quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Yup, that's another possibility AC. Mann was a firm believer in the bullet getting kicked the wrong way at exiting the muzzle. Or perhaps even damaged by the exiting gas. I believe he only experimented with plain flat base bullets. We have it better today with are different alloys and gas checks.

My peers and I have been stressing all along minimum case neck clearance so that bullet base doesn't have much an area to move too and the gas also doesn't have much room to get around the base.

SmokinJ - I wasn't going to mention this because of the potential danger to not thorougly experienced shooters, but one of the things Mel Haris, David Lee and I did which helped us shoot winning BR groups and scores was:

Using "0" tolerance, interference-fit case neck ammo in our chambers.

We actually used loaded rounds where, with the bullet in the loaded case, the overall neck dimension of the loaded round was .0001" to .0002" LARGER than the chamber neck.

If it had not been for the camming ability of our bolt actions, we would not have been able to completely chamber our loaded rounds to fire them.

Not only were they more accurate than rounds with clearance around their necks, but they also allowed us to determine when a bullet was not the correct size to stay in the group when fired. A bullet which was a lkittle too large would make the overall dimension of the neck enough larger that we cdould feel the difference when we chambered the round. We would NOT fire that round in a match, because it would almost invariably impact half a bullet diameter or a skosh higher in our group.

NOW THAT IS AGAINST ALL THE PRINTED RELOADING SAFETY RULES I HAVE EVER SEEN, ANYWHERE. SO I RECOMMEND AGAINST IT FOR ANYONE!

We did it for several years of competition without any problems ever, but we knew what things should feel like going into our chambers. We also cut our chambers by "feel", using cartridge cases and bullets rather than chamber headspace gauges., so we knew exactly what we should be feeling as we closed the bolt.

But

AC,

Yes very true. I was hesitant to even mention the blending of powders in beginning this thread. You are very correct about the neck clearance and I have done the same as you. Having a good fitting bullet and tight neck clearance such as you found out, cut your group size more then anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Geargnasher:
Joe, I just realized that I have about 30 gallons of used engine oil stored in my shop, and a friend of mine owns a cabinet shop about half a mile from here and collects his tablesaw dust in a separate vacuum system from the planers, shapers, and sanders. I could get a couple 55-gallon drums of clean, dry, pine-free sawdust really easily. If I had the bucks I could build a long trough (16 feet maybe?) out of 2x12s with removable partitions every few feet, put a tin roof over it to keep out the weather, and we'd REALLY learn some stuff.

Well if it doesn't work out you'll have a lot of fluxing material lol

quote:

To say that you can "push the threshold upward" makes the threshold meaningless when one can take a bullet to 220K rpm with accuracy by correcting balance issues but your "threshold" maxes out (with typical loading methods) at 140K or so.

Gear

You folks just can't get it through your heads that he RPM Threshod is not a "limit". Just as you said the guy isn't going to get accuracy much above 1900 fps until he learns how. He isn't going to do that with a regualr cast bullet and regular loading techniques, just as all of you and I have been telling everyone for some time. BTW; 1900 fps just happens to be about how many RPM out of MN barrel? That just happens to be the RPM threshold with most regular cast bullets loaded with regular loading techniques. To push the RPM threshold above that one must know how to do it.......I'm sounding just like you guys.......difference is I understand how the RPM affect the bullet in flight.......

You guys list all the ways to keep the bullet balanced at higher RPM (I've listed them and told you all of them numerous times) and say you've beat the RPM Threshol/limit.....but you haven't. All you've done is push it to a higher RPM just as I said you could.

The other thing you are fixated on is arguing with internal ballistics. The RPM threshold is all about how the RPM affects the bullet in flight....that's EXTERNAL ballistics. You need to get yourselves out of the barrel and into the air.

Joe

So you load a 7.62x54R a little over the top with a cast bullet and can't hit squat with it.....is there a point there?

