OUCH...I'm wounded.......medic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Russ

A serious question.

How do these rifles balance and point?

Also I had a look at one of the photos and the grip seems very wide compared to the usual. How do these handle?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ Gould:
Jeff,

Now it's my turn to say BS. There is no way a double with express sights will shoot moa or even two moa at 100 yards (except perhaps a fluke with only two or, if you kept at it for a long time, four shots). No way.

I am not talking about scoped rifles here. Open V sights with big beads suitable for dangerous game work.

You guys can put those little jumping things all over the place, doesn't change the facts.

---

Russ,
Bubba, Man... you need to get out more...

The fact is that you stated that a 338 winmag kicks about as much as the 577 trex, in given weights.. BS, that you are getting 2900fps with a trex... IMPOSSIBLE in a bolt gun due to sticky brass, and that a good shooting bigbore is 2-2.5 moa with iron sights



Then try to tell use that a pattern is a good group...

You missed the mark lad...

jeffe

He dug himself out of that remark when he said later on 'The guy said 750metres/sec which is something like 2950fps..."

750 m/s is about 2450 fps or so.

So he is saved from lying at the cost of appearing just plain ignorant.

As Jeffe said, 2950fps is impossible with the 577 trex.
Unless we assume a 375 H&H can get to 378 wby speed somehow.

As to the rest. The man should take up full time trolling. Remarkable thickwitted repetition.

Karl.

I think you guys ae missing the point here. Russ has posted some info on a very unique firearm. I would have thought that all you gunsmiths and would be gunsmiths would appreciate all three of these rifles and would be very interested in how he made them.

Instead all I see is nit picking on issues that are not even relevant. Yes it weighs as much as an old Volkswagon and the group is pretty sloppy. No it isn't a Searcy. So what? I want to know how the maker got it to shoot as well as it does considering the way it is made.

I think it is very interesting, like the Fuchs the accomplishment of making it work overrides the other problems it creates.

Lighten up guys.

Russ
They are really good looking guns , do you have any that are reasonably priced to take into the field. 500/465 westley richards,470 nitros,
in that class

Russ

Have faith some of the old guns Westley Richards,Holland and Holland also get out there in wieght , that is why pro hunters like us have gun bearers.

Must admit to seeing the .416 hoffman in action this past year first time i have used since being given it and it really does the job.
see ya at s.c.i. will be with jeri booth (detail company )Hunters Africa pse come and see me or i will find you as per my earlier request

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mickey1:
I think you guys ae missing the point here. Russ has posted some info on a very unique firearm. I would have thought that all you gunsmiths and would be gunsmiths would appreciate all three of these rifles and would be very interested in how he made them.

Instead all I see is nit picking on issues that are not even relevant. Yes it weighs as much as an old Volkswagon and the group is pretty sloppy. No it isn't a Searcy. So what? I want to know how the maker got it to shoot as well as it does considering the way it is made.

I think it is very interesting, like the Fuchs the accomplishment of making it work overrides the other problems it creates.

Lighten up guys.

---

You hit the nail on the head with that one Mickey1! I like to see something different. Gets kinda boring seeing the same old same old after awhile. As far as the price goes thats up to the owner, he can charge whatever the hell he wants, if they don't sell, oh well! That's his problem. Sure neat to see however!

quote:

---

Originally posted by BFD:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mickey1:
I think you guys ae missing the point here. Russ has posted some info on a very unique firearm. I would have thought that all you gunsmiths and would be gunsmiths would appreciate all three of these rifles and would be very interested in how he made them.

Instead all I see is nit picking on issues that are not even relevant. Yes it weighs as much as an old Volkswagon and the group is pretty sloppy. No it isn't a Searcy. So what? I want to know how the maker got it to shoot as well as it does considering the way it is made.

I think it is very interesting, like the Fuchs the accomplishment of making it work overrides the other problems it creates.

Lighten up guys.

---

You hit the nail on the head with that one Mickey1! I like to see something different. Gets kinda boring seeing the same old same old after awhile. As far as the price goes thats up to the owner, he can charge whatever the hell he wants, if they don't sell, oh well! That's his problem. Sure neat to see however!

