FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions
You didn't test my favorite gun. Why do you hate me/it?
The guns included in our "real world guns" list were those we had easy access to from our personal collections when we tested that specific caliber/cartridge. No guns were intentionally excluded.
You didn't test my favorite ammunition. Why do you hate me/it?
The ammunition included in our tests was what was readily available at the time of the test of that specific caliber/cartridge, and that we thought would give a good cross-section of what was commonly available. No ammunition brand/manufacturer was intentionally excluded.
You didn't test my favorite caliber/cartridge. Why do you hate me/it?
Stop being so paranoid. This isn't all about you. We started with the most common calibers/cartridges, and have been expanding our tests to include less common ones as we've gone on. But each new caliber/cartridge test sequence has a significant cost associated with it, in terms of both financial outlay and labor. If you want to know how your favorite caliber/cartridge tests, our standards and protocols are readily available – go ahead, knock yourself out, and do the tests.
You tested one primarily rifle cartridge (.223) – when are you going to test others?
There are several handguns guns readily available which shoot the .223, and Keith was particularly curious about how that would perform in handguns. So we tested it. We have no concrete plans to test other cartridges which are primarily associated with rifles.
Your data is skewed to favor @#!&&@ manufacturer. I bet they paid you off.
That's not a question. But no, nothing is "sponsored." All expenses are paid out of pocket by us.
I have a great website. You should link to it. Want to exchange links?
You guys are great! I have been looking for this kind of information online for, like, forever. Can I make a contribution or something to support your work?
Thanks. Seriously, thanks. If you would like to make a small donation to help offset costs, use the donation button on the left.
There's a problem I've seen in your data . . .
Yup. The data is as it was collected. There are glitches here and there. Might be due to a poor re-crowning. Might be due to a malfunctioning piece of equipment. Rather than fudge things to make the numbers all nice and tidy, we put the actual data out there, warts and all.
You guys should have tested more rounds with each test, you know that? I mean, just three rounds isn't enough to get a good statistical model.
Yeah, we know. The data is indicative, not conclusive. Meaning that you should be able to draw some conclusions from it about general trends, but not consider it the 'last word.' You want more definitive results, feel free to do the testing yourself.
Eh. Why did you guys bother with this? Everyone knows that the rule of thumb is about 50 f.p.s. for each inch of barrel length. That's all you need to know.
Sure thing. Except it's not. Look at the actual data, for any caliber/cartridge, and you'll see your 'rule of thumb' isn't accurate. At all.