quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Bassackwards said this in that same thread back in 11/2007 and it is all about what my original post was about:

Internal cast ballistics dictates that a slug trying to accelerate is retarded by a twist rate angle in the bore. The more the rate angle is increased, (faster twist) the more that bullet will be held back and pressure will work on the base. In effect, it's the same as using a faster powder and we all know that slower powders do allow higher velocities. Also the more barrel time it will have exposed to that pressure. And the result will be the more barrel vibration and greater harmonics will take place. That is also why the lightest bullet per caliber achieves the highest RPM. And why softer bullets can be used with slower twist rates. And why larger case capacities lengthen pressure curves. Not because of stripping or bullet damage as most believe. So, when you lose cast accuracy is it because of external ballistics or internal ballistics at short ranges? Actually both. You work to mold to achieve perfection and your twist rate fights to destroy it. Pressure does the damage.

Fact: It's not the rpm of an undamaged balanced bullet that destroys it's useable accuracy, it's the fast twist in the barrel that ruins the bullet.

Bass was quite correct. However he does not say it isn't RPM, he asks the question; "So, when you lose cast accuracy is it because of external ballistics or internal ballistics at short ranges?" I'm sure my answer was something about the bullet is imbalanced during the internal ballistic but there is no "inaccuracy" as such there as the bullet is contained by the barrel. It is during the external ballistic phase that the inaccuracy occurs (if the cast bullet is exceeding the RPM threshold). It is RPM during the external ballisitc phase that is the cause of the inaccuracy.

If the bullet did not have to have spin/RPM to fly point on and there were no spin there would be no inaccuracy from the imbalances in the bullet caused during accelleration in the barrel or in the flight of the bullet during the external ballistic phase. This thing missing there is the spin/RPM ergo that is what causes the inaccuracy.

Your quote of Bass here is another example of your arcane ability to read into someone elses words what just isn't there.

Larry Gibson

Yeah, that's why smooth bores of yesteryear were so accurate huh?? NOT We all know the history of rifling. Do smooth bores shoot their bullets, be it ball or conical, to near the same point of impact? No they do not. There's a case, back in history, where the spin/rpm actually improves accuracy.

Bass is a pretty smart cookie. Take a guess why he left CB forum.

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
wow just friggin wow..
in 2008 [was it that long ago?]
i started playin along trying to learn the whole thing from the bottom up.
sent some p.m.'s and e-mails back and forth with larry and bassackward hoping to see if there were some logical steps to follow so this whole thing could be broken down and explained in simple terms.
burned up 8 lbs of 4895 in a 3 month period trying to learn something about lineal dispersion....

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
wow just friggin wow..
in 2008 [was it that long ago?]
i started playin along trying to learn the whole thing from the bottom up.
sent some p.m.'s and e-mails back and forth with larry and bassackward hoping to see if there were some logical steps to follow so this whole thing could be broken down and explained in simple terms.
burned up 8 lbs of 4895 in a 3 month period trying to learn something about lineal dispersion.
and then this thread pops up, i have been watching it from day one trying to read and reread the whole thing a couple of times hoping to learn something new and helpful to pinpoint a couple of problems in some difficult rifles.
not my 9 twist ar
or my 358 win
or my 8 mauser
this thread had a positive direction about three pages in.
now i'm just pretty fed up with the whole thing,going back to lube testing ,which b.t.w. alberta canuck is fully correct about on the harder faster thing, it's maintaining the correct visc/temp relationship that is the big problem. [and alox junk don't do it]
out....

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
wow just friggin wow..
in 2008 [was it that long ago?]
i started playin along trying to learn the whole thing from the bottom up.
sent some p.m.'s and e-mails back and forth with larry and bassackward hoping to see if there were some logical steps to follow so this whole thing could be broken down and explained in simple terms.
burned up 8 lbs of 4895 in a 3 month period trying to learn something about lineal dispersion.
and then this thread pops up, i have been watching it from day one trying to read and reread the whole thing a couple of times hoping to learn something new and helpful to pinpoint a couple of problems in some difficult rifles.
not my 9 twist ar
or my 358 win
or my 8 mauser
this thread had a positive direction about three pages in.
now i'm just pretty fed up with the whole thing,going back to lube testing ,which b.t.w. alberta canuck is fully correct about on the harder faster thing, it's maintaining the correct visc/temp relationship that is the big problem. [and alox junk don't do it]
out....

