Guys,

As one of those questions in my onging education ... an earlier poster in the Classified section indicated he had some Barnes X bullets available he had bought before he understood that monometal bullets weren't good for doubles.

Can someone please give me the skinny here?

I would assume this relates to the hardness of the projectile and the pressure increase resulting from engaging the rifling with a hard material.

If one were to use a bullet with a body dimeter equal to the bore diameter, but having driving bands of rifling diameter this effect would presumably be reduced. Reduced enough to go through the hassle of finding such a bullet?

The same consideration should also be true of such bullets fired in bolt guns. Any information that higher velocities and lower wear are found when monometal bullets with driving bands or rings are used in bolt guns?

There have also been discussions that fillers used with alloy projectiles in doubles have caused rings in rifle bores. Is this also true of fillers like cream of wheat?

(You guys have been a GREAT source of information ... really helps us folks who are trying to make the hop between completely ignorant and just mostly uninformed )

Truly thanks,

Mike,

The pressure increase lasts until the bullet is fully engraved by the rifling; which is simply the length of the bullet.

Where does the material go? The rifling displaces the metal, whether a mono or bimetal, the bullet can elongate or the metal can smear to the rear.

With GS Customs, Bridger or Groove bullets, the circumferential grooves allow the material to displace into them. This is (I believe) why there is a velocity decrease using these projectiles with the same quantity of powder as your normal soft loads; reduced pressures from reduced swaging forces.

Of course I may be barking up the wrong tree.

I recommend the A-Square reloading manual as it has a whole section devoted to bullet construction and forces.

[ 05-06-2003, 23:41: Message edited by: Roger Rothschild ]

mstarling, Your assesment of the problem with the use of Monolithic solids in a double, is partially correct, but not completely so!

The problem is the hardness of the material, and the barrel's reaction to that hardness! By this I mean, a rifle barrel swells slightly as the bullet passes through it, and retracts as the bullet passes, this can happen because of the ellasticity of the barrel material. The barrels of a double rifle are fairly thin, and so, react more rappidly to the passing bullets than a thicker barrel wall. In a single barrel this is not problem as long as the barrel is the proper steel. However, in a double this sudden expansion, and retraction effects not only the barrel being shot, but also effects the ribs between the barrels, the other barrel, and more importantly, it effects the solder between the barrels, and ribs that ties them together. Steel and solder react to sudden expansion, and shrinking, at different rates. This many times will cause a seperation of the ribs from the barrels. I don't think I need to tell you this is not good! 450 Nitro Express, who posts on this board, has an aquaintinance,( BwanaBob,who also posts here sometimes,and has a Chapuis rifle that was so damaged. The factory fixed the rifle, but soon after the rifle did it again and when the factory found out he had been shooting Monolithic solid in it, they fixed it again, but told him if he used the monos again he was on his own.

If the pressures were the only problem, the load could be adjusted so it was not a problem, but that is not what does the damage!

The so-called pressure rings avoids this effect on doubles, I'm told, but the rings are not pressure rings at all, but are cut into the bullet, to give the displaced metel a place to go, as the rifleing engraves the bullet. Just simply cutting these grouves around the bullet without regard to land and bore diameter is not what works. the grouves are cut to slightly less, in depth than the diameter bore, with the tops of the grouves, or bands in you prefere, are slightly higher than the tops of the of the lands. This works in two ways. The first is the tops of the bands being slightly higher than the tops of the lands seals the gasses off, and secondly the grouves being cut deaper than the bore diameter, gives the displaced metel some place to go! All this reduces the violent expansion, and retraction to the level of a conventinoal solid!

As to their use in a bolt rifle the fouling is the same with the monolithic like the Barnes super solid, as in a double, and the "PRESSURE RINGS" would reduse this in any rifle. But they may be shot in single barrel rifles all you want!

The use of Cream of wheat as a filler in any fully loaded cartridge is a NO NO. Creame of wheat is a medium that is used to fireform cases without a bullet, and should never be loaded behind a bullet. More rifles have been ruined by the creame of wheat than any other loading mistake. The cream of wheat becomes almost a solid, even without a bullet, and becomes an obstruction, with a bullet, raising pressures in the chamber drasticly, causeing the swollen chambers, or as you say RINGED CHAMBER! This will happen in a bolt rifle as well! The proper fillers are "Dacron fiber fill", and are only used to hold the powder back against the primer. Enough of this should be used to be slightly compressed when the bullet is seated. This stuf is not burned, but spatt out the muzzle on fireing. One other medium is Shotgun shot buffer, which is made up of tiny beads of a plastic that is so fine it has no problem getting through the bottle necked cases, or through the full choak of a shotgun. These, prorperly used are no problem and in fact reduce the instance of problems of laoding, and shooting doubles.

