WARNING!! HERE CONTINUES A THAT EXTENDS TO THE END OF THE THREAD

quote:

We then need to explain the difference why the SF should be only be 1.4 for say a 9,3/3230 gr HV bullet, but we need a minimum SF of 2.0 when we come to the FN version (260 gr FN).

You fixed that in a hurry!!

Gerard,

Now fix your explanation !!!
You keep on dancing around the subject.



Warrior

Gerard,

Can you explain to us how stagnation pressure works and how it destroys (work against) the stability of the bullet (SF values), if we pitch the velocity at 3 different levels ... say 2300 ..... 2600 ..... and 2900fps with a .375/300 grain Solid FN bullet shot in a .375 caliber.

I ask this question in the light of of your reasoning that a faster caliber (than a 9,3x62), like a 375 H&H, needs to jump from a minimum SF value of 2.0 to 2.5? That brings in the practical situation if an animal is shot at point blank range at say 2600 fps and when we down load the 375 H&H to 9,3x62 velcities.

Or you could reply to Alf's view on this matter:

"There is one area where "stagnation" occurs in bullet flight, however. It is the area at the base of the bullet where the moving air rushes in around the bullet base, creating a tiny pocket of extreme turbulence, the stagnation zone. But the stagnation zone has no effect on stability that is of any significance whatsoever. Thus 'stagnation pressure' is a non-existing 'force' in ballistic science "

Warrior

What about the crows. You have not said anything about the crows. How can you expect others to reply to yours if you do not reply to theirs. Tell us where you get all the crows.

Gerard,

On 3/11/2008 you wrote:

quote:

"Entry level spec for our FN solids is a S/F of 2. Depending on speed and meplat area, some are pegged at more than 2.5 (to start with). The difference in reliability of linear penetration and depth, from S/F 2 to S/F 3 is very noticable. Only when S/F numbers exceed 3.5 to 4, is there no longer much observed difference in linearity and depth."

You advanced the theory of stagnation pressure, and here you do it just by using other words to say the same thing .... "Depending on speed and meplat area, some are pegged at more than 2.5 (to start with)." This needs clarification ..... does the .375 bullet need a higher SF than the 9,3 bullet because it has a bigger MEPLAT AREA and a higher VELOCITY?

If so, what is the position with a bigger diameter/caliber and heavier bullet (say 500 grains) shot in a bullet 460 Wby Magnum at 2,600 fps? Should the SF be even much higher as a minimum specification? And when the same bullet is shot in a 458 Lott, can we then bring the SF down as the bullet is doing about 2,300 fps, and if we shoot the bullet in a 458 Win Mag at say 2,000 fps, can we then bring the SF down further?

The point I am making is that if you formulate a postulate in precise detail, correct to the second decimal (2.44 vs 2.5), it should be eloquently worded so as to cover quite a few aspects that could have an influence on it, if it is to hold any water just by simply intelligent questioning or due consideration of were the break-points are.

Warrior

Pontificus Erroneus,

quote:

Now fix your explanation.

Demand upon demand - They taught you well.

quote:

You keep on dancing around the subject.

Every question you have asked has been answered several times, probably more than four or five years ago.

You, on the other hand are incapable of putting two brain cells together to answer the one question that has been asked umpteen times above, because you are stuck. You do not know.

No more answers from me until you have replied to: "According to your statement of SF 1.3 to 1.5 - Can we use bullets at 1.29 and 1.51 or not?" Until you have shown that you grasp the concept demonstrated by the question above - and there will be more questions after you have given a reply - there is no point in discussing stability factor with you.

As I have said before: There is no point in discussing English grammar with someone who only speaks Chinese.

Allow me to illustrate what I mean.

It gives me great pleasure to repeat your next post in its entirety so that you cannot backpedal on it. Note the bits in red:

quote:

Posted 06 May 2009 18:51 Hide Post
Gerard,

Can you explain to us how stagnation pressure works and how it destroys (work against) the stability of the bullet (SF values), if we pitch the velocity at 3 different levels ... say 2300 ..... 2600 ..... and 2900fps with a .375/300 grain Solid FN bullet shot in a .375 caliber.

I ask this question in the light of of your reasoning that a faster caliber (than a 9,3x62), like a 375 H&H, needs to jump from a minimum SF value of 2.0 to 2.5? That brings in the practical situation if an animal is shot at point blank range at say 2600 fps and when we down load the 375 H&H to 9,3x62 velcities.

