is a really interesting video, I'm glad you made a mistake because your explanation of it was so good. You have so much integrity.
Nice one Ian, it's good to know you genuinely care about your work
NO don't apologize for making an excellent and informative video. I also appreciate the lack of ego.
Shout out to you Ian, and the gentleman who helped with dealing with outdated, nuanced, historical methodologies!
Great video. Very informative. That's why I watch your channel.
Thanks man. Enjoy your channel. The history is awesome.
Well done, Ian. My previously high esteem of you just went up even more.
I like a man that isn't afraid to wear his own mistakes. Shows character.
Gun Bless you for this wonderful video gun jesus. I hadn't gotten to see the video you're making the correction for yet. But I'm happy I get to slot this video into the "thing I learned today" spot on my shelf. Thanks be to gun.
This is part of why I enjoy this series so much: the man takes his facts seriously.
Turns a mistake into another interesting video. Honest and informative. Bravo!
I have a halfstock .32 Ohio rifle made before 1854, that has seven sided (septagonal?) Polygonal rifling. I can find absolutely no information on this, and i am wondering about the true origin and technique of this method of rifling.
For everyone that is impressed that he made an effort to correct his flaw don’t be afraid to make mistakes. A lot of people say this but your mistakes will help you not make that same mistake twice.
Kudos, Ian. One hell of a correction, and thanks for the correction, rather than accidentally spreading bad information.
A VERY classy way of issuing a correction. We don't fault you sir. Thank you for another great and informative video.
Wow, the level of intellectual honesty there…That really does you credit man, very, very good job. 🔝
Well said and explained, keep up the good work. Cheers Richard.
Figure of Merit sounds so regal and proper. Great explanation and backed with numbers the information an uncle of mine, and former N-SSA national carbine champion, once told me about the Whitworth. Well done.
Actually, Figure of Merit is a well recognized term in statistics, engineering and performancemetrics en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_merit and www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/figure-of-merit
And rather than being "regal and proper" FOM has, for instance, been used to evaluate Global Positioning Systems since the beginning gpsinformation.net/main/fom-2.txt
This is great info from a historical standpoint and I'm glad to know it. I'll probably never use the info but I'm glad to know it.
I don't believe I have ever seen another correction on CZcams....thumbs UP....and more fascinating information.....
Deepest respect to you Ian for standing up (while sitting down) & having the 8a11s to admit that you got it wrong through a mistake of your own (rather than eroneous information being given to you) and issuing a correction, as others have mentioned below, your credibility (which I considered to be high anyway because when you don''t know the answers you have admitted it) has gone up significantly. Congratulations. Keep up the great work.
Thank you for the correction, and the information. I was unaware of the FOM standard, and I must agree: It is a much more...descriptive measurement of a firearms accuracy.
I appreciate that you take the time to make corrections when better information becomes available. The Figure of Merit is interesting, as an engineer that's actually how I decided to start evaluating my own firearms. I refer to it as Mean Radius. It actually gives you interesting hit probability ratios on different size targets at different distances, something you don't get with MOA. With muzzle loaders your accuracy also has to contend with how accurately the operator is measuring the powder. Something I'm sure most soldiers of the time weren't paying much attention to.
Thank you for strengthening your already formidable credibility.
Great video! Thank you for the information!
Best and clearest explanation of the "Figure of Merit" I've heard!
Very respectable FW, have to say this only makes me like your channel even more.
Thank you for doing this and teaching me something new
Why did they drop "Figure of Merit" as a standard?
Sounds like an elaborate procedure...
Paulo Abib Serious accuracy measurement is still done using Figure of Merit/Mean Radial Drviation, or its modern brother, Circular Error Probable. No serious work is done using group size, with a few excrptions of methods taking the averages of max group sizes.
For example, M193 ammunition specifications requires "The average of the mean radii of all targets of the
sample cartridges, fired at 200 yards, shall not exceed 2.0 inches." See MIL-C-9963F.
The problem with group size is that it doesn't really tell you anything that is statistically significant. There are two reasons shooters use group size to determine accuracy. It is easier to do and you can fudge numbers a LOT more easily to brag to your buddies.
If you want to read into this, here you go. The math isn't THAT hard if you slow down and look at it. I have made a calculator that does all of the work for me so I can analyze a 20-shot group in about five minutes.
ballistipedia.com/index.php?title=Closed_Form_Precision
fab006 Not really. Just find the center of the group and then average the distance of rounds from it. It only takes 5 minutes with a calculator I made to do the work for me (and it also produces Circular Error Probable, R90, and R95 values too to calculate effrctive combat ranges). Even doing it by hand should only take 10-15 minutes. Definately worth it if you are even remotely serious about accuracy testing.
