quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
I will not suggest a method of analyzing the data
but if you examine the results of the lever gun performance data you will find that there is some potential for the RPM limit to exist.
This data was not generated to test for such a limit so it would be difficult for it to be biased.


Lever gun performance studies

BTW there is a lot of Lazer cast data here
but it carries a disclaimer to use at your own risk.

Not necessarily. You'll notice on many of those that the upper velocity was smaller. The problem with that test is they used pistol powders and larger loads of that really "shock" the bullet. I looked at particularly the 32 Special. I load a cast with that and get almost factory jacketed velocity with very good accuracy. I don't feel very fast powders such as they used are the best for good accuracy at the higher velocities.

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
I will not suggest a method of analyzing the data
but if you examine the results of the lever gun performance data you will find that there is some potential for the RPM limit to exist.
This data was not generated to test for such a limit so it would be difficult for it to be biased.


Lever gun performance studies

BTW there is a lot of Lazer cast data here
but it carries a disclaimer to use at your own risk.

Not necessarily. You'll notice on many of those that the upper velocity was smaller. The problem with that test is they used pistol powders and larger loads of that really "shock" the bullet. I looked at particularly the 32 Special. I load a cast with that and get almost factory jacketed velocity with very good accuracy. I don't feel very fast powders such as they used are the best for good accuracy at the higher velocities.

4759

Thank you for the additional information. Starmetals answer is exactly the problem with the nay-sayers. They fail to understand and fail to learn what the RPM threshold is. Then in order to disprove the RPM threshold they continually use examples that do not apply. In the case of the 30-30 it does apply because the rifle in the test article you provided has a 10" twist. Starmetal discredits that test by using a .32 Special as an example. Apparently all of us who do understand the RPM threshold also know that the .32 Special has always had a 16" twist. It would take velocities of 3100+ fps to excede the RPM threshold. Apparently Starmetal is not aware of the velocities of the .32 Special or he has some amazing loads for his .32 Special. For most of us the ,32 Special is a fine cast bullet cartridge because with in practical limitations of pressure and velocity you can not exceed the RPM threshold and therefore the RPM threshold does not apply to that cartridge.

Starmetal

Two things; first is you really should learn what the RPM threshold is before you criticise. Second is; swheeler is correct. We have hijacked this thread. If you want a further discusion please start a new thread.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
I will not suggest a method of analyzing the data
but if you examine the results of the lever gun performance data you will find that there is some potential for the RPM limit to exist.
This data was not generated to test for such a limit so it would be difficult for it to be biased.


Lever gun performance studies

BTW there is a lot of Lazer cast data here
but it carries a disclaimer to use at your own risk.

Not necessarily. You'll notice on many of those that the upper velocity was smaller. The problem with that test is they used pistol powders and larger loads of that really "shock" the bullet. I looked at particularly the 32 Special. I load a cast with that and get almost factory jacketed velocity with very good accuracy. I don't feel very fast powders such as they used are the best for good accuracy at the higher velocities.

4759

Thank you for the additional information. Starmetals answer is exactly the problem with the nay-sayers. They fail to understand and fail to learn what the RPM threshold is. Then in order to disprove the RPM threshold they continually use examples that do not apply. In the case of the 30-30 it does apply because the rifle in the test article you provided has a 10" twist. Starmetal discredits that test by using a .32 Special as an example. Apparently all of us who do understand the RPM threshold also know that the .32 Special has always had a 16" twist. It would take velocities of 3100+ fps to excede the RPM threshold. Apparently Starmetal is not aware of the velocities of the .32 Special or he has some amazing loads for his .32 Special. For most of us the ,32 Special is a fine cast bullet cartridge because with in practical limitations of pressure and velocity you can not exceed the RPM threshold and therefore the RPM threshold does not apply to that cartridge.

Starmetal

Two things; first is you really should learn what the RPM threshold is before you criticise. Second is; swheeler is correct. We have hijacked this thread. If you want a further discusion please start a new thread.

Larry Gibson

Larry I see what the Army accepted you instead of the Air Force or Navy...you can't read. I looked at the other calibers in that site too particularly the 30-06. Same thing with it...pistol powders. Pistol powders are not the right powder to push velocity.