Or you could reply to Alf's view on this matter:

"There is one area where "stagnation" occurs in bullet flight, however. It is the area at the base of the bullet where the moving air rushes in around the bullet base, creating a tiny pocket of extreme turbulence, the stagnation zone. But the stagnation zone has no effect on stability that is of any significance whatsoever. Thus 'stagnation pressure' is a non-existing 'force' in ballistic science "

Here is what Alf actually said:

quote:

I disagree with you on this one:

"There is one area where "stagnation" occurs in bullet flight, however. It is the area at the base of the bullet where the moving air rushes in around the bullet base, creating a tiny pocket of extreme turbulence, the stagnation zone.

But the stagnation zone has no effect on stability that is of any significance whatsoever.

Thus 'stagnation pressure' is a non-existing 'force' in ballistic science "

Methinks you should look at Bernoulli's equation and the physics of flow around projectiles.

Stagnation streamline and stagnation point and the velocity of flow and the resultant pressure at that point. Also Dynamic pressures around the rest of the projectile frontal area.

What you think is Alfs opinion, is actally someone else's opinion that was quoted by Alf and, correctly, Alf differs from him. In fact, if you read the rest of that thread from 2005, you will see that Alf and I agreed on the subject discussed. There is nothing for me to reply to - it was done in that thread from 2005, which you clearly do not understand.


This must rank in the top five of Bekker Blunders in the category "Failure to Comprehend the Written Word."

It is absolute proof that you do not understand anything you read. When you "agree" with Alf, it is because you are posturing - pretending to understand while, in truth, you do not.

You are a poseur and a Troll with no comprehension of the subject at hand and you dare to demand that questions be answered.

Hoist by your own petard, sunk by your own stupidity, somewhere a village is missing........

I would love to see how you get out of this one. Absolutely priceless!!!

Gerard,

On 3/11/2008 you wrote:


quote:

quote:

"Entry level spec for our FN solids is a S/F of 2. Depending on speed and meplat area, some are pegged at more than 2.5 (to start with). The difference in reliability of linear penetration and depth, from S/F 2 to S/F 3 is very noticable. Only when S/F numbers exceed 3.5 to 4, is there no longer much observed difference in linearity and depth."

You advanced the theory of stagnation pressure, and here you do it just by using other words to say the same thing .... "Depending on speed and meplat area, some are pegged at more than 2.5 (to start with)." This needs clarification ..... does the .375 bullet need a higher SF than the 9,3 bullet because it has a bigger MEPLAT AREA and a higher VELOCITY?

If so, what is the position with a bigger diameter/caliber and heavier bullet (say 500 grains) shot in a bullet 460 Wby Magnum at 2,600 fps? Should the SF be even much higher as a minimum specification? And when the same bullet is shot in a 458 Lott, can we then bring the SF down as the bullet is doing about 2,300 fps, and if we shoot the bullet in a 458 Win Mag at say 2,000 fps, can we then bring the SF down further?

The point I am making is that if you formulate a postulate in precise detail, correct to the second decimal (2.44 vs 2.5), at this level if you will, it should be eloquently worded so as to cover quite a few aspects that could have an influence on it, if it is to hold any water just by simply intelligent questioning or due consideration of were the break-points are.[/quote]

I would love to see how you get out of this one !!! We cannot submit your postulate for the Nobel Price if you do not word it properly. If you have attempted to explain it, then you have failed miserably. Your theory is flawed, and that is why you make every excuse and try to stifle any sensible discussion. So, you are stuck, not me.



Warrior

quote:

Thus 'stagnation pressure' is a non-existing 'force' in ballistic science "

Alf,

Could you clarify for us what you meant by your above statement in relation to in-target penetration with reference to straight-line penetration and depth, if at all.

For ease of reference, mainly for Gerard that seems to ignore certain things when it suits him, I am quoting
what you wrote before, that I am in agreement with: ...

"I terms of in-target stability it now comes down to bullet geometry and construction. If we assume two bullets of similar construction, geometry and ogived shape, both do not deform the bullet with the smallest angle of attack value will take the longest to tumble, the higher the angle of attack value the shorter the narrow channel phase. This is not SF at impact value dependent. Experimentation on in-target motion of bullets have shown that in target stability of ogived projectiles is dependent on:

1. Angle of attack value at impact
2. Geometry ( length to transverse moment of inertia ratio)

So the error in reasoning is that because one bullet has a greater SF value at impact the better it's going to penetrate. This is not true! It is the Angle of Attack value that is of importance and in target motion then geometry dependent."

