tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post8013612167113397328..comments2023-11-01T02:19:14.796-05:00Comments on Elements Of Power: Extreme Dust Test: M4 and OthersSMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-4218656283015691312008-01-18T07:00:00.000-06:002008-01-18T07:00:00.000-06:00SMSGT MAC. Great JobYour analysis of the data does...SMSGT MAC. Great Job<BR/>Your analysis of the data does leave more questions than answers. The great disparity between test # 2 and #3 when both test conditions were to be the same leaves a question in my mind. I closely analyzed MIL-C-70599A (AR) on AR-15.com. This is the test spec. for the M4. I noticed a requirement for 190 cycle rates from each test lot submitted. I would assume that a rate of fire would be affected by a dust test. I wonder if the M4's from stock used in the dust test had cyclic rates of fire repesentative of the 190 guns at the factory. The assumption is that they came from the same lot. I mean, 190 cyclic rates would be a good statistical sample based on a population, assuming they were normally distributed, and the test #2 and #3 guns came from 2 distinct production lots and not multiple lots. Assuming they cycle tested guns at the start of test #2 and at the start of test #3,were both of the test guns representative of the 2 lots as tested in the factory? Anyway, I am rambling. Again, great job. There has to be something, otherwise, I would think that you would have seen increases in the other model tested as well...Clearly Defined Out!CLEARLY DEFINEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01565720806552558659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-38199020597701197022008-01-02T16:09:00.000-06:002008-01-02T16:09:00.000-06:00Looks good Mac!And your credit to me is far more t...Looks good Mac!<BR/><BR/>And your credit to me is far more than I deserved.Don Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06057058763094040058noreply@blogger.com