quote:

---

Originally posted by denton:
1. If there were no barrel whip, bullets would pretty much leave the barrel in exactly the same direction.

2. OCW puts your bullet exit at one of the slower moving parts of the barrel whip arc.

3. Once you find that point for one load (say your 180 grain 30-06 bullet), other loads that give you the same POI should also be in the slow part of the arc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gustavo:
Hotcore, I agree to some degree... there is no way to test the validity of either method except by running hundreds of test, involving lots of combinations... possible ? yes feasible ? no

There is zero evidence of such correlation...

---

Hey Gus, I understand your skepticism of any “new to you” Load Development System. I also agree it “could take” many thousands of shots to prove how well one method works. The benefit you have in this situation is that the Audette Method has been in use by knowledgeable reloaders for many years who have used thousands of firearms with millions of shots sent down range. So, there is lots of “experienced” information available on how well it works.

Occasionally someone actually thinks they can improve on the original Audette Method, but I’ve yet to see anyone do it. For example, Denton mentioned the “Round Robin” portion of Rookiegreen’s MUC Load Method being a good thing. I disagree. If you were in a “Lab Environment” with controlled environmental conditions it would help “standardize” the data. However, these tests are not normally run by the average shooter in an underground tube with controlled environmental conditions. Due to that, the Round Robin will induce errors into the process, because the resultant time lag means the Range Conditions have changed.

Of course, the resulting Round Robin problems are much easier to see at the 300yd distance which Creighton Audette encouraged. Similar to variation being harder to detect with groups shot at 25yds rather than 100yds. But, if a person is using a firearm that is not capable of an “adequate performance level” beyond 200yds, then it does make sense to do the Load Development at some distance shorter than 300yds.

...

And Gus, here are Two Options that will let you to prove the validity of the never improved upon Audette Method to yourself. Option 1 provides a way for you to reach the correct answer for yourself, but is a bit time consuming and expensive. Option 2 takes much less time and also provides the correct answer. Here are the Options:

Option 1: Enroll in any school that offers advanced Math and Engineering courses. From taking these courses, you will easily understand in no uncertain terms why barrel harmonics vary. The only problem is if it has been awhile since your last formal Math or Engineering courses, then it may take a few fundamental classes to refresh your basic knowledge background prior to taking the advanced courses.

You will need (as a minimum) two advanced Math courses something similar to Foundations of Advanced Mathematics and Analytic Geometry and Calculus to establish a mathematical foundation to build the Engineering curriculum on. The first advanced Math course will deal with complex numbers, permutations and selections, probability, set theory and statistical inference, etc.

The second advanced Math course will deal with applications of derivatives, integration of basic forms, definite integrals, integration techniques, polar equations, parametric equations, empirical forms, moments (of area, of arm, of inertia), differential equations, simultaneous quadratic equations and toss in mind-stretching concepts such as the McClauren(SP?), Taylor and Fourier Series.

Not every concept in those two Math classes is needed for the Engineering course segments that eventually lead to clarity on firearm’s harmonics. But they provide a solid basis for you to be able to think your way through the logical process.

For Engineering courses, you need something similar to Mechanics of Materials and Engineering Mechanics to get into the heart of why harmonics are constantly changing variables when shooting. Here again, more advanced Engineering courses strengthen these basic concepts, but these are detailed enough to allow a person to realize how the Bullet Transition Physics really work.

Things you will learn in Materials courses include Stress/Strain, Material Properties, Strengths of Materials, Elasticity Fundamentals, Torsional Loading, Radial and Vector Analysis, Flexural Loading-Stresses, Flexural Loading-Deflections, Intermediate Beams (Integration, Area Loading, Superposition, Castigiano’s Theorem, Plastic Analysis), Combined Loading (Static and Dynamic), Column Loading, Repeated Loading, Connections (Stress, Loading, Ultimate Strength, etc.) and lots of stuff I’ve not thought of.

The Engineering Mechanics course will contain things such as Scalar and Vector Analysis, Moment of a Force, Composition and Resolution of Forces, Principal of Moments, Couples, Force and Mass, Resultants of Force Systems (concurrent / non-concurrent coplanar force systems), Centroids, Center of Pressure, Equilibrium (this is a very interesting one), Second Moments and Moments of Inertia, and good old Friction(Static and Dynamic) and more stuff I’m just not remembering.

Now that you have the knowledge to understand why the never improved upon Audette Method works, all you have to do is go shoot lots of firearms creating many groups to verify what you already know is true.

Knowledge plus Experience gets you to the correct answer.

Option 2: Find someone “you know” who has both a formal Engineering background with actual hands-on Design Evaluation Engineering experience and ask them.

If you structure the question so they are fully aware of what you are actually trying to understand, they will say, “barrel harmonics during the bullet transition are in a constant state of flux”. It is therefore imperative to be as consistent as possible, in each step of the reloading process, to reduce the variability as much as possible. It is also important to test the theory using a Method that allows you the best opportunity to detect variation in the data.

And as a bonus, that same Engineer can tell you that “the MUC Load concept is Full-of-Beans”.

Seems to me I’ve heard that somewhere before!

quote:

---

Originally posted by green 788:
Unfortunately, Gus, it appears that no amount of math, science, or anything else is going to convince you here. It appears that this has become some sort of a quest for you not to lose a debate...

Over the eons of human existence, there have been formulas and methods that were first noted to work, and only later scrutinized by science. Serendipity... And 99.997 percent of the time, you can bet that those who noted the usefulness of those formulas and methods were not the scientists themselves.

