Suppressor wait times

[sacklunch]

My man, you’re on an Internet forum and I just asked you a question about something you seemed to know about. Isn’t that what forums exist in part for?

How is that any different than the thread you just started asking about suppressor covers? What if everyone had just responded to your thread saying: “do your own research” or “do you expect others to do your homework”?

I did my own research, in both cases. You are misrepresenting the facts to suit your narrative. I even listed what I was leaning towards based off of my own research. In the suppressor cover, I actually asked "what are you using and why", opinion seeking, not "provide me the statistical data on which suppressor cover is the best combination of mirage reduction and temp rating".

Do your own homework.

 

[atmat]

Sweet, I’ll check this out.

@sacklunch, @4090Sharps — I had 15 minutes at lunch to look over the subreddit @4090Sharps sent, and will definitely spend more time later after work. But that Reddit megathread directed me to atfapproval.com. I aggregated January through March approvals, which averaged 271 days. In April, average approval time is currently 8% less at 249 days. I’m going to guess that’s well within 1 standard deviation, and can be attributed to random fluctuations.

Obviously as more data comes in, that may change. But if ATF’s goal is to “artificially decrease average wait times,” they’re doing a piss poor job at it.

@sacklunch — Now that I have “done my homework,” would you please share your opinion on why you feel that ATF is attempting to artificially decrease average wait times? I am genuinely interested in any knowledge you can provide that can’t be gleaned from a cursory review of the data. Thanks in advance.

Edit: typo

 

[wesfromky]

I will put this back up as it already does a lot of the heavy lifting with data modeling.

ArcGIS Dashboards

ArcGIS Dashboards

www.arcgis.com

 

[sacklunch]

@sacklunch, @4090Sharps — I had 15 minutes at lunch to look over the subreddit @4090Sharps sent, and will definitely spend more time later after work. But that Reddit megathread directed me to atfapproval.com. I aggregated January through March approvals, which averaged 271 days. In April, average approval time is currently 8% less at 249 days. I’m going to guess that’s well within 1 standard deviation, and can be attributed to random fluctuations.

Obviously as more data comes in, that may change. But if ATF’s goal is to “artificially decrease average wait times,” they’re doing a piss poor job at it.

@sacklunch — Now that I have “done my homework,” would you please share your opinion on why you feel that ATF is attempting to artificially decrease average wait times? I am genuinely interested in any knowledge you can provide that can’t be gleaned from a cursory review of the data. Thanks in advance.

Edit: typo

Do you honestly believe they can influence massive statistical change in the approval timelines instantaneously, without notice or pushback (by approving some forms months ahead of the average)? I don't. It's median vs mean. If they don't have the manpower or the capability to reduce wait times, which by the way was the entire selling point behind the funding for e-forms, then why would they not approve forms in a way that skew the statistics towards them actually improving processing over paper forms, especially when congress has taken notice as well in the substantially increase in median approval times. When I filed for my most recent, the wait was 4 months, their "goal" was 90 days. It has since increased to over 9 months. Have other contacts with the same background, trust, e-file that hav ebeem approved in well under half that, many others on here have experienced the same.

I for one would like an explanationfrom the ATF on why they are not processing forms in a 1st come 1st served basis. I couldnt care less your thoughts on the matter.

Congrats on being able to look up your own data. Proud dad moment.

 

[atmat]

I will put this back up as it already does a lot of the heavy lifting with data modeling.

ArcGIS Dashboards

ArcGIS Dashboards

www.arcgis.com

Thanks! The “median wait by month” from this link are the same values i aggregated for Jan-Mar to compare to April.

 

[4090Sharps]

Thanks! The “median wait by month” from this link are the same values i aggregated for Jan-Mar to compare to April.

I think the conclusions drawn from some of your analysis on these numbers might be skewed simply due to the fact that numbers being report are based on the wait times of approvals coming back--not the avg or median of items in the queue.

 

[cubdriver84d]

Certified 7/1/22 and approved 5/27/23 (trust). Dead air primal to tame the 45/70 just in time for bear season.

 

[atmat]

Do you honestly believe they can influence massive statistical change in the approval timelines instantaneously, without notice or pushback (by approving some forms months ahead of the average)? I don't.

I don't think they can, either. That's why I'm skeptical of your statement that they're trying to.

It's median vs mean. If they don't have the manpower or the capability to reduce wait times, which by the way was the entire selling point behind the funding for e-forms, then why would they not approve forms in a way that skew the statistics towards them actually improving processing over paper forms, especially when congress has taken notice as well in the substantially increase in median approval times.

Reporting median instead of mean would certainly skew the data if they processed enough shortened applications. Does ATF provide historical averages? If so, do they traditionally use mean or median?

Regardless, entirely switching the reporting method would certainly draw eyes and even further increased scrutiny.

When I filed for my most recent, the wait was 4 months, their "goal" was 90 days. It has since increased to over 9 months. Have other contacts with the same background, trust, e-file that hav ebeem approved in well under half that, many others on here have experienced the same.

This is called "anecdotal fallacy," where someone draws conclusions based on their personal experience rather than what the data suggests.

I for one would like an explanationfrom the ATF on why they are not processing forms in a 1st come 1st served basis.

I'm in total agreement with you here!

I couldnt care less your thoughts on the matter.

Congrats on being able to look up your own data. Proud dad moment.

I'm trying to engage with you in a genuine and thoughtful way. That's what makes Rokslide great. But mocking or calling names is a disingenuous conversation method.