Warrior

quote:

Entry level spec for our FN solids is a S/F of 2. yadda yadda blah blah were the break-points are.

Exact repeat of previous post. No response required.

quote:

We cannot submit your postulate for the Nobel Price (sic)

It would be fraudulent to do so. I did not discover stagnation pressure, Bernoulli is the father of that one, all of 270 years ago I think. Niether did I do the work around the external ballistics factors that you discovered only last week. It is also old hat. Many decades old.

quote:

If you have attempted to explain it, then you have failed miserably.

No, it is your ability to comprehend that is flawed. See the section in blue lower down.

quote:

Your theory is flawed

It is not a theory. There is that faulty comprehension problem you have again. It is a specification I wrote, after more experimentation and testing than what your little brain can comprehend. It is called experience. I can see how that is a problem for you because you have none.

Now for the blue bits (this is so funny):

quote:

"Thus 'stagnation pressure' is a non-existing 'force' in ballistic science "

Alf,

Could you clarify for us what you meant by your above statement in relation to in-target penetration with reference to straight-line penetration and depth, if at all.

How is it possible that you still do not realise that Alf did not say this??

Spring Trap posted that statement. Alf quoted it when he differed with it and gave the explanation why it is wrong.

You are truly as stupid as two bags of rocks!!

quote:

"I terms of in-target stability it now comes down to bullet geometry and construction. If we assume two bullets of similar construction, geometry and ogived shape, non deforming

I see that you repeat that you agree with Alf on this. So do I but "and ogived shape, non deforming" immediately renders the facts presented useless in the context of expanding or FN bullets and you are too stupid to realise that.

quote:

So the error in reasoning is........

Yours entirely because you do not have a clue what is being discussed. You cannot even figure out who said what.

You really should stop digging.

I like doing this because every time I ask I know that you do not have the ability to answer. It highlights your lack of insight so well:

Can we use bullets at a SF of 1.29 and 1.51 or not?

Gerard,

You are too stupid to realize that I have answered your question many postings back ... let us see if you can find it. This is hilarious !!!

Your specification is based on your views but it does not make your postulate scientifically sound and nor is a plausible explanation offered that you stifle every time as you cannot put it together.

This is rasputin stuff of the higherst order ... "Entry level spec for our FN solids is a S/F of 2. Depending on speed and meplat area, some are pegged at more than 2.5 (to start with). The difference in reliability of linear penetration and depth, from S/F 2 to S/F 3 is very noticable. Only when S/F numbers exceed 3.5 to 4, is there no longer much observed difference in linearity and depth."

Perhaps this quotation from Alf will better explain to you ........ "I am referring to dense media targets thus twist ratio is totally negated, there is not a twist ratio that can overcome the 1000 fold increase in density that the spinning projectile is subjected when it transitions from air to living tissue target. The Gyro no longer operates and now the projectile will react to drag based on the geometrical distribution of it's mass.

Once the projectile enters the target, stability of the oblong projectile is directly proportional to the geometrical configuration of the projectile in terms of mass distribution thus the two moments of inertia and also relative to angle of attack. This is an undisputed terminal ballistics fact and forms the very basis of " in target stability" description."

Do you agree with Alf on this???

Warrior

Hey Warrior,
I want to know about the crows.
I demand to know about the crows!!
All humankind has a right to know about the crows!!!

Where do you get them?
How do you cook them?

Gerard,

You have defined finite levels of gyroscopic stability levels applicable to air, not only per caliber but also for different calibers at differing velcoities, as if they play a crucial role in-target, being a soft-solid a 1,000 denser than air. This is you postulate and a view that is being challenged and you have to rise to the occation - step-up, or step-back.

So, the onus is on you (and nobody else) to give us a plausible explanation as to how this works - how you link SF values with stagnation pressure and that at these certain break-points (of SF values) how they influence straight-line penetration and depth. Then please back it up with your extensive documented research, so we can see that when the SF value is changed, how it effects the linearity of penetration and the depth of penetration. Linking SF values with stagnation pressure would certainly qualify you for a Nobel Prize, as nobody has done that as far as I know - you would be the pioneer. The derivation of your developed mathematical formula will thus be known as Schultz's formula and stand next to Munk's formula on the overturning moment.