---

BFD, and MICKY1You are correct in your opinion, of the uniqueness of the rifle, and that is not what started the donnibrook. It was first, the rediculous claims for it, and secondly the eletist attitude, and absolutely obsurd sarchasm, and name calling issued because the claims the poster makes are not believed. Thirdly his pompus dismissal of anyone's opinion, that did not march LOCK STEP with his,as having been issued by ignorant people!

The rifle is as he says an exercise in unique methods, and like any prototype, is absolutely unusable, in it's present form. The claims he makes for this rifle may become true in a more usable form, but as it stands now, his claims are flawed, if he thinks that thing is well regulated. The simple fact is he simply cannot stand anyone who will not pat him on the back, and that, my friends, has nothing to do with this prototype rifle!

quote:

---

Originally posted by NitroX:
Russ

A serious question.

How do these rifles balance and point?

Also I had a look at one of the photos and the grip seems very wide compared to the usual. How do these handle?

---

I honestly cannot answer those questions as I have not handled the rifles. They are all still in France. Yes, the grips are very thick, and you will also notice that the action metal comes back down into the grip more than on traditional guns. That is intended to strengthen an area that is normally the weak point on a double, especially a sidelock. The calibers in question call for strength in that area.

If you read French, I can fax you a magazine review of these guns in which I think the issue of balance is addressed.

BTW, I wanted to say nice pics and guns you posted. I am personally a H&H fan, and in particular I like their Paradox guns.

quote:

---

Originally posted by huntaf500:
Russ

Have faith some of the old guns Westley Richards,Holland and Holland also get out there in wieght , that is why pro hunters like us have gun bearers.

Must admit to seeing the .416 hoffman in action this past year first time i have used since being given it and it really does the job.
see ya at s.c.i. will be with jeri booth (detail company )Hunters Africa pse come and see me or i will find you as per my earlier request

---

Ian,

I will be at the Intl Sporting Arms show in Vegas, not SCI this year. Thanks for the kind words though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by huntaf500:
Russ
They are really good looking guns , do you have any that are reasonably priced to take into the field. 500/465 westley richards,470 nitros,
in that class

---

We have over twenty double rifles on our site doublegunhq.com, including 476WR and 470NE

quote:

---

Then try to tell use that a pattern is a good group...

You missed the mark lad...

jeffe

---

Jeffe, you read about as well as your buddy. I said the GROUPS were not great, but since we were discussing the feasibility of regulating a gun with both bbls made from the same billet, I was making the distinction between grouping ability (each barrel) and regulation (alignment). My point is that there IS a way to regulate barrels of this type, and I tried to prove it using some targets. However the GROUPING issue got tangled up with the ALIGNMENT issue. It seems I have to make this point over and over because you guys just don't seem to get it.

I will say it again.

THE GROUPING ABILITY OF THESE RIFLES IS SO-SO, at least based on this one trial.

THE GUNS WERE REGULATED AFTER THEY WERE BUILT by a proprietary method.

THE GUNS APPEAR TO BE QUITE WELL REGULATED based on the absence of two distinct groups, however it is hard to say for sure since not enough shots were fired.

If you guys don't get it this time, I retire from this particular pissing match.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ Gould:
[THE GUNS WERE REGULATED AFTER THEY WERE BUILT by a proprietary method.

THE GUNS APPEAR TO BE QUITE WELL REGULATED based on the absence of two distinct groups, however it is hard to say for sure since not enough shots were fired.

---

Russ,
mm, how, EXACTLY does one regulate a barrel shaped block with TWO holes in it, that can not be sperated?

also, believe us, these guns do NOT appear to be well regulated.

Let me be very darn clear, as you seem to miss every point...

you can NOT id that the holes on the left aren't from the right barrel, you are ASSUMING that...

that these patterns overlap is of MINIMAL signifigance at this point.. there should be TWO tight groups, then REGULATED to converge OR be the same distance apart ..

that it through 3" groups that overlap means nothing.. and for 150k, this shouldn't be a discussion point

jeffe

Guys, whoever purchases these rifles will be doing so for their uniqueness, their largeness and for bragging rights - not for accuracy or for field use. So the rifle probably achieves the design criteria and fits with the marketing plan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ Gould:
I honestly cannot answer those questions as I have not handled the rifles. They are all still in France. Yes, the grips are very thick, and you will also notice that the action metal comes back down into the grip more than on traditional guns. That is intended to strengthen an area that is normally the weak point on a double, especially a sidelock. The calibers in question call for strength in that area.