Larry Gibson

Larry,

They are finding out more and more that over spinning a bullet isn't all that bad. Like mentioned before the bullets that shouldn't be shooting the smaller groups in sporting rifles with a faster then standard twist are the ones that are shooting the smaller groups. The reverse can't be said of the very slow twist shooting the very long bullets because they simply won't stabilize them at all. In benchrest they just use the bare minimum amount of twist to stabilize their bullet. They also have specialized equipment that will show the minute differences in procedures. In a sporting rifle the difference in accuracy between a fast twist and a slow one in the same caliber really isn't perceivable.

You state stuff that you think you know about us. For example get our heads out of the barrel and into the air. You're still doing the same thing....bashing people here who don't agree with you or you not agreeing with them..instead of talking on what the original subject is...what are all the things that influence a cast bullet at HV in a fast twist barrel.

You said this in your previous post You guys list all the ways to keep the bullet balanced at higher RPM (I've listed them and told you all of them numerous times) and say you've beat the RPM Threshol/limit..Huh? You're not paying attention. I believe we talked about ways to insure starting the bullet straight into the bore and without damage from anything. The bullet has to be balanced before you even load it. If it isn't there's not a chance of it grouping good. If it's balanced and you started it into the bore crooked then it's centerline was changed. Nothing is going to keep it balanced then. Why don't you list them here for everyone to see again? You're always asking me things so I'm asking you to list ALL of that YOU know.

We're not pushing the rpm limit, we set a new standard with our type of loading techniques that we've learned to be able to do this. To push the limit would be to beat what we do. I don't believe that to be possible without a drastic alloy change. Remember someone told you an analogy about back in the very early days of sailing that one would said off the edge of the Earth at the horizon? Well they went past that and found out that it wasn't true, that the world wasn't flat. Look where shipping is today. Would you say shipping today just pushed the limit back when the world was though to be flat? I wouldn't, I'd say they set a new standard. They even took it further...they sail around the world today underwater in submarines. If everyone stuck to a limit the world wouldn't be as advanced as it is today.

On the Finn 39...yeah, I deliberately make a load for the 7.62x54R to be able not to hit the target..NOT! I'm testing duplex loads in it and I'm testing to where my bullet and it's alloy top out at. I found that.

Larry, no need to fuss about external ballistics. If you get the internal part right, the external part takes care of itself.

Since it's the topic we're trying to discuss here, what's your take on the factors affecting HV accuracy, and how to manage them?

Gear

quote:

Originally posted by Geargnasher:
Larry, there are so many inaccuracies in your last few posts that I don't know where to begin. It's all part of a pattern. You obviously aren't genuinely interested in the topic of this discussion and I sincerely hope you do stay out of it. Anyone who wants to see your pattern of Lure/antagonize/discredit/distort facts of rebuttal/insult can observe the patterns of behaviour here: http://www.castboolits.gunload...&highlight=rpm+swede. Gear

We are in another pattern now.... in the lure stage. No questions to Larry have been answered by him. He has added absolutely nothing good to the discussion, but has ran off some very knowledgeable people here. Gear and Joe will not see what Larry claims to know about shooting HV (other than special rifles and light bullets) because he really doesn't know. He has plagarized me numerous times. The evidence is clear if one wanted to look thru years of his and my posts on Cast Boolits. Frankly Larry, your agenda is quite clear to those that understand it.... and it isn't healthy.

quote:

In benchrest they just use the bare minimum amount of twist to stabilize their bullet. They also have specialized equipment that will show the minute differences in procedures.

Joe

Amazing how you ignore the obvious and say just the opposite.

In a sporting rifle the difference in accuracy between a fast twist and a slow one in the same caliber really isn't perceivable.

Then how come you need special moulds, Walther Lothar barrels, special "secret' loading techniques, special home made lubes, yadda yadda yadda.......How come you don'e shoot a 311291 at 2700 - 2800 fps with accuracy out of a sporter '06? Howcome you couldn't hit squat with the MN at 2600 fps with the 314299?

The answer is obvious but to admit it you'd have to agree with me and we know hell will freeze over first........

Larry Gibson

Gear

no need to fuss about external ballistics. If you get the internal part right, the external part takes care of itself.

Now that's the hard part isn't it, getting a perfectly balanced bullet out of the barrel..........

Since it's the topic we're trying to discuss here, what's your take on the factors affecting HV accuracy, and how to manage them?