It is very difficult to explain these things in print, but I hope some of this make a little sense to you!

[ 05-14-2003, 23:01: Message edited by: MacD37 ]

/

GS custom are made in pure copper and are very smooth for barrel I have more trust in GScustom effect on barrel than on tought steel jacket use on woodleich even if woodleight arereliable in bolt action .

bronze bullet need to be hardness test , following th ebronze ally ,hardness can be impressive and very hard for the grooves.

good shooting

DAN TEC

good shooting

Posted this on another thread:

One of the dangers of shooting monolithic bullets in doubles or older singles is that the harder projectile can press the rifling through the barrel wall, so that it shows on the exterior of the barrel. Doubles are susceptible because the barrels are comparitive thin-walled, and older bolt-guns or singles because the steel is sometimes relatively soft. My mate has a long-barrelled Westley .404 with this symptom, and Graeme Wright devotes a hefty segment of his book to trouble-shooting the problem.

I am quite content with Woodleigh softs these days. No monos for me!

Marrakai,
What you are describing sounds an aweful lot like compressive yielding of your barrel! That would be very very bad, in my opinion! The pressure is simply an indicator of the force required to upset the riflings into the bullet. The bullet hardness will not a "good" indicator of this force. The material property of interest is compressive elastic modulus, CEM for short. The CEM is completely independant of hardness, this is why I say hardness is not a good indicator to use. It is generally true that harder materials have higher CEM than softer materials. So steel's CEM is bigger than Copper's, which is bigger than Lead's, which is bigger than Pine's, etc. Copper's CEM is much greater than lead's. This is why the jacketed bullet requires less force to engrave than the COPPER monometal. A LEAD monometal bullet requires less force to engrave than a jacketed bullet.

I hope this is clear to everyone, like mud.

Lucs

Marrakai,
Would you please send or post a photograph of your friends rifle...I have been looking for an example of this phenominum for nearly 25 years and have not to date found one or have seen any proof of such a thing, only rumor propagated by word of mouth..If you could do that I would be eternally gratefull.

Gosh, now I have to combat inaccurate information on two threads at once.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BwanaBob:
Just thought I would still my nose into this post and remind everyone, reading this post, that you should NEVER use mono solids in any double rifle.

---

That may be true of antique british doubles, but it does not apply to Searcy doubles which are designed and constructed to be shot with monolithic solids.

Further, if you use a good quality mono solid such as Bridger or GS Custom (instead of low quality Barnes), the solid will have a grooved region for engraving the rifling. The grooved region permits rifling engraving of the bullet at very low pressure. The pressure it takes to engrave grooved solids is far less than the pressure it takes to engrave a Woodleigh solid.

So actually a properly constructed grooved solid generates far less pressure than a Woodleigh solid is is preferable for use in any double rifle. Barnes is my least favorite solid, but Woodleigh is my second least favorite because of the high pressures I have encountered in sending that steel-reinforced jacket down the barrel. If you truly want low pressures, stay away from Woodleigh solids.

[ 05-13-2003, 20:44: Message edited by: 500grains ]

I think this topic is too technical for all of you to post on. I SUGGEST YOU FOLLOW THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS as to what bullets to use in your double rifle. Dantec hardness doen't mean anything. The relatively thin steel jacket of a Woodleigh is much easier to deform than a solid copper bar! Like I said NONE of you have the TECHNICAL knowledge to discuss this.

That means if you shoot an old double you aren't going to be shooting monometal bullets of any type since this bullet construction DID NOT exist when your old double rifle was made! Pretty much leaves you old double rifle owners with Woodleigh and possibly Hawk.

Axel

[ 05-13-2003, 22:27: Message edited by: Axel ]

500grains, since you feel you are such an expert in the field of "Strength of Materials" how much force is required to extrude riflings into the following:

1.) Woodleigh .475" solid?

2.) GS Grooved .475" monometal?