With your arrogance and confidence, this should not be difficult Gerard, because you have been putting a lot in on this, if I understand you correctly. My guess would be that you just have to find the words now to do it eloquently to get it passed the scrutiny of ballisticians. I would venture to say the task is very much like trying to smuggle the break of daylight passed a cock.



Warrior

Gerard,

This is what Springtrap had to say ... "At this 'standstill' (stagnation/motionless) point stagnation pressure has no effect on the stability of the bullet."

Now this is very much our point of discussion here. It needs to be evaluated - accepted or rejected. You decide which makes more sense for you, but if you differ with Springtrap's statement then please motivate your answer.

Warrior

Pontificus Erroneus,

quote:

You are too stupid to realize that I have answer (sic) your question many posting (sic) back

Lies, damn lies and Bekker.

quote:

Your specification is based on your views

Yes, lots of experience, testing and field results formed those views and culminated in a very successful design, based on the specs I laid down.

quote:

but it does not make your postulate scientifically sound

And, according to science, bumblebees are not supposed to fly. However, it is only your opinion and who cares what that is? I don't.

quote:

and nor is a plausible explanation offered that you stifle every time as you cannot put it together

Oh I gave my take on it over and over and over. In 2004, 2005, 2006.... and only you have a problem with it. So it is not plausable to you - Who cares? I don't. Our FN will just carry on being as close to a zero failure bullet as anyone could possibly have.

quote:

Perhaps this quotation from Alf will better explain to you ........

Are you sure it is Alf you are quoting here?

In any case, the quote is old hat. We agreed on that 5 years ago and no one disputes it, so why are you mentioning it? Answer: Because you do not understand the discussion and you think it somehow proves a point.

You see only that which you want to see. Six posts later, in the same thread as the quote you give, Alf said: "A "cutting edge" type bullet will cut a neat punched out hole at point of entry as the mechanism of cavitation has not yet started. What happnes on skin entry does not equate to what happens when the bullet is in the target medium" He said that 18 months ago and confirmed my observation of 10 years ago, so that is old hat too.

Interesting post in the Big Bore section.

quote:

My first 50 B&Ms .500 caliber were all 1:18 twists.
Our first runs at trying to get a proper .500 caliber solid were all round nose designs. Stable for accuracy, but when terminal tests were done they were very unstable, straight penetration only about 50%, and could not keep them in the box. We quickly put together a 1:12 twist and stability went to between 80-90% of total penetration, a marked improvement. So 1:12 did wonders for the round nose. I wanted better, so we took what was a 512 gr bullet, gave it a 30 caliber meplat bring the weight down to 485 grs (less Sectional Density mind you) and this bullet penetrated dead straight for 100% of the total penetration which INCREASED by roughly 35% over the round nose design. This in a 1:12 twist.

This was such a marked improvement I tried the FN in the 1:18 twist barrels that could not stabilize the RN at all, and guess what? The Flat Nose was 100% stable and penetrated the same amount of material as it did in the 1:12 twist.

So, my "postulate" is again confirmed. Increased twist rate was quite dramatic in the way it helped the linear penetration of round nose solids.

Cannot argue with actual test results, can we?

quote:

This is what Springtrap had to say ... "At this 'standstill' (stagnation/motionless) point stagnation pressure has no effect on the stability of the bullet."
Now this is very much our point of discussion here. It needs to be evaluated - accepted or rejected.

It is significant that you make the same blunder twice. It confirms that you are quoting the opinion of others without comprehension of what they are saying.

Stay with me on this one, it is good:

1. With your first blunder above, you quoted Springtrap, thinking it was Alf. At that point they had a difference of opinion. So you thought you were in agreement with Alf, but it was actually Springtrap, therefore you disagreed with Alf on that one.

2. You made the same blunder again in your next post, still agreeing with "Alf" (but actually with Springtrap), thereby confirming that you agree with: "At this 'standstill' (stagnation/motionless) point stagnation pressure has no effect on the stability of the bullet."

3. Then Springtrap realised that Alf is right and that there is a difference between "stagnation point" and "stagnation pressure" and, immediately after your quote, with which you agree, Springtrap said: "CORRECTION on previous post: "Stagnation pressure" does play a role in terminal ballistics."

How could you miss that? It was the very next sentence.


Where does that leave you?