We're mentioning many of them in this thread, as I said you guys are discussing the very things I've said for some time on this forum and the CBF on how to do it. Since you are one of the experts here why don't you tell us, and help joe out, how to accurately shoot a 311291, 311299 or a similar cast bullet at 2700 - 2800 fps with any accuracy out of a typical 30-06 sporter with a 10" twist barrel? Okay, make it easy on yourselves, how about just 2500 fps and hold only 3 moa accuracy at 300 yards with a 7 - 10 shot group?

After all, you guys are the experts. One other question; once the unbalanced bullet, jacketed or cast, leaves the barrel and is in flight, what do YOU think causes the inaccuracy?

Larry Gibson

quote:

You are not claiming you told us how to do this HV with accuracy from a fast twist barrel. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Joe

You are correct, that is not what I'm claiming at all. However, if you go back to the thread on RPM several years back on CBF you'll find I did indeed post everything you all are mentioning here. That post was in response to YOU and 45 2.1 asking for the information. Neither of you disagreed with me then.

What I am claiming is wht causes the inaccuracy in the bullet in flight; it is the centrifugal force of the RPM. I also am claiming what needs to be done to reduce the amount of imbalance to the bullet in loading and during accelleration in the barrel.

I have told YOU, specifically, several times that IF the bullet is perfectly balanced and properly stabilized then there will be no inaccuracy. The trick is to keep the imbalance as small as possible. The smaller the imbalance the higher the RPM the bullet can be pushed to. That's why the RPM threshold is not a "limit" but can be pushed up. The substance, other than the personal attacks and jabs at me, of this thread is how to do that.

Larry Gibson

45 2.1

What questions of mine have been answered..........uhhhh, none, that's how many. So ask me a question I've not answered for you numerous times before? Or can you at least ask one, without the personal attack, pertaining to the substance of this thread?

Larry Gibson

Four posts in a row and still haven't answered the question Joe and I both asked you.

BTW, I think Joe typo'd, I think he meant "now" instead of "not". I think you did too, but tried to capitalize on it anyway.

Gear

Larry,

Where's the answers? Where the technical help to the thread??????????????? Where Larry??? Same crap from you..ARGUING. If you argue then you have technical reasons to and should have technical answers. All you do is try to make yourself look like the "expert". I told you, I showed, blah blah blah. I still want the answer to my question for you to list ALL the things to do this. We won't get that know why? Because you don't know and if you post what you think you know it will be very obvious. Some one in this thread told something that I guarantee you won't know and didn't ever know, but it went over your head. And no I'm not telling you what it is because I could care less about you.

Actually the Lothar Walther barrels are a handicap because of the shallow 6 groove rifling, but you knew that right? My 6.5 Swede doesn't have a Lothar Walther barrel, do you know if it does or not? Now I will admit my Finn 39 has a SAKO barrel, but you knew that too. You also know that no matter what barrel you use and unless you use a custom chamber reamer that you still have the original sloppy chamber such as the one on my 6.5 Mannlicher Schoenaur, but you knew that too right? Are my barrels your excuse as to why you can't do it??

By the way my 314299 weights over 200 grains. Tell me how I'm suppose to shoot it above the maximum load velocity for a 200 grain jacketed bullet according to Hodgdon's manual. So now, according to your rules, we can't just push the "limit" we have to exceed jacketed loads with cast. Another by the way my AR 10 shoots 2 inch groups at 350 yards just about at your "rules" velocity. Let's see your targets (and chronograph readings) that you can do such.

I saw you comment on the "other" forum about buying "special custom mold". Well you bought one of Bob's special 5.56 NATO molds, how come??
Are you talking about of both sides of your mouth?

Alberta Canuck,

We have another method for what you discussed that is showing some promise. I'll pm it to you because I don't want some clown here to learn anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Geargnasher:
Anyone who wants to see your pattern of Lure/antagonize/discredit/distort facts of rebuttal/insult can observe the patterns of behaviour here: http://www.castboolits.gunload...&highlight=rpm+swede. Gear

Update.... we've moved to the antagonize/discredit/distort facts of rebuttal/insult part of the Larry Gibson pattern quite suddenly. Anything to get the thread off topic and going where he wants it to go. I'll give Mr.Gibson a clue which he may or may not get.......... Your behavior exhibited here is not wanted by any of us posting here. Take it somewhere where you are wanted.