Pressure cannot be utilized as a "measurement" SINCE you have NO accurate method of measuring the actual pressure! Pressure varies significantly from round to round when the same powder, primers, cases, and bullets are used, which adds to the inaccuracies of utilizing pressure.

Besides, since you are SO smart you can calculate the force required. Guess what the calculated force will be within 0.5% of the actual force!

If you cannot perform this SIMPLE calculation I strongly suggest you FOLLOW my advice from my earlier post and FOLLOW THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS!

Axel

[ 05-14-2003, 00:32: Message edited by: Axel ]

Woodleigh takes more force, and GS takes less. With the GS only the grooves are engraved; the bullet does not need to obturate. With a conventional bullet like a Woodleigh, there is nowhere for the engraved material to go unless the entire bullet obturates (lengthens) a little bit.

Deforming an entire bullet takes more force, especially when considering the need to transmit that force from the copper jacket through the steel underjacket to the lead core.

Now get on back to your junior high school physics class Axel, and pay attention this time.

500grains, so what you are saying is: YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NOR DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS INVOLVED! Were pray tell, does the metal flow to with the grooved bullet design? I have seen them, the groove DO EXTRUDE! Do you even know how a chamber transitions into the bore and rifling?

BTW, the reason for the grooving of the monometal bullet is to approximate the extrusion force of a JACKETED BULLET, but with monometal construction! If you do not believe me ask those that make the grooved monometal bullets.

Finally, IF you were knowledgeable enough about the subject at hand, you would have done the math and would now know that all I have stated is FACT! I am done trying to explain this to you, you opinionated ARSE! Believe what ever fairy tales make you happy.

JUST REMEMBER TO USE THE BULLETS RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER OF YOUR DOUBLE RIFLE. IN THE CASE OF OLD DOUBLE RIFLES USE WOODLEIGH BULLETS!!!

Axel

Axel,
Not trying to get you riled up but I have to disagree with you, I have to load my Jefferys double rifle with 2 grains more powder with a GS solid to get the same velocity and pressure to bring it to zero or POI...It is regulated for Woodleigh bullets, either soft or solid...

I love Woodleigh bullets but they do create more pressure than a GS Solid or any monometal bullet that has the pressure rings...The regular Barnes X creates more pressure than either of them....

North Fork industries has pressure testing equipment and has proven the value of the pressure rings and it is documented..Give them a call and they will give you the results of their tests, as will GS and now Barnes is getting on the band wagon...

It's a changing scene on the bullet front, and it takes some getting used to.

Having read through the previous comments, I just thought that I would add a few of my own. My Chapuis 9.3x74R double came apart twice, while using Barnes X bullets, and both times it was repaired by the factory but on the second occasion they were definitely not very happy with me - they thought that I had been playing with the regulation until they asked me what projectiles I had been using.

As has been previously stated, the problem is not pressure related as there were absolutely no signs of increased pressure and cases simply fell out of the chamber after firing and resized easily and with no need for extra force. The problem is the greater expansion of the barrel, with mono solids, which causes the ribs to separate from the barrels. Close examination of the barrels and ribs did not reveal any signs of the problem and only extremely eratic range results (with otherwise accurate ammunition) was the only initial clue.

This was particularly disappointing, for me, as not only was my rifle out of action for a very long time (twice) and it missed out on several trips to Africa, but I also had obtained some excellent groups with the X bullets - at least they were excellent until the barrels started to separate which is why the problem became so apparent. Loads that shot really well, at first, started to fly all over the place!

I might also mention that when the problem first arose I wrote to Barnes for their comments and advice but they never, ever wrote back to me which I thought was very interesting!

Accordingly, I will never again use mono solids in any double rifle and, I must confess, I am loathe to use any projectile other than the more traditional styles and constructions. If Searcy doubles are designed to cope with this then that is good news for Searcy owners but every other double owner needs to be extremely careful about the projectiles they use.

Both of my doubles (9.3 and .470) now digest a steady diet of Woodleighs and I have had very good success, both in the field and on the range, with these projectiles. The comment has been made here about the increased pressures caused by Woodleigh solids but I have not noticed any increases in my rifles and, if there are increases, then it doesn't appear to be enough to worry about. But having read that comment here, I intend to put some more Woodleigh solids down-range and have a closer look for signs of increased pressures.