I used the 32 Special because if the poster was using the site to show that increases in velocity showed less accuracy (which it didn't) and I shoot the 32 Special and my velocity is way higher then the sites, and my accuracy much better.

Thing is you can't get all your fast twist rifles to shoot for you at velocity. From what I've been told the bullet mould you used for your famous threshold test isn't a very good example of a good bullet to push. I'll let you guess who that came from.

Why you posting a lot over here now Larry? The Castboolit boys gets tired of your crap? Invite your friends from Castboolits to get involved in this thread here and see how many come over....I'll hazard a guess...none.

Larry if you noticed on the 06 chart the best accuracy wasn't always at the same rpm and wasn't always at the same velocity. It changed per powder change. The fastest velocity was 1422 and that's 102384 rpm which isn't no ways out of your ridiculous phoney global warming rpm threshold. I make this call on your theory:

RPM = Rotations per minute which could also be called Spin which is what it is. Political spin.............
Larry's test involved a boolit with an undersized nose which doesn't shoot too well when pushed. Kinda like stacking the deck to prove what he wanted to prove. Amazing that this theory doesn't also apply to jacketed bullets isn't it. The problem he describes relates to boolit fit, alloy and material properties.

"Larry I see what the Army accepted you instead of the Air Force or Navy...you can't read. I looked at the other calibers in that site too particularly the 30-06. Same thing with it...pistol powders. Pistol powders are not the right powder to push velocity."

Yes Joe...it is "the same thing' as the 30-06 has a 10" twist also. You compared what was happening with 10" twists which could excede the RPM threshold to the 32 Special with a 16" twist which can not excede the RPM threshold. Your bad again Joe, not mine. Your velocity may have been way higher but the RPM was not higher. It is the RPM threshold not the "velocity threshold" you know. Oh excuse me, you don't know, that is the problem. Going back the personal attacks again?

As to the mould I used in the intial test, 311291, yes the nose was not a perfect fit. It doesn't matter because, contrary to what 45 2.1 keeps ranting about, the test was not about developing the most accurate load. The RPM threshold test was about comparing the accuracy loss as velocity increased in three different rifles with 3 different twists. It didn't matter if one rifle shot that bullet better than the other rifles. What mattered was simply comparing when and what at what rate accuracy was lost. That is called comparative analysis.

"Why you posting a lot over here now Larry? The Castboolit boys gets tired of your crap?"

I'm posting here Joe because you are here. Remember, you got your self thrown off the Cast Boolit Forum so if I'm going to discuss this with you it will be here.

"Invite your friends from Castboolits to get involved in this thread here and see how many come over....I'll hazard a guess...none"

You are probably right. None of them want to put up with your crap anymore (it's why you got kicked off) so why should they come here. I'm here simply because I like you Joe and we do agree on most everything else. If you want to continue this subject please start a new thread.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:
Larry if you noticed on the 06 chart the best accuracy wasn't always at the same rpm and wasn't always at the same velocity. It changed per powder change. The fastest velocity was 1422 and that's 102384 rpm which isn't no ways out of your ridiculous phoney global warming rpm threshold. I make this call on your theory:

Nice flag but this post continues to demonstrate you have no idea what the RPM threshold is. I'd suggest you go back and read the thread on the Cast Boolit Forum where I defined it. Once you understand what it is then perhaps you could comment intelligently on it. Until the the BS falg is on your field.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by 45 2.1:
RPM = Rotations per minute which could also be called Spin which is what it is. Political spin.............
Larry's test involved a boolit with an undersized nose which doesn't shoot too well when pushed. Kinda like stacking the deck to prove what he wanted to prove. Amazing that this theory doesn't also apply to jacketed bullets isn't it. The problem he describes relates to boolit fit, alloy and material properties.

45 2.1

You are demonstrating your ignorance of the RPM threshold too. It doesn't matter that you don't believe it. What does matter is that you should at least understand the definition before you show your ignorance with such statements. I'll tell you again here as I've (and numerous others) told you who knows how many times on the Cast Boolit Forum; The intial test was comparative analysis. It was not about developing the best load for that bullet in any rifle. Developing a high velocity/high RPM load was a later part of the test. The initial test simply compared when and what the rate of accuracy loss was. It did not matter if one rifle shot that bullet better than another.