It is clear that you never realised that there is a difference between stagnation "pressure" and "point"!! These quotes are from 2005 and today you say: "Now this is very much our point of discussion here. It needs to be evaluated - accepted or rejected." But it was rejected in 2005 and not by me, by both the men you (thought) you agreed with. You got left behind, in the dark, and you still look through a glass darkly today.


It leaves you agreeing with an incorrect theory, since Alf disagreed from the get go and Springtrap, being a thinking man and open to learning and persuasion, accepted the correct argument that was presented to him.

It also leaves you with egg on your face because it proves that you have learned nothing since 2005, despite being exposed to the right theories facts and results for four years. One would think that just a tiny smattering of logic would make it to that vacuum between your ears.


You are such an idiot, you cannot even figure out when to fold em and call it a day.


And this brings us to that question you cannot answer: SF 1.29 and SF 1.51 - usable or not?



PS: It is amusing when you learn a new word. You can stop using "postulate" now. We have seen that you found it and it is irritating that you continue to use it incorrectly.

Your use of the word indicates that you agree with my position and, from my point of view it is correct. As it is clear that you do not agree with me, your use is incorrect. It is normal for you to be incorrect, but it is irritating nonetheless.

"Postulate" - In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

Gerard,

So, you still cannot find the answer to your question. Try again, it is there, no lie as you claim .... you just need to interpret what I am saying ... it is so glaringly obvious. As if this answer will somehow change anything that will support your bogus theory.

You still have not put your theory together in a remotely logical form Gerard - just statements, mere statements and specifications. We need to see the logic and the interaction. And please don't forget, on what basis should we recommend an SF of 2.5 for .375" Solids as a minimum, and only 1.3 to 1.5 for Softs (ave. of say 1.4)? This is a simple question, not so? Not even 2.44 is acceptable to you in .375/300 gr FN, but somehow the 9,3 FN version on needs a minimum of SF of 2. Does this logic stop at these 2 calibers, or is the same principle followed and applied from a 243 Win through to the 460 Wby Mag?

We are waiting for it Gerard - just structure it nicely now how you link SF values with stagnation pressure and how you arrive at these break-points. Step-up or step-back !!!

Warrior

Congratulations... you both are now tied for the Olympic Gold Medal in the Pole Vaulting Mouse Turds competition.

Gerard,

Let me reveal the answer to you ......

Posted 20 April 2009 18:12 (Page 3 of this thread)

"Just about all gunwriters recommend an SF between 1.3 and 1.5 as a rule of thumb. I have referred to this in a previous posting - reason being to cater for various climate conditions and variations in twist being slightly off of what it is supposed to be. Please concentrate .... rule of thumb, not exact dogma, as you dogmatize - "With FN bullets we recommend a stability factor in EXCESS of 2.5 for reliable linear penetration. The 300gr FN has a stability factor of 2.39 to 2.44 from 2000fps to 3000fps. Again not ideal."

.... Rule of thumb, not exact dogma .... that means there is lee-way both ways, yes?
We know that even a SF of say 1.15 may end up to be more than 1.30 down range at practical hunting ranges.
And likewise, if we start out with a SF of 1.50 that if will also increase, as the sample graph clearly shows.
So, there is the answer then yet again in more detail to your apparent all-important question.

With the above then fresh in your mind, consider the silliness of your dogma, at a level far far above 1.5, that it could become so all important to specify that a SF of 2.44 is not enough, and that one really needs a SF in excess of 2.5 to achieve reliable linear penetration. What a crock !!!

As posted by ALF, shown again here for ease of reference:



Warrior

You need proffesional help, at the very minimum with reading comprehension. Follow below for confirmation.

Warrior posts: "With the above then fresh in your mind, consider the silliness of your dogma, at a level far far above 1.5, that it could become so all important to specify that a SF of 2.44 is not enough, and that one really needs a SF in excess of 2.5 to achieve reliable linear penetration. What a croc !!!"

Gerard posts: "Entry level spec for our FN solids is a S/F of 2. Depending on speed and meplat area, some are pegged at more than 2.5 (to start with). The difference in reliability of linear penetration and depth, from S/F 2 to S/F 3 is very noticable. Only when S/F numbers exceed 3.5 to 4, is there no longer much observed difference in linearity and depth."

If Gerard was nearly as dogmatic as you claim, or as you are, he would insist on starting S/F of minimum 3.5 to 4, which is the point at which he believes linearity and depth of penetration gain resulting from additional increase in S/F is reduced to insignificance.

Put another way, S/F of 2.5 is more ideal than 2.44, and will lead to increased incidence of linear and deep penetration. Or another way, S/F of 2 or 2.5 respectively will lead to significantly increased incidence of linear and deep penetration compared to 1.3 - 1.5 S/F.

Maybe you don't agree? OK, but there is no break in Gerards theory or logic, as you alledge.

JPK

quote:

You need proffesional help, at the very minimum with reading comprehension.

I was thinking the same thing. It is unbelievable how he just barges on, making mistake after mistake and pretends that nothing is wrong. He wants all the answers but he cannot give any himself.

I remain curious about the crows. I wonder if he will ever answer that. Probably not.

Fortunately, all my questions on the initial post on this subject were answered on the first page, from those posting based on their personal experience rather than theory and formula. I can't read further than the first page, because after that I can just feel my eyes beginning to cross, and have to stop reading.

This discussion is the ultimate

KB

I can't believe this pissing match is still going on.
Paul B.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul B:
I can't believe this pissing match is still going on.
Paul B.

Now you know why I left for three years, nothing much has changed.

I think one thing we are missing is the effect that rotational velocity has on making a standard type bullet come apart, at least in varmint bullets. I have done a lot of shooting on varmints with some buddies. One has a 1-15 .220 Swift, mine is 1-12, his brother's is 1-10. At least on prairie dogs, the 1-10 twist rifle absolutely vaporizes them, while the 1-15 twist rifle just folds them up. It is visually different. The velocity on the 1-15 twist barrel is higher as well. I think the rpm makes the bullet come undone on impact.

jstevens,

You are right. A lot of things happen in the transition from flight to tissue.

Forces such as rotational speed, stability factor and others do not magically disappear when the nose of the bullet touches the target. Time is required for the dissipation of some and for others to build and this is a grossly neglected area of scrutiny. Once again one must believe what is observed, regardless of the fact that the science that is presented does not fit or explains inadequately.

Vvarrior, Kabluewy, Paul B, cobra and others,

We have been here before and, as before, I apologise for the unpleasantness with Bekker (Pontificus Erroneus). It is an unneccesary evil and the lesser of two.

If allowed to run off at the mouth, unchecked, Bekker will simply continue his lies and deception about GSC products and, ultimately, that does more damage than showing him to be the fraud that he is.

It is regrettable and I apologise for this, but I am between a rock and a hard place.

The question remains: If you are put in a position where, for the past 8 years, someone with strong affiliation to another company in the same market has been attacking your business, fabricating "problems" from thin air, lying and deceiving - and doing all that from a questionable technical background, what would you do?

If you say "Let it slide..." you are a better man than I.

Bekker does not understand ballistics. His many mistakes prove that. He also does not learn. The fact that he has been going on mistakenly about the same subjects for 5 years, prove that. He has an agenda and, as long as he lies about the "problems" he sees with GSC products, I have to point out his lies, deceit and mistakes.

Of course it does not help when Alf publishes charts and scientific studies out of context.

Bekker will repeat them over and over as proof that Alf supports him. Even when Bekker twice quotes "proof" from "Alf" when it is actually a quote that Alf disagreed with.

You must admit that that was funny. How often do you see someone exposing himself as a buffoon on this forum so badly?

So, once again accept my apology for what is going on. As always you have the option of not reading it. By now most already know that Bekker will ignore any reasoning or question from me and simply repeat his misconceptions, pretending they are answers or something new. Pass it by. I have inserted an appropriate warning in my second post on page two.

Gerard,

What was very noticeable was how you ducked and dived to formulate your view, but you rather side track and derail. The onus is on you to explain it in the face of the various questions I brought up - not a single one was answered. You have no plausible explanation. You have spent thousands of words to stifle the discussion, whilst you could have written a few paragraphs to set out your postulate. When asked before, you denied that it was a view, but a specification, as if specifications are not based on views.

Your personal insults and deceptions will not redeem you.

Warrior

Pontificus Erroneus,

quote:

What was very noticeable was how you ducked and dived to formulate your view

My view is perfectly clear - see my first post on page two where Alf asked: "So with this established; how does impact condition effect bullet performance in target?" and I replied:

"The bullet with the higher s/f better resists the overturning moment that is generated between the center of pressure and the center of gravity. The bullet axis, which is in effect the axis around which the gyroscope spins, is less likely to assume a different plane and the base of the bullet is less likely to try and overtake the nose. It deforms more symmetrically and has a better chance at linear penetration."

