Quote:
Originally posted by Xnuke
Why don't you get a real job. Your a professional student masquerading as someone who thinks they know something about firearms and ballistics. The only expanding gas around here is from your *** and your buddy has his head in the cloud.
|
I'd like to point this out...I challenge him to come up with evidence of his own and instead he results to personal attacks.
Now, I know this was in part to Armorer's attacks on him...true... but the "your buddy has his head in the cloud" comment I'm assuming is directed at me.
Quote:
This would be amusing were it not for the fact that there are a lot of people out there who believe what you say. They don't realize your just repeating information you find somewhere else and sometimes don't even get that right. YOU ARMORER ARE A FRAUD.
|
Now, Xnuke, you were an arms master in the Navy? You delt with ordance and weapons testing, right? Oh, wait, no, that's not right, you were a Nuclear Propulsion Engineer. So what credentials does that give YOU for balistics testing? Considering Armorer's discussions on firearms with others who are trained in firearms on the Ariakon and THEIR acceptance of him as a knowledgable and credible source on firearms is enough for me.
You say all he's doing is repeating information he has heard elsewhere and this makes him a Fraud. So this means ANYONE with a PHd is a fraud since EVERYTHING they do/know/say they just got from somewhere else? Just wanting to clarify your definition of fraud.
As for where I'm getting my info on weapons testing...geee...let's see...oh yea...I'm getting it from the people I work with. And where do I work, a NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER. WE TEST WEAPONS FOR THE NAVY. THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. We are the ONLY independant weapons testing facility IN THE NATION. So, you know, when it comes to testing criteria and how you run a proper test and coming up with a purpose for the test...I'm going to go with them, not you.
Quote:
|
Your comparison with the Tippmann did not challenge the performance of the Flatline.
|
You mean did not challenge the RANGE of the flatline...it certainly challenged the accuracy of it under 75 feet...the purpose of the test.
Armorer's test was testing the perfomance of these barrels to hit their target at ranges under 75 feet. That's still testing the flatline's ACCURACY performance...not it's RANGE performance.
Quote:
|
How convenient; the results are comparable at 75 '.
|
Hence why they call it a comparison... Also, it wasn't convenient, that was the parameter of the test...to test accuracy at ranges where most paintball shootouts occure. You keep ignoring that.
Again, Tippmann owners say that the Flatline IS NOT ACCURATE at the ranges you wish to see the test.
Quote:
|
They would be for any paintball gun with a decent barrel.
|
I see some accuracy difference in that test that would be important to most people. I've seen major accuracy differences just from using different kinds of paint.
Quote:
|
You're the one doing the comparisons.
|
And you're the one saying they are flawed.
Quote:
|
Test the SIM4 against the Flatline was supposed to give you.
|
It's called a Direct Object...you left that out making this scentance a mess. Was supposed to give you WHAT? Anyway, if you're saying he needs to re-run the test again and include the longer ranges, no he doesn't. The argument here is whether or not there are enough shots taken at over 75 feet to make it a relevant test inclusion. Since the test was accuracy at RANGES WHERE MOST PAINTBALL SHOOTOUTS OCCURE (see a pattern here yet???) the longer ranges are not relevent criteria because those longer ranges are NOT WHERE MOST PAINTBALL SHOOTOUTS OCCURE. You want to disproove HIS test...YOU need to do a TEST OF YOUR OWN.
Quote:
|
Robotech admits Sniper rifles are silly except one being made by Scepter. So, buy it for looks , not performance. I'll remember that.
|
You need to stop putting words in my mouth. They way you're saying that it was like I said it wouldn't perform well. SINCE this marker isn't on the market yet who knows how it will perform. Considering it will use a WS style Hop-up barrel it should be very accurate and have range like a flatline since my WS already shows these charicteristics.
MY point was that just about EVERY marker I've seen marketed with the term Sniper (Sniper barrel, sniper rifle, et all) are no better at "Snipping" than any other similar marker. Perhaps the Sniper Barrel is more accurate than the stock barrel, but that can be said about many barrels that arn't called Sniper barrels.
Quote:
Just for info I was a comissioned officer and didn't swab decks. We had people who couldn't find themselves like Armorer doing that.
DISMISSED
|
Still doesn't make you a expert in firearms or performance testing. Besides, I've met Cheifs that have 10 times the common sense and knowledge that most officers have... Just because you were a commissioned officer doesn't automatically mean you know what you're talking about.
As is painfully obvious, and as very typical, you have your opinion and you wish to push it as fact. You have done NOTHING to prove your claim that the test is false. To do so would require you running the test and running it out to 200 feet to PROVE that the flatline is more accurate at those ranges. You do that, I'll listen. Until such time, you are all talk and nothing more.
GOOD-DAY cur.