Now, what you exclude in your post above was that not only I but Bass Ackwards developed very accurate loads with that "undersized nose" 311291 (I sent him my mould and he cast his own bullets with it). We both were able to get good accuracy (2 moa) out of our 30-06s (I did it in two of mine) up into the 2300+ fps range which is a considerable bit above the RPM threshold. However, both of us had better and more consistent accuracy down in the RPM threshold with velocities around 1850 to 1900 fps.

RPM does, in fact, have a adverse affect on jacketed bullets. You have been referred to numerous sourse of information regarding that subject. Yet you fail to learn and continue to show your ignorance on that subject.

If you're going to make statements out of context expect to get called on them both here and like you get called on the Cast Boolit Forum.

Larry Gibson

I'm starting a new thread on this subject. Please post your replies there.

Larry Gibson

No matter what you say Larry you twist the truth, pick parts of one's post to distort the facts, and you still can't comprehend what you read.

I'll hazard a guess that you keep your attics up on Castboolets you'll soon be booted. My banning had NOTHING to know with my knowledge of cast bullets and shooting them..which by the way far exceeds yours.

Oh I forgot Larry, in this case that's not the B.S. flag...it's the Bullet Spin flag, which you know very little about or you'd be able to get out of that low velocity slump that you've been in since, well, probably day one.

NRA got a 300 Win Mag over 3000 fps with a paper patched bullet, but you'll say that's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay different then a cast bullet (which the alloy bullet is cast for that paper patch round) or you'll more then likely compare it to a jacketed bullet. Either way you CAN'T explain why (being it's still a cast bullet) why it still shoots with very good accuracy at very high rpm, velocity, and pressure.



yup, bullet spin flag and Larry's accuracy is up and down just like
that flag.

Gee I keep forgetting stuff. To tell 45 2.1 that he needs to learn about the rpm threshold is like telling Mr. Ferrari he needs to learn about building a sports car. 45 forgot more stuff then you'll go to your grave with. He's provided many cast shooters with great bullet designs that really work well. The only ones on the forum that get on him are the ones that don't understand, like you, and rub him the wrong way which results in no proven tricks from him. I've learned a lot from 45. I talked to Bass on the phone and he said that mould you lent him cast a piss poor bullet. I believe his not posting so much is because of your crap. BaBore is another one that has forgotten more then you. He also designs and makes great moulds. Only think you design is BS (yup in this case bullshit not bullet spin).

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
I will not suggest a method of analyzing the data
but if you examine the results of the lever gun performance data you will find that there is some potential for the RPM limit to exist.
This data was not generated to test for such a limit so it would be difficult for it to be biased.


Lever gun performance studies

BTW there is a lot of Lazer cast data here
but it carries a disclaimer to use at your own risk.

Not necessarily. You'll notice on many of those that the upper velocity was smaller. The problem with that test is they used pistol powders and larger loads of that really "shock" the bullet. I looked at particularly the 32 Special. I load a cast with that and get almost factory jacketed velocity with very good accuracy. I don't feel very fast powders such as they used are the best for good accuracy at the higher velocities.

Starmetal,
Not necessarily is true. But in general yes. The answer is clouded by many other variables that affect bullet accuracy. Intuitively you know there has to be some RPM limit. Put a bullet between centers and turn up the RPM and it will eventually fly out of the centers from imbalance or explode. Exactly what that limit is I don't know but it does exist. All that is being discussed here is the limit reached in our shooting.

If you look at ALL the data you will notice a tendency for the groups with the various powders to reach a velocity range and begin to dramatically open up. Not as a 100% rule but as a general tendency. There are other factors at work too. The yield strength of the bullet metal and the fit and finish of the individual bore affects the results.
The levergun data tends to support the RPM limit issue in spite of all the single example nitpicking.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
I will not suggest a method of analyzing the data
but if you examine the results of the lever gun performance data you will find that there is some potential for the RPM limit to exist.
This data was not generated to test for such a limit so it would be difficult for it to be biased.


Lever gun performance studies

BTW there is a lot of Lazer cast data here
but it carries a disclaimer to use at your own risk.