Did you know that for over 50 years some people have been putting a duct tape patch over their warts because someone, somewhere noted that the duct tape patch totally removed the wart faster and more efficiently than any medicines on the market? And just last month I heard of the scientific study on that matter, which did in fact conclude that the duct tape works! Now if you had asked all of the advocates of duct-taping warts to show you the math, you'd have likely gotten a lot of dumb looks. (Like you're getting from me) ! I am the messenger, not the scientist. I have found a system that works, and works well. If you're the scientist that you claim to be it should be a cake walk for you to prove to me and everyone else why it works.

You ask why the Audette method isn't well known--but it is in fact well known, and has been for years. And it works about half of the time--it just doesn't work as well as the OCW method.

My method is relatively new. I've been sharing the method with a few fellow shooters, and noting excellent performance in a variety of rifles from identical load recipes arrived at via my method. This began less than one year ago.

You seem to be ignoring what Denton has said for some reason...

So again, it makes not a whit of difference whether Hotcore or I can back any claims with math or science. If something works, it works. We can bring the egg-heads in later to tell us why it works. Know too that the egg-heads maintained for years that bumble-bees could not fly. But that was of course news to the bees! You are in the precarious postion of arguing that bumble bees can't fly because no one has shown you the math!

Anyway, in the inimatable words of Bill O'Reilly, I'm going to give you the last word here... Unfortunately we aren't about to solve anything with the continued rhetoric.

Best of luck to you and yours,

Dan Newberry
green 788

---

Dan,

First of all... this is not a personal crusade against your idea. On the contrary! but I cannot take offense on a free basis, especially when I tried to condcut a reasonable debate.

I did not questioned Denton, becasue he offered a model, and until I see it, I had no comments whatsoever.

Let me make my point :

Many times before I said that I appreciated your work, becuase it's interesting, but your response is always the same... I understand that you have no means to prove it in a scientific manner, but don't descredit science because you don't like it.

The problem here, as I see it is that you like to claim, even mixing concepts not fully understood, like harmonics and the OCW...

I�m very interested to see someday a hard-working method, but try to listen others instead of beat them.

Of course, I have no intention to develop such model, because people like HotCore are so good that I prefer to wait and see.

Keep up the good work. Again, don't fear debate if you really want to improve. Otherwise, stop claiming.

Best regards,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gustavo:
1) In other words, verifiable evidence.
2) HotCore, where did you learn your Engineering ??
3) But, please STOP claiming!!!!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pertinax:
I'll chime in here too: I'm a physicist by degree, though I don't pretend to be an expert in materials science. But I do know a good bit about wave propagation and harmonics-- and also about modeling the real world.

That said, I think some of you folks are over-simplifying the situation with respect to the barrel oscillation. This isn't a "rung bell" situation! There is no single impulse driving the vibration. Rather, the bullet moving down the barrel acts as a continuous influence on the oscillation. I won't even hazard a guess as to what its effects are, but there's every reason to expect that this situation is NOT like a simple fixed-at-one end vibrating rod.

Pertinax

---

At least!!! some words of wisdom !!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by pertinax:
Green 788,

I'm not challenging the vibration / best-group-occurs-at-a-node wisdom. That's all undoubtedly true. But I will say I'm skeptical that a single load will group well in most (or all) guns. That seems unlikely, based on the differences known to exist between barrels. I have no evidence to back this though, and won't pretend otherwise. I'm willing to try some of your OCW combinations, but I'm not sure if my shooting ability (or guns) is sufficient to differentiate between an "OK" load, and a really good one.

I am a scientist in the true sense of the word. Evidence convinces me. This is good, healthy debate. And I'm always happy to see my favorite hobby being placed on a more scientific footing. So keep it up guys.

Pertinax

---

Well... seems we are at least two... at last!!

The search for true is full of rocks... but only the ones with enough knowledge, effort and patience and a real interest will know how to avoid them.

Try again.

quote:

---

�Now that you have the knowledge to understand why the never improved upon Audette Method works, all you have to do is go shoot lots of firearms creating many groups to verify what you already know is true.�

---

You seem to be extremely anti-evolutionary there HotCore. If everything that was used in the old days was so great, then we would never had the need to move on to anything else.

I also see that you�re still up to your old tricks of debate i.e. attempting to cast a bad light on people by changing their names, or showing disrespect via deliberately spelling their names wrong, i.e. �Rookiegreen�s MUC Load Method�, asserting claims to a �higher power� i.e "never improved upon Audette Method", or appealing to claims of time and 'knowledge' i.e. �in use by knowledgeable reloaders for many years� etc. In the latter you come off as if to say that a half-wit developed Dan�s method, therefore, there is no need to try testing it, or even developing a database that shows the validity one way or the other. How about bringing the debate up to a more scientific level?

If you were half of the scientist that you claim to be, I believe you would TRY the method you decry and show statistics as to why it is faulty. After all the whole idea behind science is to find the truth through testing. If you find something contrary to your hypothesis, then you change your tune. You do not deny it in the face of your findings.

Also, in not trying Dan�s method before you decry it, you fall into an extremely hypocritical position with heavy overtones of double standards when you hold people to these levels in debating CHE/PRE.

I�ll be blunt here, have you tried Dan�s method? Do you have stat�s from these tests to prove/disprove its validity? Claiming that you have binders full of info on how well the Audette Method works does nothing to disprove Dan�s method. I�ll agree that it does provide us with another method, but again, it does nothing do disprove anything. So far, we have seen a number of targets from people who have actually tried the method and they seem to hold up Dan�s claims. For whatever reason (I�m no scientist or statistician � I prefer archaeology ) the method seems to work.

The whole debate brings to mind Einstein�s response to being told that a hundred scientists were working to disprove his theory of relativity, in which he replied with something to the effect of, �If I am wrong, then wouldn�t it only take one?�

Turok