Don't use this ammo at 54.69 yards

B

Ben_hutcherson

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
1,140
Reaction score
769
Location
Frankfort, KY
Dick Burg(rburg) had this box of Aguila sub-sonic 22LR out for sale today at the Lexington show.

I was quite amused by the box flap, which proclaimed that it give "excellent performance at 54.68 yds."

IMG_0688.jpg


54.69 yards is equal to 50 meters, so I suspect that the manufacturer converted 50 meters to imperial units for the American market. It makes for a funny box label, though :)

(As an analytical chemist, I'd suggest that the folks at Aguila refresh their memory on significant figures).
 
Register to hide this ad
Ben_hutcherson said:
Dick Burg(rburg) had this box of Aguila sub-sonic 22LR out for sale today at the Lexington show.

I was quite amused by the box flap, which proclaimed that it give "excellent performance at 54.68 yds."



54.69 yards is equal to 50 meters, so I suspect that the manufacturer converted 50 meters to imperial units for the American market. It makes for a funny box label, though :)

(As an analytical chemist, I'd suggest that the folks at Aguila refresh their memory on significant figures).
Click to expand...

My calculator agree with Aguila's. 50/.0254 gives you the distance in inches. Divide that number by 36 and you get 54.68 yards.:)
 
They should not have wasted time converting it. The majority of purchasers will not care about the difference between 50 yards and 50 meters, and the few who do will figure it out quickly. I did as soon as I saw the string title, and I am ... not a math wiz.
 
Ben_hutcherson said:
Dick Burg(rburg) had this box of Aguila sub-sonic 22LR out for sale today at the Lexington show.

I was quite amused by the box flap, which proclaimed that it give "excellent performance at 54.68 yds."

IMG_0688.jpg


54.69 yards is equal to 50 meters, so I suspect that the manufacturer converted 50 meters to imperial units for the American market. It makes for a funny box label, though :)

(As an analytical chemist, I'd suggest that the folks at Aguila refresh their memory on significant figures).
Click to expand...

Read "Gun owners are hicks that have no idea what 50 meters is".
 
Doug M. said:
They should not have wasted time converting it. The majority of purchasers will not care about the difference between 50 yards and 50 meters, and the few who do will figure it out quickly. I did as soon as I saw the string title, and I am ... not a math wiz.
Click to expand...

Heck, the majority of the handgun shooters at my range don't shoot beyond 5 yards, so what's an extra "0" matter?
 
"My calculator agree with Aguila's. 50/.0254 gives you the distance in inches. Divide that number by 36 and you get 54.68 yards."

Most people on here don't know what "significant figures" are. Might as well be discussing Quantum Theory. They don't know, don't care, wouldn't understand, and the difference means so little, anyway.

But you are right. That wasn't an engineer who wrote that=musta been a PR rat.
 
BearBio said:
Most people on here don't know what "significant figures" are. Might as well be discussing Quantum Theory. They don't know, don't care, wouldn't understand, and the difference means so little, anyway.

But you are right. That wasn't an engineer who wrote that=musta been a PR rat.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what a "significant figure" is and I don't care. I would know if I studied, I would understand, and I really don't care because, for me the difference is insignificant. Were I a precision target shooter then I would care but I'm not so ....

To lump "most of the people" on this forum as somehow beneath your level could be taken as casting aspersions on the majority of the forum members. Myself I don't care. I've dealt with engineers most of my adult life some I allow some lee way for how they think.
 
Not to sidetrack too much on the significant figures discussion, but here's sort of a hand waving explanation as to what we're talking about.

Essentially, any time a measurement is taken, there is some uncertainty in that measurement. The uncertainty is related to precision of the measuring device used. For measurements that require reading the alignment of a marking on a scale(i.e. using a ruler) the rule of thumb I was taught was that it's possible to visually estimate roughly 10 units between two adjacent markings on the scale. So, if using a meter stick graduated in millimeters, it is possible to measure to the .1mm, with uncertainty in the .1mm place.

Conversion factors used when converting between units generally are definitions-i.e. 1 foot contains exactly 12 inches. Similarly, by definition, 1 inch is equal to exactly 2.54 centimeters(the meter is in turn defined exactly in terms of the second and the speed of light). Thus, conversions between units bring with them no loss in precision.

When doing any kind of conversion, however, it is not possible for the resultant answer to be any more precise than the initial measurement. If a distance is written as "50 meters", there is an implied uncertainty in the "1"s place of that number. Using the rules that I learned, it would not be possible to state that distance in yards any more precisely than saying "50 yards." This relates back to the fact that 50 only contains one significant figure, and thus the answer can only contain one significant figure.
 
Cost Accountant?

Pecos Bill QUOTE: [To lump "most of the people" on this forum as somehow beneath your level could be taken as casting aspersions on the majority of the forum members. Myself I don't care. I've dealt with engineers most of my adult life some I allow some lee way for how they think. ] QUOTE

I'm not sure who you are supporting, but my guess is you must be a Cost Accountant unhappy with the engineering condition "close enough". :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top