Not necessarily. You'll notice on many of those that the upper velocity was smaller. The problem with that test is they used pistol powders and larger loads of that really "shock" the bullet. I looked at particularly the 32 Special. I load a cast with that and get almost factory jacketed velocity with very good accuracy. I don't feel very fast powders such as they used are the best for good accuracy at the higher velocities.

Starmetal,
Not necessarily is true. But in general yes. The answer is clouded by many other variables that affect bullet accuracy. Intuitively you know there has to be some RPM limit. Put a bullet between centers and turn up the RPM and it will eventually fly out of the centers from imbalance or explode. Exactly what that limit is I don't know but it does exist. All that is being discussed here is the limit reached in our shooting.

If you look at ALL the data you will notice a tendency for the groups with the various powders to reach a velocity range and begin to dramatically open up. Not as a 100% rule but as a general tendency. There are other factors at work too. The yield strength of the bullet metal and the fit and finish of the individual bore affects the results.
The levergun data tends to support the RPM limit issue in spite of all the single example nitpicking.

Simply said if everything is perfect there is no rpm effect. Look at jacketed bullet...any rpm effect there? Contrary to what Larry says about jacketed bullets there has been some very fine shooting at high rpm.

Yes of course if you spin something fast enough it will explode. One reason scatter shields are required around the clutches of 1/4 drag race cars.

You touched on saying what some of the reasons are for inaccuracy at high rpm, or should I say brought out by higher rpm, and that is fit of the bullet, the bore, and more like voids in the bullet, how the bullet is upset upon ignition, (and that's exactly what you have in that lever action chart by using fast burning powders), the alloy strength. You want to take a crack at why paper patched bullets can be shot at very high velocity with good accuracy?

I'm not getting into this! But I lost my formula to figure spin, too much junk in the basement. Can one of you give it to me again?

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
I'm not getting into this! But I lost my formula to figure spin, too much junk in the basement. Can one of you give it to me again?

For those that care, here it is, the Greenhill formula made easy. T= 150 X D divided by R
where T is the twist rate required in inches for one revolution; D is the bullet diameter in inches; R is the bullet length to diameter ratio, ( length divided by diameter).

To determine what length bullet will be stabilized by a given twist rate use: L= 150 X DXD divided by T.

The number 150 is a numerical constant and works at velocities in the area of 1500 fps or greater. At velocities over 2800 f.p.s. use a constant of 180.

Bear in mind that Greenhill derived this formula after experiments found what twist rate worked whit what projectiles.

While useful, the Greenhill formula is not an exact method of determining what twist works best with specific bullets and a specific velocity. The Greenhill Formula is a good guide. Note in a 10” twist 30-06 bullets of 80 to 250 grains can be properly stabilized. A specific bullet will prove the most accurate at one particular RPM. Unless we intend on using one particular bullet, such as in a long range match rifle, the general consensus is to go with a faster twist that stabilizes the heaviest bullet for that cartridge/caliber.


Larry Gibson

BFR- I won't put any spin on this for ya!

Take 720(a constant) times muzzle velocity then divide by the rate of twist, this equals the spin in rpm's(revolutions per min)

223 in savage 1 in 9 twist barrel

720x3100=2232000
2232000 divided by 9=248000 rpm

quote:

Look at jacketed bullet...any rpm effect there?

Jacketed bullets do not have voids due to the swaging process. So any RPM effect would probably be very small compared to cast bullets.
Can you say there is NO as in NEVER any RPM affect? I think not. You just don't shoot jacketed bullets fast enough to reach it.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Look at jacketed bullet...any rpm effect there?

Jacketed bullets do not have voids due to the swaging process. So any RPM effect would probably be very small compared to cast bullets.
Can you say there is NO as in NEVER any RPM affect? I think not. You just don't shoot jacketed bullets fast enough to reach it.

4759; I would agree with your statement, but this discussion was about a rpm threshold for cast bullets. So if you can shoot a paper patched cast bullet to 3000 fps and achieve accuracy, why does the same cast bullet fail to deliver same accuracy at 500 fps less. They are both cast bullets, and the paper patched bullet looses its patch as soon as it leaves the muzzle, so they are the same bullet in flight, so this rules out the internal void theory as to prove the difference in accuracy. It would seem to me that what happens inside the barrel while the gas pressure is being applied to the bullet is what makes the difference. This rpm threshold is 30-40 year old theory, and it was dropped years ago until read and taken up as new by a very few. Heat treatment/tempering of lead alloys as pertaining to shooting cast bullets has come a long way thanks to guys like Dennis Marshall, Veral and others. I believe 20 years ago or more some were experimenting and shooting CAST zinc bullets to full factory velocities in magnum rifles, that's a cast bullet. Now any reasonable person can read what I just wrote and find no reason to disagree, so no please, it does no good to the learning process.

quote:

So if you can shoot a paper patched cast bullet to 3000 fps and achieve accuracy, why does the same cast bullet fail to deliver same accuracy at 500 fps less. They are both cast bullets, and the paper patched bullet looses its patch as soon as it leaves the muzzle, so they are the same bullet in flight

Why are you changing the subject?
My comments are as on topic as yours.
A paper patched bullet doe not have any metal being driven by the surface of the barrel.
Basically it is a bullet with a paper sabot.
It is also a nearly unused bullet technology and hardly worth discussion except in relation to BPCR. A paper patched bullet is not necessarily cast, it can easily be swaged.

Not changing any subject, the ones used in test were CAST not swaged. Paper patching is used by thousands of people to shoot cast bullets in center fire modern smokeless rifles, I know five that live within 20 miles of me and can find hundreds on the net using PP in everthing from 300 savage to 458 winchester. You help develop this revolutionary theory of Larry's? Or have you ACTUALLY ever cast, loaded and shot any?

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:
Not changing any subject, the ones used in test were CAST not swaged. Paper patching is used by thousands of people to shoot cast bullets in center fire modern smokeless rifles, I know five that live within 20 miles of me and can find hundreds on the net using PP in everthing from 300 savage to 458 winchester. You help develop this revolutionary theory of Larry's? Or have you ACTUALLY ever cast, loaded and shot any?

Paper patching is used by exactly how many shooters on a regular basis in all their shooting for all their cartridges?
Probably exactly none.

So how many paper patched or cast bullets do YOU claim you have shot at over 3000fps?

How many jacketed bullets do you think I have
fired through my 45-70s, 40-65 and 38-55?

As I said before comparing a paper saboted bullet to a cast bullet that is driven through the rifling is silly. The rotational forces are applied to the paper not the metal. Using the appropriate sabot you might be able to drive a lead dart 4000 FPS with no rifling necessary.
But it proves noting of any practical consequence.

quote:

How many jacketed bullets do you think I have
fired through my 45-70s, 40-65 and 38-55?

Don't know, don't care! I don't even know if you own a rifle, cast or reload. I do know that you attempt to put the "Gibson spin" on things, and that leads me to believe you are full of more shit than a Christmas goose. SR 4759, hum that's probably the only powder you've ever tried with a cast bullet, no wonder myour stuck in that low velocity rpm range.

swheeler

Here is the "Gibson spin". 4759 is correct, you are wrong. A PP'd bullet is simply bridging the gap between a regular cast bullet and a jacketed bullet. It is a paper saboted bullet. It increases the threshold for the "cast" bullet inside the paper jacket because the bad things that happen to the cast bullet in the barrel (yo uare correct in that is where it happens) don't happen to the degree that they do with regular cast bullets. The PP'd cast bullet, with some hard alloys, is probably reaching it threshold over 3,000 fps. A jacketed bullet probably is pushed fast enough to reach it's threshold based on RPM as 4759 says.

Run the simple test as I have asked Starmetal to run with a regular cast bullet. You will see the results when the bullet passes through the RPM threhold..

Unlike you, 4759 and I are trying to present logic and facts (I do slip now and then, eh) presenting our thoughts. You, on the other hand, resort to continual personal attack. That is a lame way to conduct a discussion.

Larry Gibson

Larry just poking fun, just like you do. I think all I ever tried to get across to you was you could greatly exceed your rpm threshold by using a few new(and I use NEW loosely-they've been around many-many years)technologies like I stated before. I did a post to get you to realize that a different bhn is required for two bullets of different diameter to be used at the same pressure, the 22-45 post, but it appeared to me you never got the point(now I know you-so don't try to spin this- because all the other things apply to that I have previously mentioned, bullet fit/design, powder speed/ pressure curve, bore condition, lube etc. When some one just wants to argue, but not understand anything that doesn't agree with their idea, I just say F em, let them learn on their own. In your high velocity/rpm tests you were using bullets of 20 bhn and lower, hell I've been heat treating into 30+bhn for years. Now for the important part- what happened to your internal void/imbalance theory as limiting factor? I know what happened, it didn't fly because of the paper patched bullet not being affected enough to ruin accuracy/ so your answer- paper patched doesn't count? Quite a guy you are Larry, a "spin doctor" pun intended. Just the facts mam, just the facts.

Posted 18 January 2009 22:51 Hide Post
just for comparison sake. from the article
130 gr cast-nei 130-277 mold
56.0 gr I 4831- 2987 fps- 1.13" group

from my own notes
130 Sierra pro hunter
56.0 I4831- 2974 fps- 1.250" group

Hum, that's 215,064 rpms on that cast bullet, what do you say Larry, 4759, Idabull?

Kinda hard to "spin" that one eh boyz but I am sure you will try, eh.

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:
Larry just poking fun, just like you do. I think all I ever tried to get across to you was you could greatly exceed your rpm threshold by using a few new(and I use NEW loosely-they've been around many-many years)technologies like I stated before. I did a post to get you to realize that a different bhn is required for two bullets of different diameter to be used at the same pressure, the 22-45 post, but it appeared to me you never got the point(now I know you-so don't try to spin this- because all the other things apply to that I have previously mentioned, bullet fit/design, powder speed/ pressure curve, bore condition, lube etc. When some one just wants to argue, but not understand anything that doesn't agree with their idea, I just say F em, let them learn on their own. In your high velocity/rpm tests you were using bullets of 20 bhn and lower, hell I've been heat treating into 30+bhn for years. Now for the important part- what happened to your internal void/imbalance theory as limiting factor? I know what happened, it didn't fly because of the paper patched bullet not being affected enough to ruin accuracy/ so your answer- paper patched doesn't count? Quite a guy you are Larry, a "spin doctor" pun intended. Just the facts mam, just the facts.

"because all the other things apply to that I have previously mentioned, bullet fit/design, powder speed/ pressure curve, bore condition, lube etc."

This is all correct. I knew that before the test. The test was siply to demonstrate the RPM threshold and then I proceded to test all the things and more that you mention to demostrate how to push the RPM theshold higher. I believe it is you, and a couple others, who failed to pay attention to what I did in fact do. You and the others have continually kept at the same old tired arguments that I agree with. For what reason; it is you who apparently like to argue. It is you who do not understand the simple idea. I agree with you, Starmetal, Bass, 45 2.1 and even BaBore in that we can do some things to push the RPM threshold higher. That is not "spin", it is fact. I do not understand why you guys continue to think the RPM threshold is a limit. It is not. I know it is not. It is you who do not understand and do not know it is not.

You also failed to read and understand the part where I contined the test with not only linotype but WQ'd linotype which is BHN 28-32. Yet you continue with the same old misinformed crap; "In your high velocity/rpm tests you were using bullets of 20 bhn and lower, hell I've been heat treating into 30+bhn for years." Well no shit sherlock, so have I. Go back and read what I've written. Besides, so I use alloys hardened to 28-32 BHN and also catch hell from several because the alloy is to hard! You all should get together and line your ducks up or at least be consistant in your arguments. Fact is; my tests ran the gamit of BHN from 18 up through the 28-32. Same result; the RPM threshold caught up with the bullets.

What "internal void/imbalance theory"? Other than internal voids do cause imbalances (I suppose you'll argue against that one too!) I've posed no "therory" on that as it is common fact and known by most everyone except perhaps you.

Apaper patched bullet is not a regular cast bullet (thats why there is a seperate forum on Cast Bullet Forums for them), as a copper banded bullet is not a regular cast bullet and is why a jacketed bullet is not a regualr cast bullet (many have their cores "cast" in you know). That is not "spin" it is fact. Everyone here see's who is "spinning" the facts ; you and Starmetal.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:
Posted 18 January 2009 22:51 Hide Post
just for comparison sake. from the article
130 gr cast-nei 130-277 mold
56.0 gr I 4831- 2987 fps- 1.13" group

from my own notes
130 Sierra pro hunter
56.0 I4831- 2974 fps- 1.250" group

Hum, that's 215,064 rpms on that cast bullet, what do you say Larry, 4759, Idabull?

Kinda hard to "spin" that one eh boyz but I am sure you will try, eh.

From the Wilks article? If so just more fine results from banded bullets. Too bad they can't do that with regualar cast bullets. Just more "spin" on your part.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:
Posted 18 January 2009 22:51 Hide Post
just for comparison sake. from the article
130 gr cast-nei 130-277 mold
56.0 gr I 4831- 2987 fps- 1.13" group

from my own notes
130 Sierra pro hunter
56.0 I4831- 2974 fps- 1.250" group

Hum, that's 215,064 rpms on that cast bullet, what do you say Larry, 4759, Idabull?

Kinda hard to "spin" that one eh boyz but I am sure you will try, eh.

From the Wilks article? If so just more fine results from banded bullets. Too bad they can't do that with regualar cast bullets. Just more "spin" on your part.

Larry Gibson

You said there somemore fine results from banded bullets. Then why can't someone do that with regular cast? I did, out of my 7mm-08 for one. Before you answer let me say you apparently, from the above statement, accepted that shooters fine banded bullet shooting. Well go back and look at his groups, they are not all the same. Then you'll say I don't get consistent groups because of a flier. Even with my flier my groups are the same or smaller then some of his. In not way saying I'm better then him or shoot better then him.

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:
Posted 18 January 2009 22:51 Hide Post
just for comparison sake. from the article
130 gr cast-nei 130-277 mold
56.0 gr I 4831- 2987 fps- 1.13" group

from my own notes
130 Sierra pro hunter
56.0 I4831- 2974 fps- 1.250" group

Hum, that's 215,064 rpms on that cast bullet, what do you say Larry, 4759, Idabull?

Kinda hard to "spin" that one eh boyz but I am sure you will try, eh.

From the Wilks article? If so just more fine results from banded bullets. Too bad they can't do that with regualar cast bullets. Just more "spin" on your part.

Larry Gibson

You said there somemore fine results from banded bullets. Then why can't someone do that with regular cast? I did, out of my 7mm-08 for one. Before you answer let me say you apparently, from the above statement, accepted that shooters fine banded bullet shooting. Well go back and look at his groups, they are not all the same. Then you'll say I don't get consistent groups because of a flier. Even with my flier my groups are the same or smaller then some of his. In not way saying I'm better then him or shoot better then him.

Starmetal

"Then why can't someone do that with regular cast?"

Because those loads exceed the RPM threshold. That's why the author got "The first 5-shot group with the standard bullet scattered over 6.5" at 100 yards form a solid benchrest."

Run the test with the 7-08 as I've asked numerous times. Use a regular cast bullet, I don't care which one. Run the test from 1600 fps up through 2600-2800 fps(?) in about 100 fps increents. We can do the math on RPM. Shoot 5 shot groups. Use any powder, GCs, lube, ally, etc. you want. Chronograph each 5 shot group. Then come back with the groups and velocities and we'll discuss your' 7-08 and your claims.

Larry Gibson

Larry; you're spewing out of both sides of you mouth and both ends now. Change the rules to fit your theory huh, change, change, change, hell you got Obama beat!

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:
Larry; you're spewing out of both sides of you mouth and both ends now. Change the rules to fit your theory huh, change, change, change, hell you got Obama beat!

swheeler

So why don't you give us a defintion (aka "rules) for the RPM threshold. It's obvious you don't understand it either. You add no facts or information to the thread, only personal attacks that tell all about you lack of integrity.

Larry Gibson

Larry; I can not define something that does not exist, other than saying it is imaginary.

Besides you can't decide if it is a threshold or a limit..........
but if you examine the results of the lever gun performance data you will find that there is some potential for the RPM limit to exist.
I guess there is one way I can explain it