The US Military, at least, still uses Figure of Merit methods to zero GPS devices; if that's any consolation...
The standard of 'average' have changed. Today we can take geometric mean instead of simple arithmetic one as was used back in the day thanks to abundanсe of calculators, for example. Since the latter is greatly disturbed by the outliers, this impovement is of great use for any meaningful analysis. However, the general tendency to use more robust statistical methods since the early 20th century has lead some nations to use of median values, weighted arithmetic means or even Kolmogorov f-means for estimation of group dispersion.
I'm still impressed with the Whitworth. And I enjoyed learning about figure of merit. Props and kudos with thanks as well!
Nice detail. Good integrity. Much appreciated!!!
Definitely the best and the most intelligent gun Channel on CZcams!
Ian, thank you for the correction. Your integrity is solid as a rock, my good man!
Great show...looking forward to the next clip resulting from a mistake...
Really interesting! Figure of Merit seems like a better way of measuring accuracy
Because of you error admission, you are indeed a humble man, a true gentleman with impeccable honesty, a penchant for accuracy in your reporting to be envied by the lamestream media and just earned my subscription. THANK YOU very much.
Very interesting! Like you said, that's still a very impressive feat of accuracy that the Whitworth accomplished.
Tahnks for taking the time and effort to relate this. Not a worrisome thing as far as I am concerned. I just enjoyed the Whitworth for what and when it was.
Spot on! You got some Bisely guys here by the sound of it! Everyone makes errors sometimes, the beauty of this, is we got another bonus forgotten weapons...its all good! Still heck of an accurate rifles!
Nope, not Bisley. American sniper instructor from the Special Warfare Center.
Ian, you're the best. If only more scholars were as humble and apt to correct themselves for the benefit of others, well I guess I'd have more nice things to say...
A man who is prepared to stand up and say 'sorry I was wrong and have been corrected' is a rare thing. Hopefully more people will be able to do so in the future. Thank you Ian =)
History and science! You sir are an outstanding example of a historian! Truly. Thanks for your work.
Always good to know that you are willing to correct yourself Ian.
Thanks for the video Ian!
Love the Uzi book on the side table. I bought the same one, from your review of it. Cheers...
Honestly addressing and fixing errors is a hallmark of intellectual honestly.
We really appreciate the correction, it shows that your heart is in the right place.
I'm glad you made this correction, the accuracy stated in the Whitworth rifle video definitely didn't smell right.
Thanks For the Correction Ian and also the Ones who Provided The Correct Information 😎
Another reason why this IS the best firearm channel on CZcams
Cool even when you have a mistake it's informative. Well done sir.
How accuracy was judged during different time periods as compared to todays standards would make an interesting episode. Also why those earlier methods were discontinued. Great show found it very interesting.
Actually, Professor those methods are still in use today.
I have much more respect for the Whitworth and other measurements than MOA
There are two channels I support on Patreon. Forgotten Weapons and Military Arms Channel. I'm a little disapointed there weren't more torture tests from Tim, but Gun Jesus delivers.
Bravo very exciting knowledge, I love the correction
I'm heartened to hear this, because I use average distance to mean point of impact to judge accuracy, particularly when shooting without elaborate support. As Ian notes, that reduces the effect of that one bad shot. Focusing on MPI allows me to walke the actual MPI onto the desired point of impact with sight adjustments. I generally shoot a series of 10 round groups for that, averaging the horizontal and vertical dispersion for each group. There are programs out there that do the MPI and ADC calculations automatically. You just run your targets through a scanner, mark the bullet holes, and voila! It's interesting that there is a factor to convert the ADC number to a theoretical average group size. I'll have to look into that.
I've been fascinated and addicted to your content for years now and I've always wondered what you do for work. Would you mind sharing what your profession is?
Well done sir, well done.
we do not have to fear being misled on our quest for historically accurate information with this level of integrity. thank you, sir. my money was and will continue to be well spent.
The learning (for I would believe the majority of us) is vastly more important than the mistake Ian.
Your chair reminds me of WWI German military caps, light gray with red piping. I need it.
Thank you for the correction, it was an understable mistake but knowing that you're the kind of guy that will own it makes us all feel better.
This also brings up a good idea, would you look into doing a video on all of the terms used by the major powers? Maybe not ALL of the terms by ALL of the major powers, but at least some common ones.
"Hey y'all, I fucked up by a small margin, so here's a history lesson on British accuracy standards in the mid 19th century."
I love this channel.
Good on ya mate nice to see a you tuber admit to a mistake and fix it.
Don't feel too bad I'm sure most of us would make the same mistake.
Cool, and cooler still that we got some extra information from the correction.