Talk:Accurizing

message: The article has been criticized as having "how to" content.  I think the "how" is important; for example, if you were writing an article on automotive tuning, do you just say:
One method of increasing performance is increasing the volumetric efficiency of the engine.
and leave it at that?  Or do you list methods of increasing the volumetric efficiency, and describe how they work?
Altering or replacing the intake manifold is another way of increasing volumetric efficiency. Projections that distrub the flow of air can be removed, using a process such as extrude honing, allowing higher flow rates.  A high rise manifold, which uses longer runners routing air directly to each intake value, uses the inertia of the air to allow more air into the cylinder after bottom dead center, and can allow higher than atmospheric charging under ideal circumstances.
This tells how things are done, but isn't what I'd consider a how to.  I wouldn't trust someone, with the knowledge given, to work on the engine in my car, as it just says what to do (alter or replace the intake manifold) with no indication of what tools are used, or what the process consists of; it does mention extrude honing, but that's just an example, and not the only way to smooth an intake manifold.  What I consider to be how to would be something more along the lines of:
To attach a high rise intake manifold, first remove the carburetor, choke, and existing intake manifold.  You will need new gaskets for the manifold and carburetor.  Be careful during the removal and installation process to not allow any foreign objects (such as screws) to fall into the engine head.  Install the new manifold gasket according to the manufacturer's instructions, and be careful to torque the screws to the manufacturer's recommended tighness, as bolts taht are too loose can result in air leaks and a lean mixture, while bolts that are too tight can warp the manifold or strip the holes in the block, especially when attaching the manifold to an aluminum block.
Any comments upon my differentiation between how and how-to?  I think an agreement on that distinction should be the first step before the article is altered.  scot 02:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it gives advice, makes "should" statements and claims about what's ideal, and doesn't cite any sources.  Without sources, every statement is original. Everything the article says needs to be tied to a reference, like . Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd move it to Wikibooks, but I'm not sure of the process (especially issues such as preserving authorship).  I'll start collecting and categorizing references first, so I can easily stick them inline (that being the most important issue), and then start working over the article once I have that ready.  Maybe strip it back to an outline, and then start re-adding content?  scot 00:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The transwiki process is described at m:help:transwiki if you want to go that route with the existing content. But yeah, your call on this one. Chris Cunningham 10:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as you pointed out, it is fairly well written, though it could use some expansion which would be easier with looser sourcing requirements (such as that hot brass down the back of the shirt, that's why I personally don't like Glocks).  That would also give me the ability to point to the Wikibook before I start gutting and re-writing the Wikipedia article.  scot 13:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A copy has been moved to Wikibooks (cut and paste for now, I've requested a sysadmin there to do a full import), and a link inserted at the bottom.  scot 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turning "how to" into just "how"

message: Certainly I haven't done any research on the topic, other than reading what others hace written.  Anyone care to tag any specific items as OR, and I'll see what I can find to defend them?  scot 19:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it gives advice, makes "should" statements and claims about what's ideal, and doesn't cite any sources.  Without sources, every statement is original. Everything the article says needs to be tied to a reference, like . Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the original research?

message: Okay, here goes.
First consideration. The article is well-written and detailed as-is. It might be better off just transcribing the whole thing to Wikibooks. Surviving an AfD isn't that hard if it doesn't attract too much attention, and there doesn't appear to be a quick fix to prevent the article reading like a guidebook. Rather than messing with the prose, it could just be moved across. This gets my vote.
If it's going to be kept:
# Inline references are needed everywhere. There is literally no way to tell which parts of this come from sources and which are the opinion of the editor at the moment. As previous editors have said, the whole thing can be considered to be original research if it isn't obvious where it's sourced from.
# The second-person perspective ("you") needs to go. Especially bad are instructions like "click on the image to the right", which makes all sorts of assumptions about the reader's environment. Articles should try not to be self-conscious.
# Question marks in headers are always a warning sign.
# The first section, on why accurizing is needed, goes into too much detail on a random study. While examples are helpful, there should be more emphasis on the actual conclusion. At the moment it's almost like a review of the guns in question.
# There's very little need to say "should" anywhere. Present the fact, let the reader figure it out. One does not need to be told, given the factoid that a grip which doesn't fit the hand will reduce accuracy, that one should choose an appropriately-sized grip.
# The sights section assumes far too much familiarity with the subject. It should explain the differences between sights, and it should wikilink to appropriate articles for further reading.
# That a pistol shooter may drop his weapon on the floor is utterly irrelevant to the discussion of how to make a weapon more accurate. Remember that this is not a discussion of how to care for a weapon. It is a description of the process of making a weapon more accurate, and nothing more.
# Don't recommend brands. Don't even mention them unless there's an exceptional reason to do so.
# The example of having an ejected case go down one's shirt in the usability section is cute, but inappropriate.
# The tolerances section veers off into "look after your weapon" mode again. The AK-47's appeal to untrained conscripts in the woods is irrelevant to the point of making a weapon more accurate. The whole reliability argument can be canned.
# The "paradox" thing in the recoil section is chatty and schoolteacherish. Just explain the concept. Don't try to teach it.
# In harmonics, the free-floating concept is under-explained, and the "rule of thumb" is unnecessary.
# The article ends rather suddenly. It needs additional content to give more context to the subject. A single intro paragraph explaining that there are lots of factors which affect accuracy isn't enough. What exactly this content should be is unclear.
That'll do for now. As I say, a lot of work to be done if it's not going to be moved to WikiBooks. Chris Cunningham 10:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd move it to Wikibooks, but I'm not sure of the process (especially issues such as preserving authorship).  I'll start collecting and categorizing references first, so I can easily stick them inline (that being the most important issue), and then start working over the article once I have that ready.  Maybe strip it back to an outline, and then start re-adding content?  scot 00:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The transwiki process is described at m:help:transwiki if you want to go that route with the existing content. But yeah, your call on this one. Chris Cunningham 10:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as you pointed out, it is fairly well written, though it could use some expansion which would be easier with looser sourcing requirements (such as that hot brass down the back of the shirt, that's why I personally don't like Glocks).  That would also give me the ability to point to the Wikibook before I start gutting and re-writing the Wikipedia article.  scot 13:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A copy has been moved to Wikibooks (cut and paste for now, I've requested a sysadmin there to do a full import), and a link inserted at the bottom.  scot 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing howto angle 