If you read French, I can fax you a magazine review of these guns in which I think the issue of balance is addressed.

BTW, I wanted to say nice pics and guns you posted. I am personally a H&H fan, and in particular I like their Paradox guns.

---

Russ

Thanks for answering. When I looked at one of the photos I at first thought the butt stock was only two-thirds the normal length, but then realised the off photo action (just showing) was quite wide as was the the grip.

With some of the calibres chambered I guess that makes sense. And the weight must be coming from somewhere.

In one of the photos I posted, the .577 is also quite wide but not as much. I had another photo which was more so but didn't put it up, now I forget where it was.

The targets you posted, that distances were 460 WM - 100 ms, .577 T-Rex 120 m and 500 A-S 80 metres, right? So for the typical 50 m target usually displayed, on average, the groups should show 50% of the size.

It would be nice to know how the regulation was carried out, IF the barrels are a single piece of steel.

PS Sorry for the sh#t stirring with the photos. The French madamoiselle and the English ladies are pretty fine though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ Gould:
Jeff,

Now it's my turn to say BS. There is no way a double with express sights will shoot moa or even two moa at 100 yards (except perhaps a fluke with only two or, if you kept at it for a long time, four shots). No way.

I am not talking about scoped rifles here. Open V sights with big beads suitable for dangerous game work.

You guys can put those little jumping things all over the place, doesn't change the facts.

---

Russ,
Bubba, Man... you need to get out more...

The fact is that you stated that a 338 winmag kicks about as much as the 577 trex, in given weights.. BS, that you are getting 2900fps with a trex... IMPOSSIBLE in a bolt gun due to sticky brass, and that a good shooting bigbore is 2-2.5 moa with iron sights



Then try to tell use that a pattern is a good group...

You missed the mark lad...

jeffe

---

Out of curiosity; why is it impossible to get that sort of speed from the T-rex or the other round you mentioned? Lack of barrel length, just plain old phsyics, what?

Also when you say sticky brass do you mean that the brass has been crimped too much?


Thanks,
Larry A.

Mickey1,
The buff on the first rifle looks like a cow puckered up for a kiss of the French variety, wants to swap cud.

I think a sledge hammer peening of the crowns of the muzzles might improve the regulation and the accuracy of these monstrosities.

MacD37,
You go guy. Russ could use some private tutoring services from you, to include an attitude adjustment.

Larry, Plain old physics. As I said it would be like getting a 375H&H to 378 wby velocities.

RIP,
You see the terrible reception a double built off say a shotgun action or a rimless case gets here.

Which regulates well.

Handles okay.

And is worth only a couple of grand.

And we have something here that is "unique and interesting" that does none of the above.

Just think, the technology to avoid
good handling, reliable extraction and straight shooting was there all long and we didn't see it.

And a mere $150,000 price tag, what a bargain

Karl.

Do they have a target from a 50 yd distance.
The ranges these were shot at may have been after convergience at around 50 yds.So that
the shots on target are opposite the barrel they came from.If that is so it may be very close at 50....Someone mentioned he could do something for our really big stuff, but we can't
afford that rate. Those actions have the weight
and strength in the locking mechanism, to build a huge 2 or 4 bore singles,
to use at medium pressure...Ed.

Larry,
the 577 trex, while a monster, has pressure limits, just like everything else. If even out fine host, who did a great deal of load development on the round, never exceeded 2600 fps. The round simply isn't designed for that.

this is like trying to get 2900fps out of a 30-06... with 220 gr RN's, that the book says tops out UNDER 2600... (good example, too)... if you even worked up a load, the primers would leak, blowback, and the brass would flow... that means it would STICK in the action... just before there was a catastrophic failure, and the chronograph never reached 2750.

But, like several things in his posts, he just got it WRONG, as the gunsmith said 750m/s... which was pointed out is 2460 and change NOT 2900 fps. (750*3.28084) (which is 82# of recoil.. less than a 500 jeffery)


an 8# 338 has about 36# of recoil, which, for the record, FEELS like 1/4 of the recoil, if shot next to a 500 jeffery, but is less than 1/2 the recoil...

hope that helps

Thanks Jeff, this info helps a lot.

Larry A.

quote:

---

But, like several things in his posts, he just got it WRONG, as the gunsmith said 750m/s... which was pointed out is 2460 and change NOT 2900 fps. (750*3.28084) (which is 82# of recoil.. less than a 500 jeffery)

---

Jeff Old Chap,

So I multiplied by 100 to get to cm/s and divided by 2.54 to get to inches/sec and forgot to divide by 12 to get to ft/s. I apologize. I was educated in the metric system. Much easier to work with by the way.

However, let me point out that mass is measured in lbs or kg. Recoil is not measured in pounds because it is not a weight. Recoil is measured in terms of momentum, in metric kgm/s or lbft/s. That is, speed times mass. The momentum of the gun coming back is the same as the momentum of the ejecta, that is bullet and gas going the other way. The free recoil velocity of a gun is this momentum number figure divided by the gun's mass. For a given cartridge, the heavier the gun, the lower the recoil velocity (which also means lower acceleration and less shoulder force to arrest the gun).

When in glass houses...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ Gould:
Jeff Old Chap,

So I multiplied by 100 to get to cm/s and divided by 2.54 to get to inches/sec and forgot to divide by 12 to get to ft/s. I apologize. I was educated in the metric system. Much easier to work with by the way.

However, let me point out that mass is measured in lbs or kg. Recoil is not measured in pounds because it is not a weight. Recoil is measured in terms of momentum, in metric kgm/s or lbft/s. That is, speed times mass. The momentum of the gun coming back is the same as the momentum of the ejecta, that is bullet and gas going the other way. The free recoil velocity of a gun is this momentum number figure divided by the gun's mass. For a given cartridge, the heavier the gun, the lower the recoil velocity (which also means lower acceleration and less shoulder force to arrest the gun).

When in glass houses...

---

Russ,
let me tell you again where you are off base
1: you MISLEAD on velocity by 20%
2: you then try to weasle out on it
3: you have no idea what recoil is measured in.. force "recoil" is measured in ft/lbs
4: velocity of recoil (which is nearly never mentioned) is in ft/s...
5: RECOIL on a 577 trex is 110ft/lbs, it's velocity is about 29ft/s...


Russ,
Old chap, I am certain that you have more gun knowledge than I do... just not in this area.

So,
Let's recap
1: these guns aren't regulated.. they are pointed in the same general direction
2: you misstated the velocity of the loads, then argued with me. A MAN would say "sorry, my mistake"
3: you tried to compare a 338's recoil with a 577 trex.... nice.... bullshit, but nice
4: then tried to mix vel of recoil with recoil... rather than again saying "my bad"
5: you then said it was regulated good enough for you,
6: you said that it's as good as any other big bore
7: you then said "these groups aren't very good"


7 to none russ... you are behind on points and style...

I agreed the rifles are unique, and you responded like a boor to feedback.,..

Russ, drop the shovel and leave the issue whole you are behind...

no, wait, you said you you were doing with this particular pissing match.. yet come back to it....

8 to zip... you might let it go

jeffe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
RIP,
You see the terrible reception a double built off say a shotgun action or a rimless case gets here.

Which regulates well.

Handles okay.

And is worth only a couple of grand.

And we have something here that is "unique and interesting" _that does none of the above._

Just think, the technology to avoid
good handling, reliable extraction and _straight shooting _ was there all long and we didn't see it.

And a mere $150,000 price tag, what a bargain

Karl.

---

Well said. That sums up my bumfuzzle over this glorious technical acheivement brought to our attention.

I guess you and Jeffe are getting through to the instigator as he has stopped defending the physically impossible and foolishly ludicrous. These masterpieces warrant a straightjacket. I don't think they allow lunatic gunsmithing at the insane asylum.

Bsically, that junk is the counterpart of getting one of these

http://www.weatherby.com/custom_shop/HGI/images/Custom_Large/custom_crown.jpg

chambered in 358 Winchester

Mike

RIP the worst thing is I was sitting on a gold mine and did not realise it.

Last year I was tossing around the very idea to see if a big 10ga action could take a couple of 577 barrels for a double rifle version of my rimless 585, which would have been fun but a really a dirt cheap abortion with no resale value.


However if I made sure-

1. Not to regulate the barrels.
2.Lie about the ballistics
3.And add $145,000 to the price in work not related to it actually shooting straight.

I'd be a millionaire!

Karl.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike375:
Bsically, that junk is the counterpart of getting one of these

http://www.weatherby.com/custom_shop/HGI/images/Custom_Large/custom_crown.jpg

chambered in 358 Winchester

Mike

---

oh BOTHER mike...


Now you've done it to ME>>>

that's the first gun in 358 that I have ever seen that you could not GIVE to me?

Does that come with curbfeelers and a 100,000 watt stereo?>

jeffe

Geez Karl,
Now I am sorry I sold that 10 guage Spanish double. I could've been rich too. But there is that problem of finding the greater fool than oneself when it comes to selling such offerings ...

jeffe,

Perhps you would prefer one of these in 358 Winchester....Mike

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=518103&f=1411043&m=913107281&p=1

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

Russ,
let me tell you again where you are off base
1: you MISLEAD on velocity by 20%
2: you then try to weasle out on it
3: you have no idea what recoil is measured in.. force "recoil" is measured in ft/lbs
4: velocity of recoil (which is nearly never mentioned) is in ft/s...
5: RECOIL on a 577 trex is 110ft/lbs, it's velocity is about 29ft/s...


Russ,
Old chap, I am certain that you have more gun knowledge than I do... just not in this area.

So,
Let's recap
1: these guns aren't regulated.. they are pointed in the same general direction
2: you misstated the velocity of the loads, then argued with me. A MAN would say "sorry, my mistake"
3: you tried to compare a 338's recoil with a 577 trex.... nice.... bullshit, but nice
4: then tried to mix vel of recoil with recoil... rather than again saying "my bad"
5: you then said it was regulated good enough for you,
6: you said that it's as good as any other big bore
7: you then said "these groups aren't very good"


7 to none russ... you are behind on points and style...

I agreed the rifles are unique, and you responded like a boor to feedback.,..

Russ, drop the shovel and leave the issue whole you are behind...

no, wait, you said you you were doing with this particular pissing match.. yet come back to it....

8 to zip... you might let it go

jeffe

---

Jeffe,

1. I said I was quitting the accuracy/alignment/regulation argument and I have.
2. I did apologize for making a hasty conversion to ft/s, and I used the very word.
3. For an education on recoil (that you surely need) go to http://www.bsharp.org/physics/stuff/recoil.html. There is no such unit as ft/lbs either. (I previously objected to your use of # which normally means lbs as the unit, as that is a measure of mass (or weight in layman terms) and recoil is not a mass). There is a unit of measure called ft.lbs but that measures ENERGY, just like Joules or KJ in the metric system. Energy is the mass of the projectile times the velocity squared divided by two. E=1/2 mv2. The units are actually lb (ft/s)squared but commonly called ft.lbs. The recoiling rifle also has energy of course, measured in ft.lbs, but it depends not only on the cartridge fired but also on the mass of the particular rifle. So it's not a very useful measure as there is no one number for a given cartridge. And recoil is not a force, Jeff, force is measured in poundals or Newtons. Force is what you exert on the buttplate to stop the gun recoiling, and it is dynamic ie starts at zero, grows to a peak, and then tapers off, the specific curve depending on many factors including your mass, the cushioning between you and the butt, the stock design, and the rifle's mass. So again, not useful to talk about force. The most useful measure is momentum as that is independent of the particular rifle, and depends only on the cartridge and its ejecta. Jeff, old chap, you are out of your league, I was the top graduate in the country in physics in my youth.
4. No mix, I distinguished between recoil momentum and velocity of recoil in my earlier post. The first is measured in terms of momentum and is INDEPENDENT OF THE RIFLE MASS, the second is measured in speed and is inversely proportional to the rifle mass. I thought you could fathom that but obviously I overestimated your technical level.
5. See no 1
6. See no 1
7. See no 1.

