Target, and high-velocity Winchester Power-Point) of ammunition and three makes of suppressors, our results will be considerably more complicated than what we have experienced to date. In order to correctly interpret these com- plex data, Winks SDA used one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the hypothesis that the mean values of the various test groups in each type/brand of ammo were equal. If the ANOVA test was significant, than a Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test was used for pair-wise comparisons. Table 7 (page 171) is the test report
that Winks SDA generated for Eley .22 LR subsonic ammo. At a 0.05 signifi- cance level, the velocity of the Tactical Solutions Cascade suppressed group was significantly faster (1,046.0 fps) than all the other test groups. In addition, the unsuppressed group’s velocity was not significantly different from the Tactical Innovations Quest suppressed group’s velocity (1,024.0 fps vs. 1,028.0 fps), and the Quest group was not significantly different from the Gemtech Outback-II (1,028.0 fps vs. 1,032.0 fps) suppressed group. The unsuppressed group was significantly lower than the Outback-II group (1,024.0 fps vs. 1,032.0 fps). Predictive statistics (Tables 8 and
9, page 172) for the Eley .22 LR sub- sonic test groups showed there was no difference in windage between the unsuppressed group and the Cascade group. The Cascade group was signifi- cantly higher by only 0.05". When the unsuppressed group was compared with the Outback-II suppressed group, the Outback-II was .0.10" right and the unsuppressed group was 0.80" higher. Comparing the unsuppressed group with the Quest group found that the Quest group was 0.30" right and the unsuppressed group was 0.30" higher. When comparing the Cascade group with the Outback-II group, the Outback- II was 0.10" right while the Cascade group was 0.90" higher. The comparison of the Cascade and Quest groups found that the Quest group was 0.30" right and the Cascade group was 0.30" higher. The last comparison finds that the Quest suppressed group was 0.20" right and 0.60" higher than the Outback-II sup- pressed group. There was no statistical difference in average group width for all six comparisons. When evaluating the .22 LR Win-
Page 166 July — September 2011
chester Power-Point test groups, Winks SDA found that the velocity of the unsuppressed group was significantly lower than the velocity of the other three suppressed groups [1239.0 fps vs. 1,249.0 fps (Quest)1,255.0 fps (Outback- II), 1,258.0 fps (Cascade)]. The velocities of the three suppressed groups were not significantly different from each other. Predictive statistical results for
the Winchester Power-Point test groups found that the unsuppressed group was 0.30" right and 0.10" higher when compared with the Cascade suppressed group. The Outback-II group was 0.20" right and 0.10" higher than the unsup- pressed group. When compared with the unsuppressed group, Quest was 0.30" right and 0.10" higher. The Out- back-II group was 0.40" right and 0.20" higher when compared with the Cas- cade suppressed group. There were no differences in average group widths for the aforementioned comparisons. When compared with the Cascade group, the Quest group was 0.60" right and 0.20" higher, but the Cascade’s average group width was half its size (0.485" vs. 0.888"). The comparison of the Quest group to the Outback-II group found that the Quest group was 0.10" right and only 0.04" higher, but the Outback-II sup- pressed group’s average group width was 0.30" smaller (0.573" vs. 0.888"). The Winks SDA velocity data re-
port for the .22 LR Wolf Match Target ammo groups revealed that the veloc- ity of the unsuppressed group was not significantly different from the Cascade group (1,082.0 fps vs. 1,081.0 fps). The velocity of the Quest group and the Outback-II group were also not signifi- cantly different from each other (1,088.0 fps vs. 1,089.0 fps). The velocities of the unsuppressed group and the Cascade suppressed groups were significantly lower than the Quest and Outback-II suppressed groups. Comparison of Wolf Match Target
test groups showed that the unsup- pressed group was 0.10" right while the Cascade suppressed group was 0.20" higher. Also, the Cascade group’s average group width was 0.20" smaller (0.428" vs. 0.654"). A comparison of the unsuppressed group and the Outback-II group found that the Outback-II group was 0.10" right and the unsuppressed group was 0.20" higher. There was no difference in average group width.
When comparing the unsuppressed group and the Quest group, the Quest group was 0.10" right and only 0.05" higher. Average group widths were the same. When comparing the Cascade group to the Outback-II group, the Outback-II was 0.20" right of the POI, but the Cascade was 0.60" higher and its average group width was 0.30" smaller (0.428" vs. 0.719"). The comparison of the Cascade and Quest groups showed the Quest suppressed group was 0.20" right while the Cascade group was 0.20" higher. The Cascade group’s average group width was 0.30" smaller (0.428" vs. 0.682") than the Outback-II group. Comparison of the Outback-II and the Quest suppressed group showed that the Quest was only 0.04" right and 0.50" higher. Statistically, there was no dif- ference in their average group widths. .22 Winchester MagnuM results There were no significant differ-
ences between velocities of the unsup- pressed Hornady ammo group and the Gemtech G5 suppressed group (2,186.0 fps vs. 2,181.0 fps). The unsuppressed Hornady ammo group (Tables 10 & 11, page 173) was significantly 0.40" to the right of the POI while the Gemtech G5 group was significantly higher (1.0"). The average group width of the unsup- pressed Hornady ammo group was statistically half the size of the G5 group (0.502" vs. 1.04"). Winks SDA found that at the 0.05
significance level the velocity of the Gemtech G5 suppressed Winchester ammo group was faster than the unsup- pressed group (2,170.0 fps vs. 2,159.0 fps). In terms of windage, the unsup- pressed Winchester ammo group was significantly 0.40" to the right of POI and also was significantly higher (0.90") than the G5 suppressed group. Statisti- cally, there was no difference in average group width.
conclusion In the case of the .17 Mach 2 rifle,
the Gemtech HMR suppressor produced velocities an average of 24 fps faster than the unsuppressed rifle. Windage, elevation, and average group width were relatively unchanged by the HMR suppressor. When considering the .17 HMR data, the only clear consensus was that the HMR suppressed rifle shot an average of 0.80" higher than the unsup- pressed rifle. Since the HMR suppressor was responsible for significantly higher
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212