message: Collection of reference sources and notes on content for easy addition of inline references to article.  Anyone with good soruces feel free to add some below. scot 00:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference collection

message: I've stubbed this. The Wikibooks article still uses links from the Wikipedia namespace; these should be corrected (either by removal or by appending :w: to the start of the link.
Several images used in the Wikibooks article are broken because the main image needs to be moved to Commons.
Chris Cunningham 09:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got the links fixed in Wikibooks, image still needs to be moved (never done that before).  scot 14:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting this down 

message: I think this is still deserving of it's own article, as the topic is very complex and involved.  Looking back at the basic outline of the article, I think it's still sound.  I've included the references listed above that will be used to support each section.
#Introduction.  References #1 (definition), and #3, 5, 6, 10 (general process)
#Defining accuracy.  The first paragraph can probably go, but the second two paragraphs are well referenced (drawn straight from the Gun Tests article) and serve the important purpose of demonstrating the complexities involved when looking for the greatest accuracy, as both the smallest and largest groups of the test were fired with the same gun.  Reference #11
#Usability.  Repeatability, control, comfort, and confidence.  References #12 (grips, repeatability, confidence), #6, 9 (trigger, sights), #5 (trigger, grips)
#Tolerances.  Ammo to barrel, bolt to barrel, bore characteristics, sights, recoil. References #3 (matching barrel to ammo), #4 (wear), #5, 6, 10 (fit)
#Harmonics.  Stiffness, tuning, floating, thermal expansion.  References #2 (bedding, floating, thermal expansion), #7, 8 (harmonic damping)
#Miscellaneous.  Lock time, dwell time
Let me know what you think.  scot 15:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added misc. section scot 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds great. Thanks for working on this. Chris Cunningham 15:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed outline

message: DISAGREE - I think this has plenty of unique into to make a fine article all it's own. I'm against a merge into Firearm. Arthurrh 17:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: We need pictures, lots of pictures. There are a lot of interesting little things explained in this article. Imagine that you were a new gun user at a gunsmith trying to figure out what he was telling you he was going to do. We need to break out the digital cameras and take some little pictures that will help illustrate the information in this article. For example:
#Example target with group measurement
#trigger, especially one in partial break-down to show the parts
#stock bedding
#barrel internals (maybe someone can talk Dan Lilja into allowing use of one of his)
##rifling
##headspace
##chamber showing lead (cutaway?)
#harmonic stabilizer
Arthurrh 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I've put in a stub at the bottom for airgun powerplant accurizing, and I'm going to flesh it out once I have some references.  
*American Airguns Innacuracy in airguns
*American Airguns Regulators
*American Airguns Three types of airguns
*Mac 1 LD pistol
*Mac 1 22x0 modifications
*Mac 1 "Steroid" Benjamin/Sheridan
*Pyramyd Air Theoben gas piston
*Pyramyd Air Spring gun series
**Spring gun tuning: Part 1
**Spring gun tuning: Part 2 - Building a mainspring compressor
**Spring gun tuning: Part 3 - Mainspring compressor continued
**Spring gun tuning: Part 4 - Let's disassemble a gun!
**Spring gun tuning: Part 5 - Powerplant disassembly
**Spring gun tuning: Part 6 - Disassembly completed
**Spring gun tuning: Part 7 - Disassembly of other spring guns
**Spring gun tuning: Part 8 - Disassembly of other spring guns, continued
**Spring gun tuning: Part 9 - Cleaning and deburring
**Spring gun tuning: Part 10 - Lubrication and reassembly
**Spring gun tuning: Part 11 - Lubrication and reassembly continued
**Spring gun tuning: Part 12 - Finish reassembly and test the gun
**  Spring gun tune: Part 13 Range-testing the R1 we tuned
*Klaus Pommer spring airgun tuning service
scot 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Airgun section