Ok gear, I’ll have a go at your question one more time. As to Joe’s question; I’ve read and read his posts on this last page (5) several times and I’m hard pressed to find a question directed at me. His reference to me is 2 -4 paragraphs of statements and criticism of me and anything I say. If joe has a question regarding the substance of this thread in there perhaps you can translate it and I’ll answer. He did ask why I purchased the .22 NATO mould as more of a derogatory comment than a question. However, the reason is it is a very good design and should work well. It is the result of a thread on the CBF of which I had input on regarding the best design for a .223 bullet for use in ARs. I don’t know if 45 2.1 was influenced by my comments (doubt if he will admit it anyway but it doesn’t matter) but the end result followed most of my suggestions on the design. Joe pays no attention to the fact that I openly admit to having several of 45 2.1s designs or that I give 45 2.1 a lot of credit for them.

Now mind you I have been through this before with all of you. If you don’t like the answer then kindly refrain from simply trashing it and me. If you disagree then reference your disagreement with factual counterpoints based on your own tests or experience. Simply “thinking” I’m wrong doesn’t make me wrong. Also, you asked for my “thoughts, I’m not going to claim to be right about everything here. I’ve learned a lot in the last few years about what it takes to push the RPM threshold up with cast bullets, even with the ordinary cast bullets. Thus I have changed, refined and altered some of my views over the last few years as I’ve learned on my own and from others, including joe and 45 2.1. I think we are all in a learning curve here (at least those of us who wish to learn) and what we think is happening today may not be what we find is happening tomorrow.

Okay you asked; “Since it's the topic we're trying to discuss here, what's your take on the factors affecting HV accuracy, and how to manage them?“

So here's my "take" on a few items that we do to push the RPM threshold higher.

Cases; cases must fit the chamber and preferably fire formed cases are used. Cases should be prepped, how much and to what detail depends on the rifle being used. Case necks should allow minimal expansion in the chamber neck. They should be close to the same length as the chamber neck, not trimmed to some mythical figure. A VLD reamer is very useful in lieu of an M die if sizing is minimal to allow .002 neck tension. Do I need to mention uniformity of make and lot?

The bullet design preferably should be one of minimal yet sufficient lube groves. The driving bands should allow the GC to be seated flush with the base of the neck and the front drive band just off the lands. The as cast diameter should be .001 - .002 over the throat diameter at most and if there is a bore riding nose it should very closely fit the top of the lands. There should be no scraper groove. The actual nose should be short and can be round or TC’d. The GC shank should allow the uncrimped GC a snug fit and leave minimal groove above it when crimped. Von Gruffs 7mm bullet and the Eagan bullets pictured in this thread or the “Design” thread are excellent examples. The LBT 150 gr .30 cal is also and excellent design for a longer necked cases such as the ’06 as it has no bore riding nose.

Alloy; needs to be hard enough to withstand the psi and acceleration yet soft enough to allow even set back during acceleration. Von Gruffs two alloy bullets are an excellent example as it the WW/Pb at 50/50 alloy many of us use. Several have found adding babbit to the alloy to allow a higher RPM threshold. This is an area that needs a lot of further experimentation and testing.

Powder; The selected powder, dependant on cartridge, needs to be easy to ignite for consistent burning a low end psi. It should occupy 80 – 100 % loading density and give the projected velocity at as low a psi as possible. Joe is into “blended” powders to lesson the time/pressure curve. I have used blended powders for many years with jacketed and cast bullets, mostly to use up odd lots of similar powders. However, results have always been good if not excellent. In the last year or so I did a considerable amount of test Hodgdon’s LeveRevolution powder in the 30-0 with cast bullets. It did indeed lesson the time pressure curve and provided excellent accuracy at higher than normal velocities with the right cast bullets. There is something to the concept and it also bears more research and testing.

Fillers; I have had very good results pushing some loads to a higher RPM threshold with Dacron, Original shotgun buffer and another shotgun buffer. They work well in some instances but not always. I’ve found the slower burning powder that give 80+% loading densities to give more consistent and repeatable results. Duplex loads with smokeless powders is not an area I’ve gone into so won’t comment on that/

Primers; haven’t found a preference but have found that as long as ignition is consistent the make doesn’t matter. The type and strength of the brisance is more important and the determining factor.

Barrel; the length should be as long as practical. Given the same cartridge the longer the barrel the slower the time pressure curve can be for a given velocity. This results in a less sharp acceleration meaning less unbalancing of the bullet during acceleration. Most of the time, unless a custom rebarrel is done, we are stuck with what the rifle has. A perfect crown is essential to HV/RPM accuracy with cast bullets.

Well that’s a bit for now off the top of head. So gear, can we have a real discussion now? I also would appreciate you answering my question now; “once the unbalanced bullet, jacketed or cast, leaves the barrel and is in flight, what do YOU think causes the inaccuracy?"

Larry Gibson

45 2.1

Any one mentions me by name or reference as has been done here on this thread (read Joe's 1st post) and I'll respond.

Larry Gibson

Larry,

I'm going to explain the 5.56 NATO bullet for the umpteen time so pay attention. I have a 7 twist Colt HBAR as you very well know. Those 5.56 NATO chamber throats are long. I wanted a good heavy weight bullet that would fit it. So I asked 45 2.1 to design one. I did two pound casts of the my rifles throat, part of the bore, and the tail end of the neck portion of the chamber. I sent those to 45 2.1 and I told him what I thought the bullet should look like and weigh. Turns out my weight was with 2 or 3 grains of his final design. This was all before the talk on that thread at CBF. If you have a keen eye you would notice that the 5.56 NATO, the 6mm bullet he designed, and the 30 caliber silhouette currently in a group buy ALL look very much alike just bigger because of caliber. It's a good design that 45 2.1 kind of sticks with on many of his rifle bullets. Now for you to say you hope that 45 2.1 used your input and insinuate he may have (and sarcastically stating he wouldn't admit if he did) is a flat out lie. One thing 45 2.1 isn't and that's a liar. So he will be along to confirm what I just said and sure to point out your errors in your loading techniques for HV from a fast twist.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Those 5.56 NATO chamber throats are long. I wanted a good heavy weight bullet that would fit it. So I asked 45 2.1 to design one. I did two pound casts of the my rifles throat, part of the bore, and the tail end of the neck portion of the chamber. I sent those to 45 2.1 and I told him what I thought the bullet should look like and weigh. Turns out my weight was with 2 or 3 grains of his final design. This was all before the talk on that thread at CBF. If you have a keen eye you would notice that the 5.56 NATO, the 6mm bullet he designed, and the 30 caliber silhouette currently in a group buy ALL look very much alike just bigger because of caliber. It's a good design that 45 2.1 kind of sticks with on many of his rifle bullets. Now for you to say you hope that 45 2.1 used your input and insinuate he may have (and sarcastically stating he wouldn't admit if he did) is a flat out lie. One thing 45 2.1 isn't and that's a liar. So he will be along to confirm what I just said and sure to point out your errors in your loading techniques for HV from a fast twist.

What Joe said above is correct. What none of you know is that design has been on my drawing sheet since 1999, long before I got on the internet. A lot of things are still there laying unused as of now. Larry can claim he told me of something, but rifle throats don't change much... and thats what has influenced my designs, not what Larry claims (as if he knew what to do anyway).
Larry, you have added nothing to this thread.... go somewhere where your wanted as nobody here wants you.

Larry you're on this thread for one purpose and one only and that is to harass me. It's very obvious, You are adding nothing to the thread or it's topic. This was said by a member on Castboolits Forum just recently I am starting to grow very weary of this place as there is so much wrong, partial and misleading information being posted. It has grown difficult to get three or more people to agree on . Ironically it's a thread that you are in.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Larry you're on this thread for one purpose and one only and that is to harass me. It's very obvious, You are adding nothing to the thread or it's topic. This was said by a member on Castboolits Forum just recently I am starting to grow very weary of this place as there is so much wrong, partial and misleading information being posted. It has grown difficult to get three or more people to agree on . Ironically it's a thread that you are in.

