Saeed, regardless of the outcome, when all is said and done you may wish to contact S1 at http://artactical.com/6/ubb.x?a=cfrm&s=692600194 to compare notes.

He knows a few things about this, maybe you could both profit from the experience. In case you haven't heard of him or dealt with him before, he is opinionated and to the point, and some people are offended by his manner. Unfortunately for those of thin skins and retiring manner he is also usually right, their opportunity to learn something dashed by their retreat.

Fact is I'm not certain I've witnessed him dispense with incorrect info, but some of the things he says are over my head.

Saeed,
If you`re interested this months (feb 2005) issue of Precision Shooting has a artical titled "Hallelujah! (The case for centerfire Benchrest barrel tuners)"
You might find it a good read or at least it may answer or bring up some questions for ya.

Saeed,

It's good to see you are getting back to experimenting in the AR laboratory. The first round was interesting, because it proved the age old adage of, don't mess with a gun that is shooting well, as the best group was the first group.

Have you been cleaning the bore between test sessions?

What those that dismiss this test as silly, since loads can be tuned to a gun miss, is that there are times when one wants to tune the gun to the load. 22 rimfires are a perfect example, as are hunting guns that the hunter wants to use a paticular bullet, or load.

If you want to hunt with a paticular bullet, and find the powder of your choice reaches a paticular velocity, and with a very low extreme spread, then you can tune the gun to that load.

Paul,

I started off with a clean barrel, fired 100 shots as the first installment, then cleaned it again.

I am going to continue this regime.

Saeed,

What is most suprising about the results, is how a 0.010" cut can have such a huge effect!

http://www.speakeasy.org/~cdlong/shock%20wave%20theory%20summary%20explanation.htm Check out this webpage, This guy did some research aon barrel shock waves...

gixxer, thanks for the link to Mr. Long's site. Looks like an interesting read, will get back to it later.

0.993
3.146
1.599
2.428
2.154
1.494
1.717
2.538
1.346
1.917
1.054
1.435
1.404
1.529
1.629
1.930
1.044
1.415
1.497
1.315

Smallesty groups = 0.993
Largest group = 3.146
Average group = 1.679


Second installment:

0.679
1.972
1.502
1.476
1.556
1.611
1.352
1.209
0.802
1.165
1.345
1.903
0.765
1.254
1.908
1.074
2.480
1.478
2.436
1.796

Smallest group = 0.765
Largest group = 2.480
Average = 1.488

2.011
1.827
1.619
1.836
1.906
0.743
1.787
1.874
1.419
1.510
1.786
0.929
0.910
1.876
1.456
2.018
1.725
1.394
1.123
2.297

Smallest = 0.743
Largest = 2.297
Average = 1.602

1.417
1.590
1.706
1.512
1.345
0.873
2.939
1.266
1.500
1.541
1.578
1.639
0.861
1.471
1.117
1.088
1.233
1.221
1.581
2.278

Smallest = 0.861
Largest = 2.939
Average = 1.426

It's been thirty years since I've had the mathamatics of statistics and maybe someone that's been there very recently can do the actual mathamatical analysis....
My question is....What's the chances that group 1, 2, & 3 data sets are (statistically) identical?.....
As an example of what I'm saying is that in each group of 20 observations it's pretty clear that a 2.5" group is identical to a 1.0 group since the same gun/conditions/ ammo produced it.

Saeed:

How about shooting a few groups with some other ammo (including match stuff) and see what groups you get just for a comparison standard?

Would give an idea of how inherently accurate the gun is.

AND also how does this ammo group in a very accurate .308 gun of BR quality?

And, oh Digital Dan...only if you have Parkinson's!

quote:

Originally posted by sonofagun:
Saeed:

How about shooting a few groups with some other ammo (including match stuff) and see what groups you get just for a comparison standard?

Would give an idea of how inherently accurate the gun is.

AND also how does this ammo group in a very accurate .308 gun of BR quality?

Sounds like a great idea.

I can try this ammo in different rifles, and report the results.

I do have a few Remington 40Xs, one AI match rifle and one Sako TRG.

I will finish the string I am shooting now, and will shoot 100 rounds in each of the above mentioned rifles - that is assuming the military ammo will chamber in them though.

I also have a custom built rifle on a Remington 700 action, and I know it shoots extremely well with match ammo. Trouble is, it has had an awful lot of rounds shot through it - around 50,000 so far!!

It is our "loaner" rifle. It gets shot practically every day!

Only 50,000? Probably never been cleaned either huh?


Gosh, need some help? How much to fly me to Dubai?

Hmmmm,

Two days later.

Now I KNOW you need help!

Uh-oh! You did make sure NOT to fire military ammo in a tight neck chambered gun didn't you?

HELLO! SAEED! HELLOOOOOO!!!!

VAS IS LOS!

BTT

Hey, what's happened to this thread?

Is Saeed OK???

BTT

Saeed, you bak????

We's alls ankshusly awaitin'

The only problem with that is the wood cannot be trusted to remain in the same position and to hold the same point of impact. With a freefloated barrel, point of impact is maintained and the wood can warp a little.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I also have a custom built rifle on a Remington 700 action, and I know it shoots extremely well with match ammo. Trouble is, it has had an awful lot of rounds shot through it - around 50,000 so far!!

It is our "loaner" rifle. It gets shot practically every day!

Shouldn't be much longer before you get it "broke in" and then it should settle down to some fine groups.

JAL:

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:
And I'm sure we all know, we are doing the same
thing when we adjust our handloads.
JL

"I" am sure that I DON'T "know".

Explain it to me please.

Gentlemen,

Sorry that this experiment has been neglected for a while.

I hope to get back to it as soon as time permits.

We are busy making bullets in several calibers - 0.585, 0.423, 0.416, 0.375, 0.366 and 0.308. Once we have made enough of these I will get back to finishing that test.

Nothing would make me happier that to totally understand barrel harmonics as I am sure there is something to it.

I refuse to do it with a "trumpet" on the end of the barrel however! Possibly a barrel does have an optimum exacting length it should be, I don't know..... I'm afraid it might change with the load though and you can't add back what you just cut off....

A fantastic subject not delved into enough.....

BigRx

So if I want to tune up my new 26 inch bull barrled Remington 700 BDL .308 to factory ammo all I have to do is throw away my reloading equipment and get my grinder out. Might end up with a 25 3/8 barrel but don't have to work up a reload. I would rather work up a reload than cut on the barrel. But each to his own.

i'm just confused

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Gentlemen,

Sorry that this experiment has been neglected for a while.

I hope to get back to it as soon as time permits.

We are busy making bullets in several calibers - 0.585, 0.423, 0.416, 0.375, 0.366 and 0.308. Once we have made enough of these I will get back to finishing that test.

YIPPEE!!

SURE YOU DOAN NEED MY HELP?

quote:

Originally posted by renaissance:
JAL:

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:
And I'm sure we all know, we are doing the same
thing when we adjust our handloads.
JL

"I" am sure that I DON'T "know".

Explain it to me please.

Renaissance, I've sent you a PM, haven't checked
this post for a while as Saeed seemed to disappear for a while.
John L.