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Don't let Gibby fool you with trying to make "useable accuracy" sound mediocre. I used that term to shut up his BS with the rpm threshold. Gibson, does 2 inches (not two moa) at 350 yards with a 10 twist 7.62 NATO sound like standard useable accuracy to you?

Probably great for a 1 shot "group", yes that is rediculous and so is your claim. Your statement here is another example of my earlier post to you about unbelievable claims. If that sub moa accuracy was possible and consistent then every HP shooter would be using cast bullets instead of $30+ a box Sierra MKs. Before you say I'm calling you a liar you really need to demonstrate your out landish claims in matches or in front of reputable witnesses.

Gibby if you wanted to do the three rifle twist test right one would have used three barrels made by the same barrel maker with the same rifling too on the same steel, same barrel diameter and length, except the three had different twist rate....and of coarse all in the same chambering with the same chamber reamer. Then, then these would have been mounted on a massive heavy steel block with stiff strong action and fired remotely in and enclosed warehouse. Then and only then would the test have some merit.

You still have have your head inside the barrel (internal ballistics). The BCs are a measurement of the bullets flight (external ballistics). All 3 test barrel are capable of sub moa accuracy with the bullets used in the test. Besides, even from the same maker the barrels wouldn't be the same because the cutters, or rifling spud would all have to be different to make the different twists. There would still be differences in the interior dimensions not to mention the simple angle of the rifling. You really should research or at least consult someone who knows the answer before you post stupid statements.

RPM only effects unbalanced bullets. Mr Gibson admitted to Gear on CB that if a bullet was perfectly balanced that rpm wouldn't have an effect on it.

I didn't "admit" anything, I stated it quite bluntly to gear. I've also stated it in several other threads to you on this forum and on the CBF. It is a fact, a scientific fact. No imbalance and the centrifugal force has nothing to act on. How many claim to shoot "perfectly balanced" cast bullets except you, 45 2.1 and probably gear. Another stupid statment you made joe.............

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Notice how Gibson doesn't address the statements that he knows to be true like the three rifle test not being a "good conclusive" test of testing the effects of different twists. Think laboratory type test Gibby!

Another thing he won't answer is he has stated numerous times he didn't come up with the BS threshold theory. Okay Gibby tell us who did. Tell us the scientist or PHD physicist that did. What is the book he wrote on it? We're waiting.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Your posts don't bother me. Everyone knows me and bob are right. I will knock down that BS threshold of yours at every corner.

As usual no name of the man that you got the BS threshold rpm from nor the book. There isn't one is there Gibby? You made this all up because it's Gibby's football and if he can't be quarterback we aren't playing.

No, I didn't make it up. I have mentioned that numerous times in the past. Read and study ballistics joe, you then see what is really happening with bullets in flight (you really got to get out of the barrel sometime).

You'll always be back because you have an addiction tied to your personality trait. Can't face defeat how Gibby?

No defeat here joe, you are the one that keeps making stupid statements and anologies, just like the 7.65 one below. You also avoid questions to you; when are you going to compete in HP or the CBA mathces and prove your outlandish accuracy claims? When are you going to demonstrate them to a reputable shooter? You aren't because it's all BS.

Here's another one of your kinder garden cast loading techniques. Recently telling a poster it's okay to seat a cast bullet out long enough for a 7.65 Argentine as long as the gas check is in the case mouth. Then you went on to say even if a little of the gas check is showing from the case mouth it's okay. Oh that sounds like a wonderful loading setup. They good that way for carrying around in your pockets? Gibby..what's wrong with using a bullet that fits and there are bullets that fit the 7.65.

Well, there's you stupid statement of this post.