Read your 1st post joe. Who brought who into this thread? 'Tis you who are continually harassing me.

Say what you want but when the design of the 22 NATO bullet was being discussed on several threads on CBF I made input. The end result is my "input" happens to be what the end result is. Whether or not 45 2.1 considered my input I don't know nor care. The reference was made simply to point out that what I've been doing for some years matches what you all have been doing also. I'm not laying claim to being the 1st to shoot HV or to inventing any such design. All I said was I made some input into the design based on my experience on what works to push the RPM threshold higher. In fact, I have given 45 2.1 credit for the design on this thread and in others, especially on the CBF.

Now. I answered Gear's question, how about you two gong back and answering the questions I asked about the comparison of the bullets? Or, how about even answering the question I asked Gear. Wouldn't that be better having a discussion on the topic of the thread instead of you two bitching, whining and moaning all the time? Let's discuss the topic; shooting cast at HV.

Larry Gibson

FINN 39 Lyman 314299 FACTORY MOULD stiff load of A4350 100 yards no Lothar Walther barrel just a compact 2.5x8 scope. Five scattered shots surplus powder load. The single hole above left of that is the A4350 and it's 10 SHOTS. The big dark spot lower left is a bird though he would get in on the shooting and bombed my target!! HV with accuracy with a factory Lyman mould.

quote:

Prove your theory, make it a scientific fact.

Joe

I've already proven the theory and so have you.....you just can't admit it is all. the science is there; it's called ballistics, external to be exact.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
FINN 39 Lyman 314299 FACTORY MOULD stiff load of A4350 100 yards no Lothar Walther barrel just a compact 2.5x8 scope. Five scattered shots surplus powder load. The single hole above left of that is the A4350 and it's 10 SHOTS. The big dark spot lower left is a bird though he would get in on the shooting and bombed my target!! HV with accuracy with a factory Lyman mould.

Wow, joe

You should shoot CBA competition with that rifle load......you'd clean their clocks......no guts, no glory.........just another lame excuse is all you'll give why not.

You still want me to prove the RPM threshold theory? How about you doing the test with 4895 and the 311291 or your 311299 I asked you to do many moons ago.....?

Or how about I come back to your place, we'll load, shoot and chronograph some HV/RPM loads together and you can disprove the RPM threshold theory?

Larry Gibson

Joe & 45 2.1

Looks like Gear isn't going to answer my question here. Notice he took part of my answer to him out of context and posted it on a thread at the CBF? Yup, seems in criticising me about shooting Lovern designs at HV he's also saying you 2 can't do it either just because he couldn't......is there discension in the ranks?

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
Joe & 45 2.1

Looks like Gear isn't going to answer my question here. Notice he took part of my answer to him out of context and posted it on a thread at the CBF? Nope, wasn't out of context at all. I just told you my experiences were different, and wanted to know why you brag up the Eagan and Bob's designs as HV-ideal designs here, but say that Loverins do better for you at HV on another forum. I wanted to know why.Yup, seems in criticising me about shooting Lovern designs at HV There was no criticizm there. I simply told you my experiences were different and asked your thoughts on why.. he's also saying you 2 can't do it either just because he couldn't......is there discension in the ranks? I NEVER said anything about Bob or Joe or their experiences with the Loverin bullets in that thread. Not one word. You made that up out of thin air.

Larry Gibson

Larry, you're simply and baldly LYING. I don't know what's the matter with you, but you need some serious help. I guess in your delusional state you made up my response in your own mind and think it's the truth.

You're too sick to carry on a decent conversation, that's why I haven't responded to you on this thread.

I guess this thread's dead now, you've run off the only ones genuinely intersted in the topic, and there are a few who would like to have participated, but don't want to put up with your BS and drama.

Gear

No comment on CBA. You should know that 4895 isn't the right powder to shoot HV fast twist with accuracy. I just showed you what the 311299 will do for as the 314299 isn't anything but it's fatter brother.

