G
Guest
Guest
PART ONE
PART TWO
PART THREE
PART FOUR
PART FIVE
I have it on reliable authority what you see below is impossible. YMMV
These targets are the result of classifying about 550 heavily damaged H&N Baracuda's using the YRRAH rolling method. These pellets are the worst performing pellet in my HW-98. Even after this process they do not perform to the level of the "good" pellet which the gun prefers but this process takes them from marginal for hunting to perfectly suitable for hunting.
In the last part of this series. I will detail the specifications of the machine I used to classify these pellets. The third revision of the machine was used in this test. The error rate for that version was about 4 to 6% so I ran the pellets through the process twice and only kept the ones which rolled the same twice in a row. That reduces the error rate to about 3% or one in thirty.
Below are the targets:
There are two more targets shot with the rifle's preferred pellet, one as a control and the other with rolled pellets. They will demonstrate why I elected to use the worst pellets I had for that rifle to run the test. The test was about discovering if the Yrrah method works. It appears to work.
I will upload those two targets here and perhaps later I will run the aggregation software and make a couple of aggregate images.
What do you know, apparently you CAN do something to improve the performance of even "good" pellets.
The raw data files are below:
View attachment cuda-5.1628119311.csv
View attachment cuda-6.1628119312.csv
View attachment cuda-7.1628119312.csv
View attachment cuda-ctrl.1628119312.csv
View attachment cuda-no-roll.1628119312.csv
PART TWO
PART THREE
PART FOUR
PART FIVE
I have it on reliable authority what you see below is impossible. YMMV
These targets are the result of classifying about 550 heavily damaged H&N Baracuda's using the YRRAH rolling method. These pellets are the worst performing pellet in my HW-98. Even after this process they do not perform to the level of the "good" pellet which the gun prefers but this process takes them from marginal for hunting to perfectly suitable for hunting.
In the last part of this series. I will detail the specifications of the machine I used to classify these pellets. The third revision of the machine was used in this test. The error rate for that version was about 4 to 6% so I ran the pellets through the process twice and only kept the ones which rolled the same twice in a row. That reduces the error rate to about 3% or one in thirty.
Below are the targets:
There are two more targets shot with the rifle's preferred pellet, one as a control and the other with rolled pellets. They will demonstrate why I elected to use the worst pellets I had for that rifle to run the test. The test was about discovering if the Yrrah method works. It appears to work.
I will upload those two targets here and perhaps later I will run the aggregation software and make a couple of aggregate images.
What do you know, apparently you CAN do something to improve the performance of even "good" pellets.
The raw data files are below:
