quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

We shot 18000 rounds of 50 cal ammo during
a contract. The guns were sighted in and function tested at 100 yards
and averaged 1.5 moa groups. When these same guns were tested at 600
yards you would expect the groups to run 1.5 moa or 9 inches. The 600
yard targets ran as small as 3 inches and never any larger than 6 inches
as an average. Any that shot larger than 9 inches were inspected and re
tested.

Joe

Another stupid analogy (beginning to think your father was indeed correct). I don't know where you got that from. Some facts in there but based on the quote above I call BS

18000 rounds during a "contact" indicate M2 HMGs were used. Also with 4/1 ball/tracer. Now I've shot one hell of a lot of M2s in 40 years in the Army and 1.5 moa? Give us a break. Ain't going to happen even on single shot. Hell, Single shot, bolt action and Barret M82s won't do that with issue ball. Based on that I lend absolutely no credence to your entire analogy as it's all suspect as BS

Why don't you take a few years and study those book I mentioned without any of your stupd, moronic analogies. You might learn something.......I doubt it but you jut might.......

Larry Gibson

Your explanation to Gear is pure jibberish. You're still stuck in kindergarden cast reloading by stating unbalanced bulletswhich can be caused by many factors. You're so dumb you can't get that if the bullets are balanced they can shoot accurately.

Of course you knew more then the .224 testers with the multiple rifles with various twists. That comes as no surprise to me from a person with so much bravido.

Yeah you didn't know who done the those test which include the 50 caliber stuff because, well, you're dumb. You also did not comprehend the Fluid Dynamics book, nor did you comment on it (because it was way over your Army schooling and other factors)because you read it wrong. They told you something there but it passed in your one ear, through the vacuum, and out the other ear.

As a note I wonder if CB forum admins know you log into Accurate first and spend a lot of time here? Looks good for your Golden Bullet award wouldn't you say.

Hey where's your equally dumb friends? Oh, you got them all banned. How nice of you. Last, but not least, the emoticons are for children, that's why you use them so well.

Gibby, here's a question for you that with you education level you should be able to answer. With all the bull you claim that happens to these supposedly over spun bullet at close distance...at what distance you claiming they show up?????? I know the answer, want to see if you do.

What's another word for Larry Gibson= I concur.


I concur with Dutchman on the earlier 87 gr bullets being too thin for top end velocities in the fast twist 65. Swede. I had them blow up also as did the earlier Hornady 100 gr bullets when pushed above 3000 fps. I assumed the ones you had were made in the last 20 years of so, my bad. If they are older then push them slower as Dutchman mentions.

I also agree with you to use what you've got. Suggest H4895 as you can load down to 60% case capacity and work up to what shoots well with the bullets you have and your rifle. Shouldn't take a lot of work for a good load.

Larry Gibson

More paraphrasing Gibby? Kissing Swedes ass? You assumed he had the older bullets. Maybe that's that the problem with you, you assume too much. You even assume you're smarter then all the ballistic engineers in the world. You assume you are the best of cast bullet reloaders and shooters. You assume you read those over your head books right. You assume and falsely concocted your rpm threshold bullshit and have caused the poor CB forum so much grief in the past years. Go tell your three friends they were banned since that means so much to you. You're a has been and washed up Gibby. Perhaps why you got the Golden Bullet award. Take a look at the majority of the people that agree with you on CB...very very amateur and beginner cast reloaders. What a following. LOL

Lamar,

I see some talk about case neck spliting. I use to have that occurrence in past but took steps to correct it. Most my sizing dies are bushing dies and I only size the case necks the amount needed and no more. I don't like annealing because frankly you have to have some hardness for bullet tension. If you dead anneal, or even near it, your necks are very soft. I do what some call "draw" the neck. Now when I get a neck split it is truly because my brass has reached the end of it life.

Larry,I plagerized nothing, I simply put into my own words some very well-known, well-documented concepts in exterior ballistics. I also put that in the perspective of your theory, and show you why your idea only applies to crappy bullets and loading/launching techniques. I didn't know I needed to provide you with a list of references in MLA format to not be considered a copy-paster or whatever you think I am.

Since you're prone to be calling people "Stupid" or "morons" lately, let me point out that you STILL don't indicate that you understood anything I said about "centrifugal" forces vs. the magnus and wind forces. Overspinning results in damping of vibrations, unless your bullets are so badly out of whack that nothing can stabilize them.

Also, you are wrong about dynamic stability. A bullet that begins to corkscrew in an increasing fashion IS NOT DYNAMICALLY STABLE BY DEFINITION. If in fact a bullet does trace such a path due to a static balance issue (air void, launch damage, etc.) as the RPM theory dictates, it ain't stable in any fashion and you can't expect it to fly straight. Like I said, the RPM theory only applies to bullets that aren't launched correctly.

"I'll bet the "damage" was lessoned by reducing the velocity/RPM.". Actually Larry, it was NOT. it was "lessoned" (SIC, misspellings and typos happen to all of us, especially when we're in a hurry, but you consistently botch that one) by learning how to shoot them. Some tricks and techniques that you have yet to pick up on, the sort of things 45 2.1 has been telling you about for many years now but you are so caught up in RPM that you have disregarded anything he has tried to tell you about accurate, HV cast bullet shooting. I have listened, and everything he told me is spot-on, and I realized that fixing the internal stuff makes the RPM of the bullet irrelevant (my words, not his or anyone else's). Static balance (top-quality bullets) is only part of the key to accuracy at any speed.

"Then why aren't we all shooting cast as fast and as accurately as jacketed? We aren't and there are sound scientific reasons why were are not (yet)." That's funny right there Larry! Did you forget that SOME people ARE there, and they've been posting on this thread? Those who realize the true causes of the HV monsters and the techniques needed to beat them. You'll also discover that they look at the whole picture, not just the external model.

Gear

It's not that Gibby is hung up on his bullshit rpm threshold, it's that he want's to be "Top Dog" on CB forum. After all he knows more about shooting cast, hell anything even a sling shot, then anyone else on the whole internet. Why for him to listen and learn something would be admitting he isn't Top Dog and knows everything there is. So he would rather run all of us down, get three of his friends banned (they were expendable huh Larry?)what ever it takes including calling us morons and stupid. He also is selective on which questions he will answer. Most here go unanswered by him.

So I ask again, Gibby, at what distance are talking about the bullshit rpm threshold takes effect?

quote:

This is self evident because you run right back hear and post the crap you do here as you can’t post it there. Pretty immature……

Really? Immature? I'd love to post in intelligent discussions about HV shooting there, but none can take place because you and your little trolls make certain that all of them instantly turn into a kindergarten mudfight. Blammer's .308 thread is a perfect example. One of these days the staff over there is going to have enough of this disruptive behavior and start cleaning house. Real mature you and your pack of little weasels that are only experts in shooting-off their mouths.

You seem to love it here because you can call us 'stupid' and 'moron' and get away with it, rather than trying to carry on an intelligent discussion. Such remarks would get you booted off the CB forum so fast it would make your head spin.

Gear

Just over on CB forum at 6.29 pm EST and don't see Larry logged in there, but he's HERE!!!

yessir it would.


joe, i see where you are goin with the brass thing.


i have been wondering lately about brass quality and reloading components in general.
reports of bags of brass having 20+% bad brass.
winchester changing the formula on their AA hulls so they are junk.
federal starting to crimp many of thier primer pockets. inconsistency's in brass thickness,quality,annealing etc.
plus the american gun company's all being bought by other company's and them all going corporate.
cci,speer owned by atk.
win by FNH
rem owns marlin,bushmaster.
and in turn owned by the same company that owns barnes.
IMR,and win powders handled by hodgdons.
blah,blah,blah.
no competition,no incentive to get better.
see what i mean?

quote:

Originally posted by Geargnasher:
Really? Immature? I'd love to post in intelligent discussions about HV shooting there, but none can take place because you and your little trolls make certain that all of them instantly turn into a kindergarten mudfight. Blammer's .308 thread is a perfect example. One of these days the staff over there is going to have enough of this disruptive behavior and start cleaning house. Real mature you and your pack of little weasels that are only experts in shooting-off their mouths.

You seem to love it here because you can call us 'stupid' and 'moron' and get away with it, rather than trying to carry on an intelligent discussion. Such remarks would get you booted off the CB forum so fast it would make your head spin.

Gear

Larry's problem, beyond some other nasty things he does, is that he isn't well schooled enough to understand what is being related in those books he quotes. You really need a well rounded background in the engineering disciplines to see what they are really talking about.... not what he or other three week wonders think they're saying. Knowing most of your history Larry, nothing shows that you know that. Calling people names and belittling them really cements your LACK OF UNDERSTANDING about what does happen and why. See if you can talk like an educated well versed individual instead of the lowlife manner in which you have been conducting yourself.

joe

“Your explanation to Gear is pure jibberish. You're still stuck in kindergarden cast reloading by stating unbalanced bulletswhich can be caused by many factors. You're so dumb you can't get that if the bullets are balanced they can shoot accurately.”

The stupidity of that statement is self evident joe. The RPM threshold is what happens to accuracy while in flight. You are also still stuck in the barrel. Go back through this thread and see how many times I have mentioned the trick to pushing the RPM Threshold up is to keep the bullet as balanced as possible in casting, design, loading and during acceleration. The better the balance of the bullet during such the higher the RPM threshold is. The worse the balance is the lower the RPM threshold is. You and gear are saying the same thing but you just can’t understand it.

“Of course you knew more then the .224 testers with the multiple rifles with various twists.”

Never said I knew more, said my tests were conducted to demonstrated one thing; the dynamic stability of the bullets through the actual measurement of the BCs. I also did not use a bullet that was, at best, minimally stable in all but one twist and would skew the results with bad accuracy. That was indeed a poor test and a stupid moronic analogy to use joe.

“Yeah you didn't know who done the those test which include the 50 caliber stuff because, well, you're dumb. You also did not comprehend the Fluid Dynamics book,”

That’s your usual way to kiss of something you posted that is wrong. I could care less where in the internet you surfed to find it or who posted it. Wouldn’t surprise me if you made it up as the accuracy claim is pure joe BS.

I did comprehend the Fluid Dynamics paper. Have to admit it took a while and I did consult a couple ballisticians and even a rocket scientist but I do understand it. That’s much more than you can say. I also understand the other two works. YOU ASKED FOR THOSE joe, repeatedly. Now that I gave them to you you can’t understand them so you criticize me again for your own stupidity and failure. Quite obvious to everyone joe.

“As a note I wonder if CB forum admins know you log into Accurate first and spend a lot of time here? Looks good for your Golden Bullet award wouldn't you say.”

I doubt they care as it’s none of their business what occurs here. I suppose you’ll “snitch” me off like you did all the others. Trouble is you be snitching off gear (it’s he who has the Golden Bullet joe, not me. (Another stupid moronic analogy joe), 45 2.1 and carpetman1 also…………besides, is it really the business of the admin of other forums how much time any of us spend on another forum? Go ahead and tattle tale just like a moron would, your father was right.

“With all the bull you claim that happens to these supposedly over spun bullet at close distance...at what distance you claiming they show up?????? I know the answer, want to see if you do. “

Just another of your stupid bait questions that everyone sees through. If you knew the answer joe you would be rubbing my nose in it. The fact you aren’t tells everyone you are full of BS. So if you know the answer then pray tell us?

In your brain joe has it occurred to you that by asking the range at which the “bull” happens that you are admitting that “the bull” does happen? …..no, we thought you didn’t know or understand that about your own question. Stupid joe, stupid……..

“It's not that Gibby is hung up on his bullshit rpm threshold, it's that he want's to be "Top Dog" on CB forum”

So that’s what is really burning you’re a** joe? You thought you were the top dog on the CBF but you aren’t. You aren’t because they wouldn’t tolerate your BS anymore and banned you. No, gear has the Golden Bullet award, must make him the top dog……….

Tell us the answer to your question joe, then we can surf the net and come up with something stupid like you do. That is, if you know the answer to your own question like you claim. You might also study those 3 works as you might learn something, doubtful but perhaps.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by 45 2.1:
Larry's problem, beyond some other nasty things he does, is that he isn't well schooled enough to understand what is being related in those books he quotes. You really need a well rounded background in the engineering disciplines to see what they are really talking about.... not what he or other three week wonders think they're saying. Knowing most of your history Larry, nothing shows that you know that. Calling people names and belittling them really cements your LACK OF UNDERSTANDING about what does happen and why. See if you can talk like an educated well versed individual instead of the lowlife manner in which you have been conducting yourself.

Oh pray tell bob, what IS my history that you know so much about?

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
Oh pray tell bob, what IS my history that you know so much about?
Larry Gibson

Just the tripe that you've been putting out. You've told most of it yourself trying to bouy your image. But, that isn't working now.... so you attack.

I wouldn't tell you what time of the day it is Gibby alone the answer to my question to you which you again did not answer.

One more time for you that Fluid Dynamics book wasn't about bullets, although bullets do travel through air which in a science sense is a fluid to the bullet.

Yeah I believe you did consult someone about understanding that book because like I said you sure didn't understand it.

Damn right I'll turn someone one in that sent me the most vulgar degrading and terrible things one person could say to another. That was your friend swheeler. You saw what Pat I did. He committed forum suicide to tell DRG what to do with this forum. As for your friend onceabull he shouldn't go around saying I sent him death threats which I did not.

Now are you making accusations about my father? You said something to that effect in your last post. Isn't that kind of a personal attack bringing my father into this thread when he has nothing to do with it and the wonderful man has been deceased a good number of years? Have I ever said anything about your parents? Maybe I should have DRG look at that and see if he thinks that is a personal attack or not.

The Golden Bullet award thing IS about you. Not Gear. You were put up for it, and poor Runfiverun along with you. To bad he wassn't put up alone. You got shot down. Let's say you're not made of the material required of such an award.

I could care less about CB. This is all virtual reality Gibby, but to it's for real I imagine.

Last but not least you got your friends banded I didn't. You're like one political party blaming another political party member of all the bad things you done yourself. Not me. They done things that warranted banning. They done it for you. You should have told them to stay out of it, but you can't fight your fights alone and you can't do it without name calling. No emoticons this time Gibby??

Oh I forgot. Another wonderful technical and educating post by Gibson. I could do the same thing you do Gibby. I could say Ford, or Chevy, or Chrysler are bad cars....and never explain why. Just attack the people that demand my reasoning for such statements. Then I could tell them "Just read Car & Driver, or read Hot Rod" and say "that is if you're smart enough to understand them" and go to say "You're stupid so you won't be able to understand them". That's how you operate Gibby. You're a has been and washed up. I do believe your days are numbered on CB. Folks are getting fed up and sick of it. 4895 and Dacron.

quote:

Originally posted by Geargnasher:

quote:

This is self evident because you run right back hear and post the crap you do here as you can’t post it there. Pretty immature……

Really? Immature? I'd love to post in intelligent discussions about HV shooting there, but none can take place because you and your little trolls make certain that all of them instantly turn into a kindergarten mudfight. Blammer's .308 thread is a perfect example. One of these days the staff over there is going to have enough of this disruptive behavior and start cleaning house. Real mature you and your pack of little weasels that are only experts in shooting-off their mouths.

You seem to love it here because you can call us 'stupid' and 'moron' and get away with it, rather than trying to carry on an intelligent discussion. Such remarks would get you booted off the CB forum so fast it would make your head spin.

Gear

Really gear, quite imature. There have have been several intelligent discusions on the CBF regarding HV shooting and there still are. Blammer's thread perhaps dies because he took it else where where he didn't have to put up with the garbage you and 45 2.1 were once again putting out. Your BS statements didn't help either.

Yes, some of us do shoot cast bullets at HV successfuly. However we do not shoot regular cast bullets of common design at HV. We also do not shoot specifically designed cast bullets at the HV of most cartridges potential with equal accuracy. You know that, I know that and everyone else knows that. There is a reason we don't.

Your plagarized dissertation was about exterior ballistics. You failed to tell us the relationship between centrafugal force and the magnus force. That was a serious omission in your plagarization. It's obvious why you omitted it. The effect of wind has nothing to do with either as it is an external force (the other two are internal force; internal and external here refer to the bullet itself in flight) which tells me you really don't understand what you plagarized.

I'm calling joe "stupid" because of his anologies which are stupid. His father called him a moron (he told me so on the phone) and I'm only suggesting that perhaps his father was correct.

Also, you are wrong about dynamic stability. A bullet that begins to corkscrew in an increasing fashion IS NOT DYNAMICALLY STABLE BY DEFINITION. If in fact a bullet does trace such a path due to a static balance issue (air void, launch damage, etc.) as the RPM theory dictates, it ain't stable in any fashion and you can't expect it to fly straight. Like I said, the RPM theory only applies to bullets that aren't launched correctly.

Where specifically, in writing please, does the RPM Threshold state that? Maybe I am calling you stupid because that is another one of your stupid statements. Bullets that do corkscrew and are over the RPM threshold do indeed fly point on and are still dynamically stable. Simply another very wrong statement by you, consistent with those made on the CBF that I call you on.

You really don't want to be petty besides imature and get into spelling, grammer and puncuation corrections on each other do you? You failed to have the common courtesy of answering my PM (CBF) and post your BS here.

Come back with an intelligent discusion, comments or dissertation of how centrifugal force effects the accuracy of bullets, cast or jacketed, and we can discuss it.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by 45 2.1:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
Oh pray tell bob, what IS my history that you know so much about?
Larry Gibson

Just the tripe that you've been putting out. You've told most of it yourself trying to bouy your image. But, that isn't working now.... so you attack.

So you know nothing of me, my education, experience or what I know do you......just your usual BS is all.....you fool no one......

Larry Gibson

quote:

Now are you making accusations about my father? You said something to that effect in your last post. Isn't that kind of a personal attack bringing my father into this thread when he has nothing to do with it and the wonderful man has been deceased a good number of years? Have I ever said anything about your parents? Maybe I should have DRG look at that and see if he thinks that is a personal attack or not.

Not making it up at all. You told me your father said you were a moron in one of our phone conversations. You said you understood why I and many others didn't understand the things you came up with because your father didn't either. You laughed when you said he always called you a moron after such. Go ahead and tell DRG, he probably already knows anyway.

I make absolutely no accusations against your father, actually I tend to agree with him. He must have been a smart man.

Larry Gibson

quote:

I'm calling joe "stupid" because of his anologies which are stupid. His father called him a moron (he told me so on the phone) and I'm only suggesting that perhaps his father was correct.

That is a blatant lie and you know it. My father was one of the nicest person's I've ever known and a religious man too. A moderator on CB called me a moron and he eventually got his moderator title taken away from him. That is what I told you many years ago on the phone. There is also a poster in this thread who knows about that and it's not 45 2.1.

I think that qualifies as a personal attack. Maybe I'll submit it.

I could very well do the same thing Gibby, just like the politicians do. Say you told me something on the phone. You have NO credibility.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
So you know nothing of me, my education, experience or what I know do you......just your usual BS is all.....you fool no one......
Larry Gibson

Well Larry .... since you say I know nothing of you, that leads me to believe that whatever you have said about yourself on several forums over more than the last five years has been made up by you. Your education, or lack thereof is evident from the way you speak and the attacks you make. Your posts tell a lot of your demeanor and character........ and that is evident to most people who read your posts.

Larry Gibson--You mentioned me in a post and frankly I don't understand what you were saying. Would you break it down so that maybe I'll know?

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by Geargnasher:

quote:

This is self evident because you run right back hear and post the crap you do here as you can’t post it there. Pretty immature……

Really? Immature? I'd love to post in intelligent discussions about HV shooting there, but none can take place because you and your little trolls make certain that all of them instantly turn into a kindergarten mudfight. Blammer's .308 thread is a perfect example. One of these days the staff over there is going to have enough of this disruptive behavior and start cleaning house. Real mature you and your pack of little weasels that are only experts in shooting-off their mouths.

You seem to love it here because you can call us 'stupid' and 'moron' and get away with it, rather than trying to carry on an intelligent discussion. Such remarks would get you booted off the CB forum so fast it would make your head spin.

Gear

Really gear, quite imature. There have have been several intelligent discusions on the CBF regarding HV shooting and there still are. Blammer's thread perhaps dies because he took it else where where he didn't have to put up with the garbage you and 45 2.1 were once again putting out. Your BS statements didn't help either. What BS statements? All I did was recommend 45 2.1's "30 sil" group buy mould to Blammer and correct some misunderstandings about a design of my own. Where is the BS? Might I remind you you're after one of those same moulds, too? Let's not forget what you and Onceabull said before I even posted, THAT was pure BS,or rather, harassment.

Yes, some of us do shoot cast bullets at HV successfuly. However we do not shoot regular cast bullets of common design at HV. We also do not shoot specifically designed cast bullets at the HV of most cartridges potential with equal accuracy. You know that, I know that and everyone else knows that. There is a reason we don't. I get it. The RPM Monster!

Your plagarized dissertation was about exterior ballistics. I don't get you. That isn't plagiarism. It's discussion of generally understood phemomena. Just like if I told you that retarding the exhaust valve timing of a 4-cycle engine will reduce the efficiency of the scavenging effect and negate the need for an EGR valve. Techinical discussion about concepts already discovered, known, and understood. I take no credit for the discovery and field confirmation of those external ballistics studies. You failed to tell us the relationship between centrafugal force and the magnus force. I figured an expert like you would know that, and I said so at the time. That was a serious omission in your plagarization. It's obvious why you omitted it. The effect of wind has nothing to do with either as it is an external force (the other two are internal force; internal and external here refer to the bullet itself in flight) which tells me you really don't understand what you plagarized. Sighhhh... Wind force (not THE wind) across the rotating nose creates pressure differences on the nose of the bullet called the Magnus effect. A spinning bullet creates the gyroscopic effect, similar to gravity. The magnus force pushes against the nose of a yawing bullet, attempting to turn it more in the direction of the yaw because it acts on the bullet at a point ahead of the center of gravity, pushing toward the yaw at the center of pressure. Due to a unique feature of the gyroscopic effect, the gyroscope reacts against this applied force, which turns the bullet nose against the yaw. This dampens yaw, and the balance of these two forces creates the thing we call "dynamic stability". The "relationship" is that rotating mass is responsible for creating microgravity, or centripetal force, that makes the gyroscopic effect possible, and this is in balance against the magnus force when such force is created by bullet yaw.

I'm calling joe "stupid" because of his anologies which are stupid. His father called him a moron (he told me so on the phone) and I'm only suggesting that perhaps his father was correct.

Also, you are wrong about dynamic stability. A bullet that begins to corkscrew in an increasing fashion IS NOT DYNAMICALLY STABLE BY DEFINITION. If in fact a bullet does trace such a path due to a static balance issue (air void, launch damage, etc.) as the RPM theory dictates, it ain't stable in any fashion and you can't expect it to fly straight. Like I said, the RPM theory only applies to bullets that aren't launched correctly.

Where specifically, in writing please, does the RPM Threshold state that? Maybe I am calling you stupid because that is another one of your stupid statements. So proceed to contradict it rather than calling me names. Bullets that do corkscrew and are over the RPM threshold do indeed fly point on and are still dynamically stable. How about some citations there? Simply another very wrong statement by you, consistent with those made on the CBF that I call you on. Dynamic stability is lost when the magnus force acts at a point at or behind the GG, allowing the bullet to turn further into the yaw, at which point it will eventually fly sideways. It has nothing to do with statically unbalanced bullets, which is what your theory is all about. So no, what you said about unbalanced bullets and dynamic balance is still wrong.

You really don't want to be petty besides imature and get into spelling, grammer and puncuation corrections on each other do you? You failed to have the common courtesy of answering my PM (CBF) and post your BS here. Just sick of your repeated misspelling of that particular word, that's all. As for 'common courtesy' of answering your PM, I don't think your bullshit attempt at a truce (which is really the narcissist's tactic of calling up reserve forces to be "on their side" when they lose "friends") deserved any response. You know what I think of you, what you do to threads, the way you treat your "peers", why the hell do you think I'd ever want to make some pact to stop challenging your bullshit? so trying to tell me that we "agree" and to make some sort of "treaty" with me is quite laughable.

Come back with an intelligent discusion, comments or dissertation of how centrifugal force effects the accuracy of bullets, cast or jacketed, and we can discuss it.

Larry Gibson

I gave you the intelligent discussion of the one point worth discussing. The rest of it at this point is keeping your twisted perceptions straightened out. You're like a slinky, look away for two seconds and you get all sorts of tangled up.

Gear

siiiiighghghhhh.
well there's 10 more posts that helps nobody.
but it did break up the dead air time.
it would be a lot more productive to discuss a point/counterpoint rather than lineage...

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
siiiiighghghhhh.
well there's 10 more posts that helps nobody.
but it did break up the dead air time.
it would be a lot more productive to discuss a point/counterpoint rather than lineage...

Lamar, as you know by now the only way to have a conversation with Larry is to agree with him..... otherwise he starts a brow beating session...... and the agreeing part is not going to happen on this topic.

Lamar,

I apologize. There's no way to have a decent conversation with Gibson. It's his we and nobody can shoot cast at HV with accuracy from a fast twist. He says he will have a discuss but it's not the truth. You've see this happen over and over and over and the CB forum. People over there just leave the thread and it dies. They have a fear of being banned and Gibson can bully them. He's done this for years. If there is anything that I can that Gibson does better then anyone including me, is this kind of crap. It's his football and if he can't be quarterback we're not playing.

it's just that we could discuss alloy's,nose shape,time curves,skidding control,burn rate, ignition,buffers [not fillers] neck tension,seating depth,and lube.
we know stuff don't fly perfectly straight,big deal.
let's try and get them to fly as close together as possible.
perhaps another tread is in order to try and filter out the facts'.
before everybody else loses interest in what's the truth and what ain't and actually gains an idea of what to look for if they wanna attept it themselves in thier deer/target/varmint rifle.

just sayin".. y'all are wastin your time argueing.
we all know it.
and there's too much for us all to learn about getting it right.

Gear, joe & 45 2.1

You all had/have an opportunity to be rid of me on this thread; the deal still stands. That you do not take the deal tells us all you are in it just to hear your own BS.

The BS statement refers to the dumb and untrue statements you made on several threads and I called you on CBF. It really pisses you off when someone does that, obviously. The solution, instead of your rants here, would be to quit making stupid statements or learn to admit when you're wrong. Plain for everyone to see I’ve “contradicted" your stupid statements several times on CBF and in this thread.

In your plagiarized discussion of external ballistics you conveniently forget to mention the adverse effect of the centrifugal force. You also forget to mention how nutation enters into it and BTW; "wind effect"? You're making up terms now.......if that doesn't have anything to do with the wind. Magnus and yaw are not what cause the bullet to go off on a tangent or spiral in flight. The bullet is also dynamically stable. For “citations” research the original RPM thread and the discussion with Bass Ackward. You will see groups of non linear expansion with perfectly round holes at various ranges to 200 yards. There are also numerous examples in other threads…… perhaps a smart thing to do in these “discussions” would be to pay better attention to what is said previously. That may help you cut down on the stupid statements. To say the bullets aren’t dynamically stable lends credence to the fact you are plagiarizing, plagiarizing out of context and do not understand what you are, in fact, plagiarizing.

Well, I'll really try to lesson(ed) my misspelling of that particular word just for you, ok? Immature and very petty of you……..

So you don't want a truce? You should/could have simply said so but your childish and immature response here tells us all that anyway. “Narcissist's “ and you accuse me of name calling……….how immature and childish, eh? BTW; you, 45 2.1 and joe certainly are not my peers. It’s why the 3 of you are here with me as the subject of this thread. Sorry, but when the 3 of you really learn something about ballistics and what is scientifically happening then you can call yourself my and my friends “peers”. Until then keep blathering away or take the deal.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Larry Gibson--You mentioned me in a post and frankly I don't understand what you were saying. Would you break it down so that maybe I'll know?

Joe offered to sitch me off (little spoiled brat acting in a moronic fashion) to the moderators at CBF with;

“As a note I wonder if CB forum admins know you log into Accurate first and spend a lot of time here? Looks good for your Golden Bullet award wouldn't you say.”

Because you also post on CBF and have posted in this thread I included you in my response of;

I doubt they care as it’s none of their business what occurs here. I suppose you’ll “snitch” me off like you did all the others. Trouble is you be snitching off gear (it’s he who has the Golden Bullet joe, not me. (Another stupid moronic analogy joe), 45 2.1 and carpetman1 also

Pretty "broken down" as joe would be "snitching" you off for posting on this AR forum also. Who at the CBF would care who posts here anyway? It was just joe's usual spoiled little brat moves. Should anyone at CBF care I would have said you were not really involved, other than attempts at humor, in the thread's main topic (me) at all.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
it's just that we could discuss alloy's,nose shape,time curves,skidding control,burn rate, ignition,buffers [not fillers] neck tension,seating depth,and lube.
we know stuff don't fly perfectly straight,big deal.
let's try and get them to fly as close together as possible.
perhaps another tread is in order to try and filter out the facts'.
before everybody else loses interest in what's the truth and what ain't and actually gains an idea of what to look for if they wanna attept it themselves in thier deer/target/varmint rifle.

just sayin".. y'all are wastin your time argueing.
we all know it.
and there's too much for us all to learn about getting it right.

Lamar

Makes perfect sense to me and I've offered numerous times to discuss just what you mention. I'm in agreement with you.

Larry Gibson

So where do I buy the book ALL ABOUT EXTERNAL BALLISTICS by LARRY GIBSON? While you're autographing that one, autograph me a copy of POST YOUR WAY TO A GOLDEN BULLET AWARD too.

Keep calling me a moron, you're not too far away from the jackpot.

I do have one request. Leave Lamar out of this, or have you already added him to your attack list.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

I'm calling joe "stupid" because of his anologies which are stupid. His father called him a moron (he told me so on the phone) and I'm only suggesting that perhaps his father was correct.

That is a blatant lie and you know it. My father was one of the nicest person's I've ever known and a religious man too. A moderator on CB called me a moron and he eventually got his moderator title taken away from him. That is what I told you many years ago on the phone. There is also a poster in this thread who knows about that and it's not 45 2.1.

I think that qualifies as a personal attack. Maybe I'll submit it.

I could very well do the same thing Gibby, just like the politicians do. Say you told me something on the phone. You have NO credibility.

Now joe, I'm only reporting what you told me. If you want to change the story then that's ok with me but please; calling it a "blatent lie"? Now that just recofirms my fine opinion of your father. He is a smart man. Perhaps you are a moron as you said he said?

Personal attack? Perhaps you should reread some of your posts regarding me before you cry wolf And no, your actions are not "just like politicians", they are like spoiled brats. Yup, your father was indeed a smart man

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
So where do I buy the book ALL ABOUT EXTERNAL BALLISTICS by LARRY GIBSON? While you're autographing that one, autograph me a copy of POST YOUR WAY TO A GOLDEN BULLET AWARD too.

Keep calling me a moron, you're not too far away from the jackpot.

I do have one request. Leave Lamar out of this, or have you already added him to your attack list.

Why joe, I do believe you are insanely jealous.......

If Lamar wants to have an inteligent discussion perhaps it is YOU who should stay out of the discussion to keep it intelligent

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

I'm calling joe "stupid" because of his anologies which are stupid. His father called him a moron (he told me so on the phone) and I'm only suggesting that perhaps his father was correct.

That is a blatant lie and you know it. My father was one of the nicest person's I've ever known and a religious man too. A moderator on CB called me a moron and he eventually got his moderator title taken away from him. That is what I told you many years ago on the phone. There is also a poster in this thread who knows about that and it's not 45 2.1.

I think that qualifies as a personal attack. Maybe I'll submit it.

I could very well do the same thing Gibby, just like the politicians do. Say you told me something on the phone. You have NO credibility.

Now joe, I'm only reporting what you told me. If you want to change the story then that's ok with me but please; calling it a "blatent lie"? Now that just recofirms my fine opinion of your father. He is a smart man. Perhaps you are a moron as you said he said?

Personal attack? Perhaps you should reread some of your posts regarding me before you cry wolf And no, your actions are not "just like politicians", they are like spoiled brats. Yup, your father was indeed a smart man

Larry Gibson

There are no personal attacks by me of you in this thread and you know it.

Okay so how about this one: On numerous occasions talking to Gibson on the phone he told me he made up his rpm threshold and didn't really understand any of the books he read on ballistics. He said that he wanted to appear more knowledgeable on the CB.

Me jealous? Of you? bwahahahahahahahaha Now that one really is funny.

Larry, meet someone you can't beat and on a forum that doesn't protect YOU?

Here's a post on CB of a man that has a PHD in Physics. Larry insulted him as he does everyone he can't out knowledge. Read what the man said back to Larry after the insults (which Larry claims he does not do):

Larry, frankly, you have just begun to irritate me. By all means share your observations, share your data, even share (but don't push) your pet theories. Please do suggest any means of proving or disproving your theories that would actually be experimentally feasible (and the results of which you would consider if they didn't go your way).

But please, dear lord, stop trying to explain the meaning of the word "threshold" in the english language to me. I have several dictionaries, and apparently, I am more acquainted with how to use one than you are. If threshold meant in the english language what you have abused it to mean, then if I were visiting your home I would be upon the threshold to your living room from the time I was in the middle of your front yard until I walked out your back door. 120,000 rpm? No. 140,000 rpm? No. 165,000 rpm? No. 197,000 rpm? No. For goodness sake, the idea of a threshold is that there is some threshold value at which something changes when you pass it! Give the RPM theory a rest in the context of the present discussion in the face of contradictory physical evidence. If nothing else, park the RPM theory and share a map/spreadsheet based on real physical data. We could all add data points to it and together begin to get a more complete picture.

Also, please do not tell me I am misunderstanding what you said RE acceleration vs. caliber when I have your IM in front of me. Your understanding may have evolved, and you may have new theories, but I can read quite clearly what you typed:

(DrB)"i would expect a larger caliber to have a lower rpm limit."

(Larry)Actually I'm finding just the opposite. Reason being on smaller calibers given the size or amount of defect it represents a larger percentage of the bullets weight/mass. Also the farther from the center of spin a defect is the less effect as the rotational velocity is less, hence less centrifugal force.

While you have just represented that you told me you agreed with my assertion, the fact is that after this IM from you I responded by IM with the equation for rotational velocity as a function of radius, and centripetal acceleration as a function of that, and you did not acknowledge it -- you just quietly went away, and I have not received an IM from you since. No biggie -- just please don't always ascribe my disagreement with you to my "misunderstanding." If I say that, it's often because I am being polite. When you say it, particularly when you misrepresent the content of a discussion, it is easy to interpret as you being disingenuous and condescending.

As far as the state of the evidence goes: Dan posted on remarkably high 3600+ fps velocities with cast bullets, no fouling, and so-so accuracy and your reaction was "slow-down, slow-down it's RPM." I was able to replicate Dan's lack of fouling and essentially the same accuracy with the same bullets and lube at lower RPM and velocity, and your reaction was "slow-down, slow-down it's RPM." Dan was able to get one hole accuracy at WAY HIGHER RPM in the same caliber with a different bullet, and you take no notice of this remarkable (but inconvenient to your theory) result. So far the results here span 145,000 to 196,000 rpm, and 2400 to 3600+ fps with a negative correlation between RPM and MOA, and you still say it's the RPM. Well, if our so-so accuracy is the result of your RPM theory (in spite of the mold-half offset I measured, or the mismatch in gascheck/bullet shank diameters, or the negative correlation in the data (MOA is decreasing with increasing RPM)), and as you say, you can observe this nonlinear group expansion effect easily only after 100 yards, then why in heck are you so stuck on our constant MOA accuracy at less than 100 yards being principally attributable to your pet theory?!! How is there anything in the data we have posted that is primarily consistent with your theory as distinct from the umpteen different suspect inaccuracy causes that occur for loads in general or boolits in particular?

Another thing, please do not presume to know my resume regarding ballistics. I'd hazard to guess there's only one of us here (between the two of us -- I make no assumptions about the membership at large!) who's written Runge-Kutta ballistics integrators, performed CFD on a bullet design, written a navier-stokes flow solver, performed thermochemical equilibrium calculations, knows what an "ensemble statistic" is as it relates to calculating high temperature properties of a gas, has solved for the principle rotational axes and moments of inertia of a body, performed statistical experimental design, performed multivariate regression, etc., etc., etc. If I politely say I do not understand your theory, you might want to consider I'm saying it because your theory as explained doesn't make physical sense. I will be polite and say this even if I think your theory makes no physical sense because I am humble, conversational language is imprecise and so the theory may be difficult to exactly convey, and even if the theory isn't all right there may be a good idea or two within (and because I would prefer to be polite).

I am not, by a long long long shot, the smartest guy Larry. There is an unbelievably huge universe of things I know nothing about, and a small one I have some passing familiarity with. I am always eager for new data and observations as experiments are costly and all of our observations together can facilitate a far better understanding than our limited efforts alone. I strongly believe in profiting from the experience of others, and I strongly believe in the scientific method.

Now, if you would like to continue to politely expand upon your theory in a gentlemanly way, I'd love to talk to you further about it. Depending upon what you mean by "a helical path" I think we can actually physically prove or disprove that part of your theory with one of your load/gun combinations that you are confident exhibit this behavior, using an inexpensive and simple experiment (on your time and dime). Please describe your theory, exactly, as to what is moving in a helical path, roughly what the diameter of this path corresponds to, and what the forward progress per revolution around the path is. We can experimentally take the lateral deviation due to wind and vertical stringing due to muzzle velocity variation right out of the equation. I'd also love to discuss the internal pressure data you have with lil'gun and what primers you may have data with in the hornet.

Just please be so gentle as to leave anything that sounds like condescension out of our conversation, and discontinue the "appeal to authority" arguments... I tend to overreact (badly) to those.

Best regards,
DrB


Larry, seems everyone in this thread has told you the same thing.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Okay so how about this one: On numerous occasions talking to Gibson on the phone he told me he made up his rpm threshold and didn't really understand any of the books he read on ballistics. He said that he wanted to appear more knowledgeable on the CB.

Why joe, you are making yourself out the liar.....obvious to everyone.......

DrB was a little short on ballistics knowledge. You have none at all.....so obvious.......

Larry Gibson

quote:

I'm calling joe "stupid" because of his anologies which are stupid. His father called him a moron (he told me so on the phone) and I'm only suggesting that perhaps his father was correct.

Why Larry, you are making yourself out the liar.....obvious to everyone.......

Larry--With all your scientific measuring, attention to detail, and thorough obsevations, how did you miss it that I have not posted at CBF since 2009? There was a benefit post early in 2011 that I am unable to delete, but I no longer post there. Yes I do find this thread most humorous. To me it's like guys with a 36HP VW bug getting on the freeway and bragging how much speed they have. I Know of no shooting contest where RPM is a factor so if it can be done or not--so what? I know there is a formula for RPM but I am so interested in it that I have never looked it up and figured it. If a person does happen to shoot cast bullets accurately at a velocity higher than most, so what. It really doesn't make them an expert on all the internal and external ballistics of that bullet. Sure they may have OPINIONS as to what takes place, but until they crawl in that barrel they don't really know. I pee several times a day, but I'm no expert on urinary tracts.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

I'm calling joe "stupid" because of his anologies which are stupid. His father called him a moron (he told me so on the phone) and I'm only suggesting that perhaps his father was correct.

Why Larry, you are making yourself out the liar.....obvious to everyone.......

Why joe, we see by your new avatar that you have awarded yourself the "Golden Bullet" award Couldn't get it legitimately on the CBF.......oops, you've been banned from there.......

So, like the spoiled brat the above quote of your last post so clearly demonstrates. you have given the award to yourself.......pretty sad.......

But back to the real topic of this thread (me)as you keep remnding us......come on now.....admit it....you really like me don't you........just can't stand it that I'm still on the CBF and you're not........you just can't get along w/o me now can you.......

Larry Gibson