You've said this on
CBA: 1st of all you are still under the mistaken impression that the RPM threshold is a "limit" as you state "above". Let me tell you once again that the RPM threshold is not a "limit" at 120-140,000 RPM. It can be pushed up and, conversely, it can be pushed lower. That means it can be pushed to a higher RPM level before the centrifugal force adversely affects accuracy. It also means it can be pushed to a lower RPM level. Not a "limit" at 120-140,000 RPM.....got it?

When you very first came out with your rpm threshold theory you didn't say it could be pushed. One can check the old CBA records and prove that. Besides we shot holes in your theory so you came up with the pushing the limit now

Now tell me what a 9 twist 22-250 shooting a jacketed short bullet,which doesn't need all that spin and is basically over spun, shoots terrific well into the 300K rpm range. Are you saying that if a cast bullet is balanced and gets out of the barrel and is still balanced and undamaged that it's magically going to fly bad and end up with zero accuracy? hmmmmmm?

You said this on CBF Why do you think we get accuracy with a 311291 at higher velocity with 4895 than with 2400? Then if we use a slower powder like RL19, 4350, etc. we can get that same accuracy at even higher velocity/RPM, why is that and what are we doing with each change to a slower burning powder?.....We are pushing the RPM threshold up is what. With each of those the accuracy will go south at a certain velocity/RPM won't it? Yet all have a different level of threshold where the centrifugal force of the RPM while the bullet is in flight will adversely affect the accuracy.

Wrong, the accuracy goes south when you exceed the strength of the alloy. That ties directly in with rpm...you damage the bullet and the rpm gremlins eat it up.

One final thing, you also mentioned at CBF about loading the base of the Loverin bullet to base of the case neck and not past it.

Wrong...I've shot the 150 grain Lyman 287405 out of me SAKO 7mm-08 with the base well past the neck bottom because of a very short freebore. Shot excellent until I tried pushing it. We're talking in the vicinity of 1/2 inch groups. It wasn't the base being past the case neck that ruined it's accuracy it's because you can't push that particular Loverin because the driving bans are too narrow and won't support the bullet.

quote:

Originally posted by Geargnasher:
I guess this thread's dead now, you've run off the only ones genuinely intersted in the topic, and there are a few who would like to have participated, but don't want to put up with your BS and drama.Gear

Give it some time Gear..... with all the Baiting and Trolling going on from the rpm guy, he will probably get his tail end in a crack and get himself banned.......... then we can continue on with a good discussion. With Larry in the thread, it's drama time central.

It's all about Larry.

quote:

When you very first came out with your rpm threshold theory you didn't say it could be pushed. One can check the old CBA records and prove that.

Everyone is free to research the record. I've always said the RPM threshold of 120-140,000 RPM applied to regular cast bullets loaded with normal cast bullet loading technique. I always said it could be pushed higher with the right technique. The posts are there on the CBF for everyone to see.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Geargnasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
Joe & 45 2.1

Looks like Gear isn't going to answer my question here. Notice he took part of my answer to him out of context and posted it on a thread at the CBF? Nope, wasn't out of context at all. I just told you my experiences were different, and wanted to know why you brag up the Eagan and Bob's designs as HV-ideal designs here, but say that Loverins do better for you at HV on another forum. I wanted to know why.Yup, seems in criticising me about shooting Lovern designs at HV There was no criticizm there. I simply told you my experiences were different and asked your thoughts on why.. he's also saying you 2 can't do it either just because he couldn't......is there discension in the ranks? I NEVER said anything about Bob or Joe or their experiences with the Loverin bullets in that thread. Not one word. You made that up out of thin air.

Larry Gibson

Larry, you're simply and baldly LYING. I don't know what's the matter with you, but you need some serious help. I guess in your delusional state you made up my response in your own mind and think it's the truth.

You're too sick to carry on a decent conversation, that's why I haven't responded to you on this thread.

I guess this thread's dead now, you've run off the only ones genuinely intersted in the topic, and there are a few who would like to have participated, but don't want to put up with your BS and drama.

Gear

Speaking of sick gear, it's pretty sick of you to play this card. You asked me to answer your question.....I did. I asked you to answer mine and this is the low life garbage you come up with? That's pretty damn sad.........