[ 05-14-2003, 03:42: Message edited by: BwanaBob ]

Axel,

I did not mean to make you feel threatened and cause you to rant and rave.

Instead of posting half-baked idiotic theories, I suggest you buy some rifles and some bullets and find out what happens when you shoot them.

[ 05-14-2003, 18:37: Message edited by: 500grains ]

Bwanabob,

I agree, and no one is contesting the use of Barnes X either the HP or the solid in older double rifles or any double rifle for that matter as the are simply to hard and to much surface contact and will damage some doubles...

The monomentals with "pressure rings" are a totally different ballgame and they are the answer to shooting monometal bullets in doubles. You won't hurt a double with them.

Just a clarification as there is a difference, and in case there is confusion on the subject.

Ray,

It seems you have developed a polite streak. What's up with that?

Bwanabob,

The pressure increase is most noticeable with bolt rifles when you are at the high end, and switching to Woodleigh solids with the same powder charge flattens the primers right out. I have had it happen with 3 rifles in 3 different calibers. One even gave me sticky case extraction. I suspect the pressure increase is caused by the steel liner in Woodleigh solids because I do not see such an increase when shooting Trophy Bonded Sledgehammer solids. Of course Barnes solids develop the highest pressure, while GS and Bridger seem to develop the lowest and second lowest pressure respectively.

500grains, NOTHING I have said is half baked or a theory. You are the one spewing half baked BULLSHIT! My statements can easily be proven. There are NUMEROUS labs which can prove what I have said. NOWHERE will you get proof of your bullshit except, perhaps, a Cracker Jack box!

Flattened primers. Interesting. I observed this from a 416 Rigby. I was shooting 400 grain Hornady soft points, Norma brass, Fed215 primers. The bullets are from the same box, the primers are from the same box, the brass is the same lot, the powder is from the same keg.

Load1 H4831 SC 98grs, the primer was flat. Case head expansion greater than chamber ID - 0.023mm

Load2 H4831 SC 103 gr, the primer was not as flat as Load1. Case expansion greater than chamber ID - 0.036mm

So according to 500grains the pressure of Load2 is less than Load1. So 500grains, your THEORY is that more H4831 SC is producing less pressure!

Now for the truth. The expansion of the case head greater than the ID of the chamber is an EXCELLENT indicator of pressure. It is tricky to use as you must measure the ACTUAL ID of the chamber and the ACTUAL OD of the case in the same relative position. The chamber ID is measured via chamber case. The measurements must also be taken to the third decimal place in mm or the fourth decimal place in inches. Taking these measurements in and of itself is not easy as the micrometers are easily over torqued resulting in a false measurement. The expansion of the case head is dictated by the give of the barrel.

So my method indicates that the BIGGER powder charge is producing more pressure! 500grains which is correct my method or yours?

All of this has nothing to do with the actual force required to extrude riflings into a bullet! 500grains, you are an ignorant arse, and you know it! Why don't you invest some time and money into an education in Physics before you run off at the mouth and insult those that are MUCH more fluent in the topic than yourself.

BTW, I am not ranting YOU are! I am only laughing at YOUR GROSS IGNORANCE!

Axel

GeorgeS, once an arsehole always an arsehole. You and 500grains are "birds of a feather". Consider this the last communication between us initiated by me! BTW, I would definitely rather be a "troll" than an arsehole like you.

Axel

Not many people here or elswhere consider me an "arsehole".

You, however, are known by almost all here as a troll, and despised by all (except of course for your many other, equally asinine personae).

Eat shit and die, troll.

George

Well, I have read this with slightly more than passing interest. My Kreighoff 500/416 has factory loads that use both the Woodleigh softs AND their solids. Personally, I have developed very accurate loads for my 416 GS Custom FN's so I have no real use for the Woodleigh solid loads, but, would this come under the heading of modern rifles vs. old rifles? From what I have been reading, it is not so much the modern steels used in barrel making but rather the method of attaching the barrels to the rib. So, the question is "Has this changed that much"? I must confess I find the thought of rifling appearing on the outside of a barrel rather intriguing! Like Ray, I would like to see a picture of this. I find it more likely that something is causing the barrels to come unattached from the rib.
Peter.

500,
No, I havn't changed, but I figured you were ticked off enough for both of us...

Axel,
Your just wrong, plain and simple, the GS solids and North Forks create less pressure than Woodleigh and thats all there is too that...