 

[atmat]

I think the conclusions drawn from some of your analysis on these numbers might be skewed simply due to the fact that numbers being report are based on the wait times of approvals coming back--not the avg or median of items in the queue.

That's a great point, and whether the reporting method includes only "approvals" or those "in queue" would definitely change the output.

But it would actually skew the data in favor of shorter times if ATF was trying be sneaky (because they wouldn't be penalized for those aging "in queue"). The fact that it's not showing shorter times of any significance would actually lend itself to the conclusion that nothing sneaky is going on.

 

[4090Sharps]

That's a great point, and whether the reporting method includes only "approvals" or those "in queue" would definitely change the output.

But it would actually skew the data in favor of shorter times if ATF was trying be sneaky (because they wouldn't be penalized for those aging "in queue"). The fact that it's not showing shorter times of any significance would actually lend itself to the conclusion that nothing sneaky is going on.

I honestly don't think they're trying to lower their times, rather trying maintain their current times and give the appearance they're not falling further behind.

 

[gabenzeke]

Especially since it took them 350 days to deny me and I'm still waiting to find out why I was denied. I was denied 3/31/23 and my certify date was 4/15/22.

I was denied for a spelling error. One of the spots on my trust where my name was had two letters transposed. Originally certified 3/21/22. Still waiting. I'm a little bitter about it.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Harvey_NW]

Certified 7/1/22 and approved 5/27/23 (trust). Dead air primal to tame the 45/70 just in time for bear season.

How you know you gettin approved next month!?

 

[MThuntr]

I was reading this thread and got an email from Silencer Central. I about lost it! Turns out they were kindly reminding me that I'm still waiting. Talk about a downer.

 

[Unckebob]

Nope

Remind me to stay away from you in a natural disaster. You have epically bad luck.

 

[UTJL]

That's a great point, and whether the reporting method includes only "approvals" or those "in queue" would definitely change the output.

But it would actually skew the data in favor of shorter times if ATF was trying be sneaky (because they wouldn't be penalized for those aging "in queue"). The fact that it's not showing shorter times of any significance would actually lend itself to the conclusion that nothing sneaky is going on.

Approving more recently submitted applications would only lower the average wait time temporarily. All of the older submissions they neglected would still be aging. Thus it would heavily penalize the wait times once they were finally approved.

This is assuming the rate at which they are able to process applications remains the same. If they knew they were going to have a significant increase in the processing rate in the near future they, then they could use this “trick” to show a false improvement followed by an actual improvement. Either way that would take a fair amount of foresight and planning.

I know you didn’t ask but it seems like you both want to have an educational conversation rather than insult strangers on the internet.

 

[atmat]

Approving more recently submitted applications would only lower the average wait time temporarily. All of the older submissions they neglected would still be aging. Thus it would heavily penalize the wait times once they were finally approved.

This is assuming the rate at which they are able to process applications remains the same. If they knew they were going to have a significant increase in the processing rate in the near future they, then they could use this “trick” to show a false improvement followed by an actual improvement. Either way that would take a fair amount of foresight and planning.

I know you didn’t ask but it seems like you both want to have an educational conversation rather than insult strangers on the internet.

Correct, this was my view the whole time. There’s no trickery or manipulation.

 

[Dave C.]

Correct, this was my view the whole time. There’s no trickery or manipulation.

Let me guess, you believe there's no border crisis either.

Do the first two letters of your username represent Alcohol and Tobacco by any chance?

 

[atmat]

Let me guess, you believe there's no border crisis either.

That’s called a “false equivalence fallacy,” but I’ll entertain the conversation. Did you actually read the comments above where I pulled the data we do have and showed there was no significant change in April from the last 3 months?

Im not arguing it’s a crappy process that’s a waste of taxpayer dollars and that government agencies are often very slow and inept. I’m not even arguing that government agencies don’t practice business in shady ways — there’s historical precedent showing otherwise.

I’m just saying there’s no evidence I’ve seen presented here or otherwise to show ATF is trying to manipulate their average down. Or if they are, as I said earlier, they’re doing a terrible job at it.

Do the first two letters of your username represent Alcohol and Tobacco by any chance?

Haha not quite, but that’s actually really funny.

Edit: Made a joke but removed it lest it be considered bickering.

 

[fngTony]

This thread has already self corrected itself yesterday let’s not take it back to the personal bickering.

 

[4090Sharps]

Approving more recently submitted applications would only lower the average wait time temporarily. All of the older submissions they neglected would still be aging. Thus it would heavily penalize the wait times once they were finally approved.

This is assuming the rate at which they are able to process applications remains the same. If they knew they were going to have a significant increase in the processing rate in the near future they, then they could use this “trick” to show a false improvement followed by an actual improvement. Either way that would take a fair amount of foresight and planning.

I know you didn’t ask but it seems like you both want to have an educational conversation rather than insult strangers on the internet.

Correct, this was my view the whole time. There’s no trickery or manipulation.

The ATF has been told to come up with a plan for improving wait times. Besides throwing bodies at the problem*, it doesn't sound like they've come up with a solid plan or solution. If you think about the Form1 issue with braces and the surge in applications this has caused, they really do only need to lower or maintain the average approval/wait time temporarily through artificial means. Once they clear out all of the brace rule forms, they'll have the extra processing capacity available that they need to improve wait times and can tackle both old and new Form4 approvals.

So, considering the above, and the fact that the avg wait times are based on approvals only, not those forms left waiting for approval, I still believe the ATF is manipulating the numbers through selective approvals. I don't think this is some grand conspiracy, just some managers trying to make do with limited resources and keep their heads above water.

*edit: and implementing eForms