The question the OP asked was about the C312-185 bullet specifically and seating the bullet to the CRIMP GROOVE which put the GC below the case neck. I told him it wasn't necessary to seat to the crimp groove. I also told him how to seat with the GC in and the lube grooves covered. Yes that does make it handy for carrying in apocket or any other way so dirt and degri do not get on the lube.....you got a problem with that?

Nothing would have neen wrong about telling him about another bullet such as the 314299 which better fits the 7.65 neck. What I did joe was to answer his question about the bullet HE WANTED TO USE AND ASKED ABOUT. I didn't go ogg on a tangent like you, 45 2.1 and gear do about something the OP didn't ask. I stick to the topic of the OPs question.

Another stupid attempt to make me look bad joe, problem is it's you who look bad and stupid. It obviously really burns your ass to have been banned from the CBF and the Grendel forums doesn't it? Obviously you want to bring the topics off those forums and have a go here because you can't there.

Why don't you just go away. In fact Onceabull is going to be mad at you for being on this forum. Everyone already sees me for what I am for...right!!!

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Tell you what Gibby since your begging. I may cut you a deal in exchange for one of your rifles. A milsurp one so it can go on an C&R license, what do you say?

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Tell you what Gibby since your begging. I may cut you a deal in exchange for one of your rifles. A milsurp one so it can go on an C&R license, what do you say?

Yah know, I offered to test your 6.5 Swede loads in your M96. I also offered to pay the postage both ways (I would return the rifle). You begged and weaseled out of that one two so no one has verified your loads shoot as well nor as fast as you claim.

You send that M96 and 50 of your 6.5 Swede HV (2400+ fps) to me to test and I'll return the M96 and give you one of my milsurps. How does that sound?

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
45 2.1
Well, you changed the story anout what kind of bullets they were. The thread was about cast bullets on The CBF. You led everyone to believe and when called on it.....all of a sudden they were jacketed match bullets, my how convenient...... The thread is still there, with no edit dates on the bottom. All you can seem to do is twist things around. Part of your condition I suppose.
Guess I'll have to post "None of us consider you or anybody from the CBA credible witnesses due to the harranging we get from you or them. " on the CBF and see what the CBA members there think of what you and gear think of them. Or does gear know you've included him in that statement? Actually the list is quite large... you might be surprised who is on it.
You've both had ample opportunity to get rid of me on this thread. hat neither of you does and continues the harangue says a lot about both of you and the real purpose of this thread. All you have to do is what I offered and I'm gone....... Hahahahaha... nobody believes that for a moment. The only time you'll be gone is when you'll have died. You thrive on the adversity you create.
Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
Went back and checked the thread, you were right and I was wrong (admitting that is ok, you should try it sometime). You did say they were jacketed bullets. Still a rather bodacious accuracy claim with how many(?) different sporter A Bolts........ One would think that you could understand what you read, but that seems quite illusitory when you try to play it again.

Yes there are a lot of CBA members on the CBF. Do you really think they are going like you infering they are not "reputable"? Obfuscating again ehh...... just the ones that make trouble.

You want me gone, I made an offer and will keep it. I would expect, if the deal is struck, that anyone, myself included, who violates it would be banned. I can even agree to that if a moderator is listening. Can you abide by that? If so then you, joe and gear get on with my offer and I will be gone from this thread. Time to put up or shut up....... The problem here is one of you keeping your word... that never seems to happen. IMO, your word is absolutely NO GOOD. Any agreements you would make would have no validity.

Or we could all just quit this shit and get back on track discussing what it takes to push the RPM threshold up to shoot cast bullets at HV/RPM? The choice is yours guys....... We have done that.... you've tried to ride someone else's coat tails to gain credence that you can do the same.... you can't. This would be like discussing Trigonometry with a 6th grader. What you've posted about HV accuracy is elementary school level and partly incorrect. You need to learn quite a bit more to even be in a serious discussion.
Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Gear,

Followup on that new batch of soap lube I made last night. I believe you were correct in the aging factor. I checked it this afternoon and it firmed up great. It has the same characteristics and firmness of the batch before, but seems to be of even better quality.

I'll be sending out free samples to my friends.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Gibby...RPM Threshold book and Author?????