Contact Mike at Northfork, he has the pressure equipment and can tell you all the bloody details.

I believe you owe 500, George and several others an apology.

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but way back (way back) in college I was forced to read A book. It was called THE CREDITABLY OF IDEAS (pardon the not underlining the title as I'm computer illiterate). In the book somewhere it addressed ones references as to backing up ones facts. In yet another part of the book it addressed the creditably of the individual spewing out the facts/garbage or whatever. I'll ere on the side of safety and go with the manufacturer's recommendations as they are in the business but also more than likely stay away from the Barnes or harder bullets in my double. I want to thank all for the MOST interesting discussion read here as it really is food for thought. Good shooting. Mike

Ray, I was just joking with you.

Remember, Axel=ToddE=Judy, etc.

500grains, WRONG AGAIN!!! This is a post by Canuck that is CORRECT

Canuck
Forum Leader
Member # 29

posted 05-07-2003 04:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffe,

Just tryin to sort out the facts as we know them, to help keep it real....

As I recall, ToddE=500AHR=POSeur is the one that actually owns the 500 AHR.

In an effort to generate a reaction from certain individuals (ie. troll) via an ill-concieved attempt at satire, Axel=CASEY made up a BS story (the Win Model 70/CZ 550, 450 Ackley or whatever stuff) about a picture of a rifle that was copied from a gunsmith or stockmaker's website. This rifle is apparently actually owned by ToddE=500AHR=POSeur.

A while later, following a long period of time where the majority of posts on this forum were a complete waste of bandwidth, ToddE=500AHR=POSeur sent me pictures of his 500AHR to post, which I did solely in an effort to help bring the debacle to an end, or at least eliminate one facet of the debate.

Although that particular move on my part didn't seem to help a heckuva lot, I am glad it seems to be over.

Near as I can tell, the two posters in question never lied about the fact that they are two different individuals and were co-workers. Also near as I can tell, JUDY=NRACHICK=SNIPERONTHEGRASSYKNOLL is Axel=CASEY's wife. Although it wasn't admitted up front, I don't think this was a secret in the end.

Axel, this is info I gleaned from ISP's and from PM's from ToddE=500AHR=POSeur. Sound about right? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Lately, it has been pretty darn nice around here. I sincerely hope that it can stay that way.

Cheers,
Canuck

[ 05-07-2003, 04:49: Message edited by: Canuck ]

--------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1787 | From: Chetwynd, B.C., Canada | Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged

Ray, I did not start the name calling 500grains and GeorgeS did. I will apologize only AFTER they apologize first!

With regard to the creditials to support my statements. Consult ANY Machine Design Text Book!!! Dr. Shigley has an excellent one, which is readily available. The Machinery's Handbook most likely covers this topic also.

Axel

[ 05-15-2003, 20:38: Message edited by: Axel ]

Canuck
Forum Leader
Member # 29

posted 05-07-2003 04:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffe,

Just tryin to sort out the facts as we know them, to help keep it real....

As I recall, ToddE=500AHR=POSeur is the one that actually owns the 500 AHR.

In an effort to generate a reaction from certain individuals (ie. troll) via an ill-concieved attempt at satire, Axel=CASEY made up a BS story (the Win Model 70/CZ 550, 450 Ackley or whatever stuff) about a picture of a rifle that was copied from a gunsmith or stockmaker's website. This rifle is apparently actually owned by ToddE=500AHR=POSeur.

A while later, following a long period of time where the majority of posts on this forum were a complete waste of bandwidth, ToddE=500AHR=POSeur sent me pictures of his 500AHR to post, which I did solely in an effort to help bring the debacle to an end, or at least eliminate one facet of the debate.

Although that particular move on my part didn't seem to help a heckuva lot, I am glad it seems to be over.

Near as I can tell, the two posters in question never lied about the fact that they are two different individuals and were co-workers. Also near as I can tell, JUDY=NRACHICK=SNIPERONTHEGRASSYKNOLL is Axel=CASEY's wife. Although it wasn't admitted up front, I don't think this was a secret in the end.

Axel, this is info I gleaned from ISP's and from PM's from ToddE=500AHR=POSeur. Sound about right? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Lately, it has been pretty darn nice around here. I sincerely hope that it can stay that way.