Not my fault that you do not read from the top.

quote:

but you rather side track and derail.

Because, once I have answered a question and you ask the same question for the second time, because you did not understand the question or the answer, I like to yank your chain.

quote:

The onus is on you to explain it in the face of the various questions I brought up

Why is there an onus on me to answer any question you ask? You do not understand the questions you ask and you do not recognise answers if they run up to you and bite you in the leg. Besides, fishing on behalf of your associates is sooo transparent.

quote:

not a single one was answered.

In fact, every question you have asked in this thread was answered before you asked it. So, when you ask them again because you do not understand the answers or the questions, I yank your chain.

quote:

You have no plausible explanation. You have spent thousands of words to stifle the discussion

Everything I have to say on the subject is here on this thread, has been said before or posted in the Tech Data pages of our website. It is not my problem if you suffer from a serious comprehension problem.

quote:

whilst you could have written a few paragraphs to set out your postulate.

I did that on page one and two of this thread. After you showed up, with your stupid face on, I just had to yank your chain. Thank you for using "postulate". Now that you know what "postulate" means, your use acknowledges that you are taking its truth for granted.

quote:

When asked before, you denied that it was a view, but a specification, as if specifications are not based on views.

You are confusing yourself again or perhaps it is another badly worded lie. I know it is easy for you to do both but, for the sake of clarity, here is what I said: "Yes, lots of experience, testing and field results formed those views and culminated in a very successful design, based on the specs I laid down."

quote:

Your personal insults and deceptions will not redeem you

More lies. First lie: I have not insulted you, I have stated fact. If you ask the same questions repeatedly and I repeat the same answers and you do not comprehend, I must deduce that you are stupid. Calling you stupid is therefore probably a little insensitive on my part, but it is factual. Like calling a person who cannot hear, deaf. Second lie: I have not deceived you. You cannot comprehend the written word. Don't blame me for that. Therefore no redemption is required. That was quite a compact three step swindle you tried there. Didn't work though, we are used to them.

I suppose we will never know about the crows..........

There is so much we still do not know about the crows. How many are required at a time, what do they cost, where are they sourced? What recipes are used...........So many gaps in our information but, alas and alack, the source of all knowledge has clammed up.

I got to the range this weekend with my new Douglas 30-06 1-12 twist, and was not at all surprised it shot as well or better than the normal 1-10 twist.

Even 220 gr bullets worked just fine, with no kint of keyholing.

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Blauwkamp:
I got to the range this weekend with my new Douglas 30-06 1-12 twist, and was not at all surprised it shot as well or better than the normal 1-10 twist.

Even 220 gr bullets worked just fine, with no kint of keyholing.

Terry,

That may be so, but ....
What bullet were you using ... lead-core bullets or monolithics?
Also, could it be that your new barrel is just a more precision or uniform made barrel vs the old shot-out one?
Once these issues are cleared/eliminated, we can then move to SF values.
And that would really be interesting to see how it pans out.
Could you calculate and share the SF's with us please.

Thanks
Warrior

Accuracy

SF

KB

Yes, this is what worries me. An old sloppy worn-out barrel versus a new custom barrel -chalk and cheese. When thoats get eroded to a point, accuracy will drop off regardless of twist rate, but the twist must at least be such so as to air stabilize a particular bullet.

Warrior

[
That may be so, but ....
What bullet were you using ... lead-core bullets or monolithics?
Also, could it be that your new barrel is just a more precision or uniform made barrel vs the old shot-out one?
Once these issues are cleared/eliminated, we can then move to SF values.
And that would really be interesting to see how it pans out.
Could you calculate and share the SF's with us please.

Thanks
Warrior[/QUOTE]

I was using standard Hornady and Sierra lead core bullets, but will be happy to try some long Barnes 180 gr TSX the next time.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Accuracy

SF

KB

Maybe my point was missed.
What I meant to say was: SF

I don't even know what SF means, and don't care what it means.

Is the rifle accurate? yes or no - that's enough.

KB

I must be one lucky SOB. The bullets I've used did just fine; or maybe it's just coincidence that I ever hit shit.

Perhaps the best use then for SF would be San Fransisco.

Warrior