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
No comment on CBA. You should know that 4895 isn't the right powder to shoot HV fast twist with accuracy. I just showed you what the 311299 will do for as the 314299 isn't anything but it's fatter brother.

Ah....you new excuse for not doing the test which easily proves the RPM threshold exists. It exists with you A4350 load with the 311299 also..........you already proved that in a post above.

Larry Gibson

quote:

the accuracy goes south when you exceed the strength of the alloy. That ties directly in with rpm...you damage the bullet and the rpm gremlins eat it up

See joe, I told you you knew the RPM threshold was real, you just give a perfect example of it. Pat yourself on the back.......

Now if I had said that you'd be all over me saying what BS it was.......funny how that is.......

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by 45 2.1:

quote:

Originally posted by Geargnasher:
I guess this thread's dead now, you've run off the only ones genuinely intersted in the topic, and there are a few who would like to have participated, but don't want to put up with your BS and drama.Gear

Give it some time Gear..... with all the Baiting and Trolling going on from the rpm guy, he will probably get his tail end in a crack and get himself banned.......... then we can continue on with a good discussion. With Larry in the thread, it's drama time central.

Care to get back to the topic of the thread Bob? How about some logical talking points on the list I gave grear in answer to his question?

At least joe admits knowing what the RPM threshold is, only if he could admit it. Maybe if you guys want a private conversation you should use the PM, last I knew this was still an open forum that any member could post on.......apparently that's not what you think?

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
It's all about Larry.

Read your first post joe, YOU brought me into this. If you don't like it stop posting trash about me or stick to the topic.

However, you called me out and you simply can't handle it when it comes back at you. You can't stick to real topic of your own thread without trashing others. Neither can 45 2.1 or gearnasher. All that is unfortunate. So 45 2.1 will get his wish......I'm done here unless any of you call me out again either by name or inuendo. Don't want to hear from me then don't call me out or trash me. Stick to the real topic and you all can talk here all you want. Fair enough, then have a good conversation.........

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
However, you called me out and you simply can't handle it when it comes back at you. You can't stick to real topic of your own thread without trashing others. Neither can 45 2.1 or gearnasher. All that is unfortunate. So 45 2.1 will get his wish......I'm done here unless any of you call me out again either by name or inuendo. Don't want to hear from me then don't call me out or trash me. Stick to the real topic and you all can talk here all you want. Fair enough, then have a good conversation.........

Larry Gibson

RPM = Flat earth thinking. If you could realize it, your precious threshold is caused by something you don't believe in. Something you were told 5 years ago and you still don't see it. That is in that link Gear posted for all you other folks. Your threshold is an excuse for an agenda of running anyone down that disagrees with you................ Quite a few people have posted about how they shot HV well above your supposed barrier. RPM is a pathetic excuse for failure. Your always crowing about that Oehler you've got, try useing it right. It will tell you something if you let it, which you haven't been doing for the last 5 years at a minimum.

Neither could simply let it go and get on with the topic of the thread......oh, now I get it.....how silly of me, the topic of this thread is really trashing and insulting me! These two shoud have just let it go and got on with their conversation.......

Perhaps gear's comments in his last post were correct. However it's obvious those comments should have been directed to joe and bob......

Let it go boys, it's really eating at both of you and adversely affecting the both of you......

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
It's all about Larry.

Read your first post joe, YOU brought me into this. If you don't like it stop posting trash about me or stick to the topic.

However, you called me out and you simply can't handle it when it comes back at you. You can't stick to real topic of your own thread without trashing others. Neither can 45 2.1 or gearnasher. All that is unfortunate. So 45 2.1 will get his wish......I'm done here unless any of you call me out again either by name or inuendo. Don't want to hear from me then don't call me out or trash me. Stick to the real topic and you all can talk here all you want. Fair enough, then have a good conversation.........

Larry Gibson

....I'm done here unless any of you call me out again either by name or inuendo. Don't want to hear from me then don't call me out or trash me. Stick to the real topic and you all can talk here all you want. Fair enough, then have a good conversation.........

Yeah, unhuh