Cheers,
Canuck

[ 05-07-2003, 04:49: Message edited by: Canuck]

So Canuck,where does Scott Sweet enter into this?

Mickey!, I am not Canuck, but Scott Sweet = ToddE, 500AHR, POSeur. I think Robgunbuilder did a very good job of exposing Scott Sweet as a total fake and liar, don't you agree?

Axel

[ 05-15-2003, 21:51: Message edited by: Axel ]

Axel,
I have one more comment and that be "Caldonya what make yo head so hard"

Jeffe,
I knowed you was joking, I was too...

Ray is right. Axel, you're head is harder than any monometal solid. Can I get some of it to make bullets out of?

Ray, my American coworkers refer to this as the "german factor". Evidently you have not been around too many germans!

500grains, if you like I can leave you some of it in my will. I cannot say; however, if it is safe for use in a double rifle!

Axel

[ 05-16-2003, 19:52: Message edited by: Axel ]

Axel,
Wrong again, my mothers maiden name was Hess, all her people are from the German colonies in Texas around Kerrville and New Brunsfell, Texas add to that they are native sons of the great planet Texas and you got hard headedness!

I think most of us will agree that a bullet passing through a bbl "can" [I say can for a reason, read on] cause it to expand. The amount of expansion depends on the "compressibility" of the bullet, which depends upon the diameter at firing and the construction of the bullet. It is this expansion of the bbl that damages a double by "breaking" the joint of solder between the bbl and the rib. The bbl steel can take the expansion, the solder cannot. If a bullet is "compressed" it must grow in length. [Hatcher shot 45ACP Ball ammo in a 30-36 rifle with no ill effects, the bullet "compressed" to 30 cal, and elongated the required amount, and exited the bbl, I forget the velocity]. Monometal bullets are more resistant to this compression/lengthing, than bullets with a lead core. ...But you could design a monometal bullet that would expand the bbl even less than a lead core bullet. [I just dropped a 9.3 Barnes Super Solid through the bbl of my 450 and the bbl did not expand at all ] The technique is simple. The bullet shank diameter is the LAND DIAMETER of the bbl. The "driving bands" on the bullet are GROOVE DIAMETER. The only part of the bullet that must be "compressed" are the driving bands on the bullet which are engraved by the rifling. Thus the barrel is not overly expanded by the passage of a monometal bullet.
Artillery shells are made this way, they even "add" driving bands of a softer substance than the steel of the shell casing.

What are the shank, and driving band measurements of the GS solids.?

Elementry Physics [and a little common sense] my dear Watson.

450#2

quote:

---

Elementry Physics [and a little common sense] my dear Watson.

---

Common Sense? Here?

Common sense is what seperates man from machine, protects us from bureaucrats, and and allows us to be judged by a jury of our peers, not just by the facts and laws being fed into a computer.
We could use a lot more common sense, most everywhere.

NE 450 No2, I agree with what you said for the most part. The expansion of the barrel is a function of the spring rates of the barrel and the bullet. The stiffer the bullet the more the barrel will expand! I am not so sure about the driving bands though. I agree that a driving band monometal bullet, as you describe it, SHOULD require less force to extrude than a nondriving band monometal bullet. I am not yet convinced that the driving band monometal bullet, as you describe it, requires the same or less force to extrude than a jacketed bullet. Afterall, the driving bands MUST go somewhere. Where do they go?

ONE thing is for certain! The driving band monometal bullet ONCE extruded WILL have less frictional losses going down the bore than either the nondriving band monometal bullet or the jacketed bullet since the bearing area is much less.

Can we drop this topic now?

Ray, the BIG question is how many German Nationals are you accustom to being around? I work with several german Americans who THOUGHT they knew all about us Germans. They have a different perception NOW! Americans are all, well, Americans. Americans really retain little of their ancestral ethnic behaviors, even if you like to think you do.

Axel

Axel: you do not give Germans a good name. At least not on this board. Please apologize to the fatherland.

We can be strong without being rude.
Sharp without crude.
witty without meanness.
clever without malice.

These are true aspirations of gentlemen everywhere.

As to the request for making monometal bullets after leaving parts of your hard head in your will: I do not think any one on this board would want any part of any head from you.

Axle: A hard monometal cylinder that revolves without going anywhere, causing friction wherever it goes, as it rubs things the wrong way.

And to be fair: Jameister: an aspiring punster.