message: In the SAAMI Glossary of Terms (reference [1] in the Article) the word defined is the verb "accurize" rather than the adverb "accurizing".
Normally the article title uses the verb rather than the related adverb e.g. love not loving. I expect that is WP policy.
I recommend amending the title and the article accordingly. Any comments? GilesW (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Accurizing" is actually a noun (or, more precisely, a gerund) and is as such preferable as an article title over a verb. See WP:NOUN. GregorB (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the title be "accurize" rather than "accurizing"? 

message: Substituted at 19:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Accurizing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828104328/http://www.saami.org/Glossary/index.cfm?CFID=6127413&CFTOKEN=94218953&jsessionid=bc302984421186575542868 to http://saami.org/Glossary/index.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830201913/http://www.riflebarrels.com/articles/barrel_making/rifle_barrel_accurate.htm to http://riflebarrels.com/articles/barrel_making/rifle_barrel_accurate.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830201913/http://www.riflebarrels.com/articles/barrel_making/rifle_barrel_accurate.htm to http://riflebarrels.com/articles/barrel_making/rifle_barrel_accurate.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Accurizing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006141201/http://www.snipercountry.com/compendium/Comp_G.htm to http://www.snipercountry.com/compendium/Comp_G.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071005110928/http://www.davidtubb.com/tcom_images/t2k_images/t2k_manual_8.html to http://www.davidtubb.com/tcom_images/t2k_images/t2k_manual_8.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928202648/http://www.nygord-precision.com/grips.htm to http://www.nygord-precision.com/grips.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.nygord-precision.com/grips_b.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301173350/http://www.everycitizenasoldier.org/id16.html to http://www.everycitizenasoldier.org/id16.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828160045/http://www.davidtubb.com/speedlock.html to http://www.davidtubb.com/speedlock.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927033120/http://www.midwayusa.com/guntecdictionary.exe/showterm?TermID=1330&codeid=140379&path=1.139325 to http://www.midwayusa.com/guntecdictionary.exe/showterm?TermID=1330&codeid=140379&path=1.139325
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007015144/http://ct-precision.com/index2.htm to http://ct-precision.com/index2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071208135452/http://www.jesseshunting.com/articles/guns/category8/167.html to http://www.jesseshunting.com/articles/guns/category8/167.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927020553/http://www.alphaprecisioninc.com/revolver/default.htm to http://www.alphaprecisioninc.com/revolver/default.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807160310/http://www.browning.com/faq/detail.asp?ID=107 to http://www.browning.com/faq/detail.asp?ID=107
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808113438/http://www.browning.com/faq/detail.asp?ID=109 to http://www.browning.com/faq/detail.asp?ID=109
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070827001149/http://www.mac1airgun.com/steriodags.html to http://www.mac1airgun.com/steriodags.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826205903/http://www.mac1airgun.com/ldpistol.html to http://www.mac1airgun.com/ldpistol.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Would "bullet flight time through barrel" be the same as "dwell time"? I was wondering if a simplified calculation of this time could be included. I've tried to describe this time using a formula, but the numbers doesn't seem to match up. The article states "most rifle bullets travel through a high powered rifle barrel bore in 1.0 to 1.5 milliseconds". However, my sample calculation gives 0.3125 ms.
I think 500 mm (approximately 19.7 in) barrel and muzzle velocity of 800 m/s (approximately 2625 ft/s) are reasonable assumptions looking at cartridges like .308 Winchester and 6.5mm Creedmoor.
Why don't the numbers add up? See formula below:
Calculation of bullet flight time through barrel
The bullet flight time through a barrel can be calculated roughly by assuming constant acceleration and by using the equation of motion for average velocity, using the formula:
time = 
For example, using SI units and a assuming a barrel length of 500 mm (approximately 19.7 inches), and a start velocity of zero and muzzle exit velocity of 800 m/s (approximately 2625 ft/s), gives an approximate flight time through the barrel of:
 = 0.0003125 [s] = 0.3125 [ms]
Other examples:
* 0.610 [m]/ 900 [m/s] = 0.68 [ms] (approx. 24 [in] barrel and 2953 [ft/s] V0)
* 0.762 [m]/ 860 [m/s] = 0.88 [ms] (approx. 30 [in] barrel and 2953 [ft/s] V0)
Is this because the acceleration isn't constant? 37.191.139.164 (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculation of bullet flight time through barrel