It could also be a measure of range, as the stonger a gun is, the further it is going to shoot the bullet. But the damage it does to a lego target would be a good indicator.

On this subject, how about a circle's diameter for accuracy, e.g it hits within half a meter diameter.
Permalink

I believe 1x2 should be the basic brick bullet. Its the type that most mag loaders use. 1x4 is more of an accuracy bullet. It is heavier and therefore won't shift as much from air resistance.

Then theres the problem of more aerodnamic bullets though. A cone on one of the tubes would increase accuracy exponentially, if you left the interior open.
Permalink

Double post, sorry.

How about, with power it is out of 100. The target consists of 25 1x2s on a sturdy base, with a long lego piece under neath, that dosn't count, only holds them higher. the 1x2s are in a flat rectangular shape. For each 1x2 that is hit off the base, you score 4 points.

Essentially if you obliterate the target, and send all the pieces flying, your gun has 100/100 power. The target should be large enough so that it dosn't fall over.

For accuracy its also out of 100. You get a 1 meter diameter circle. Fire the gun, if it hits, decrease size by 10cm.

When you miss, increase size by 5cm until you find a circle that you are consistently hitting.

That is your score out of 100. If your gun can hit in a 1cm circle, you score 100. A metre circle, 99.9. Fire from 75% of your guns range.

If you miss so badly, your gun fails accuracy.

For range, mark where you are standing, fire gun. Mark where bullet landed. Rangeing score goes up to 20m, i.e 20,000 cm. Every metre is 5 points out of 100. Keep on firing to work out a generally average distance. Calculate score out of 100. Make sure you aim level with the ground, not tilted upwards.

In the end you will get:
Power ?/100
Accuracy ?/100
Range ?/100

Average it, and you get your PAR score.
Permalink

I don't think there should be a "standard bullet". People can choose different bullets that works best with their gun. And there must be 3 SEPARATE classifications for ACCURACY, POWER and RANGE. Gun builders will choose which quality to focus on. The only thing that should be standardized is the way of measuring.
Permalink

Oh, and PS(just FYI): I got the scholarship, so I'll be back building new guns soon. As soon as I return from the beach.
Permalink

I disagree with only focousing on one of the trio. You show your scores, stating which one you focoused on, but you should also show the PAR score, as a measure of how good the firing system is in total.

We should also put in extra points for ammo capacity and method of firing. Thomas Coopers guns fire fully semiautomatic in solid brick projecticles without realoading bands. That is a far greater achievement than a single shot brick gun, or even a fully automatic or semiautomatic RBG. Yes, brick guns would score more than RBGs because they are harder to make.
Permalink

I think we disagreed in the purpose of the system. I believe you can't tell whether one gun is better than another by one general score. You can only tell from one by one perspective i.e, this gun can have higher ACCURACY but lower POWER. The standard is just to determine how one can measure it properly and end the disputes. Still, I didn't actually think about that variable bullet issue yet. Maybe be can classify crossbows and such into a different category?
Permalink

I think you can though. If a gun has high scores in all three categories, it is better than one that scores extremely high in one category but neglibly in others. A balanced gun is better than a strong gun that fires a metre and has bullets careerng off into the air.

And I'll reinforce my case for one standard bullet. In an comparison experiment proper scientific method dictates that only one change is made between the test subjects. In this case it is the gun, a bullet change would be two changes and therefore destroy the value of the comparison.

This system is of course completely disregarding models and aesthetics. They are in the eye of the beholder.
Permalink