So now, I am quitting the recoil argument as well (and all other arguments relating to the orginal post although I will respond to meaningful posts). I don't like to waste my time arguing with lesser opponents. However, I will grant that you are on a higher level than some of your buddies whose postings don't even warrant a reply.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ Gould:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

Russ,
let me tell you again where you are off base
1: you MISLEAD on velocity by 20%
2: you then try to weasle out on it
3: you have no idea what recoil is measured in.. force "recoil" is measured in ft/lbs
4: velocity of recoil (which is nearly never mentioned) is in ft/s...
5: RECOIL on a 577 trex is 110ft/lbs, it's velocity is about 29ft/s...


Russ,
Old chap, I am certain that you have more gun knowledge than I do... just not in this area.

So,
Let's recap
1: these guns aren't regulated.. they are pointed in the same general direction
2: you misstated the velocity of the loads, then argued with me. A MAN would say "sorry, my mistake"
3: you tried to compare a 338's recoil with a 577 trex.... nice.... bullshit, but nice
4: then tried to mix vel of recoil with recoil... rather than again saying "my bad"
5: you then said it was regulated good enough for you,
6: you said that it's as good as any other big bore
7: you then said "these groups aren't very good"


7 to none russ... you are behind on points and style...

I agreed the rifles are unique, and you responded like a boor to feedback.,..

Russ, drop the shovel and leave the issue whole you are behind...

no, wait, you said you you were doing with this particular pissing match.. yet come back to it....

8 to zip... you might let it go

jeffe

---

Jeffe,

1. I said I was quitting the accuracy/alignment/regulation argument and I have.
2. I did apologize for making a hasty conversion to ft/s, and I used the very word.
3. For an education on recoil (that you surely need) go to http://www.bsharp.org/physics/stuff/recoil.html. There is no such unit as ft/lbs either. (I previously objected to your use of # which normally means lbs as the unit, as that is a measure of mass (or weight in layman terms) and recoil is not a mass). There is a unit of measure called ft.lbs but that measures ENERGY, just like Joules or KJ in the metric system. Energy is the mass of the projectile times the velocity squared divided by two. E=1/2 mv2. The units are actually lb (ft/s)squared but commonly called ft.lbs. The recoiling rifle also has energy of course, measured in ft.lbs, but it depends not only on the cartridge fired but also on the mass of the particular rifle. So it's not a very useful measure as there is no one number for a given cartridge. And recoil is not a force, Jeff, force is measured in poundals or Newtons. Force is what you exert on the buttplate to stop the gun recoiling, and it is dynamic ie starts at zero, grows to a peak, and then tapers off, the specific curve depending on many factors including your mass, the cushioning between you and the butt, the stock design, and the rifle's mass. So again, not useful to talk about force. The most useful measure is momentum as that is independent of the particular rifle, and depends only on the cartridge and its ejecta. Jeff, old chap, you are out of your league, I was the top graduate in the country in physics in my youth.
4. No mix, I distinguished between recoil momentum and velocity of recoil in my earlier post. The first is measured in terms of momentum and is INDEPENDENT OF THE RIFLE MASS, the second is measured in speed and is inversely proportional to the rifle mass. I thought you could fathom that but obviously I overestimated your technical level.
5. See no 1
6. See no 1
7. See no 1.

So now, I am quitting the recoil argument as well (and all other arguments relating to the orginal post although I will respond to meaningful posts). I don't like to waste my time arguing with lesser opponents. However, I will grant that you are on a higher level than some of your buddies whose postings don't even warrant a reply.

---

Russ, Old Boy, was that sixth grade physics that you graduated tops in, and which country, or planet?

When you throw in the gravitational constant to convert weight to mass, you do indeed end up with ft.-lbs. as a real unit of Kinetic energy.

Go study up, for maybe that was not covered in whatever different universe you studied previously. This is the Universe where the planet Earth exists, you know, third rock from the Sun. That might help get you to the proper gravitational constant.

Quit digging, throw down that shovel, as Jeffe has said.

School of trolling actually right out of the textbook.

Now we are at physics expert stage.

Complete with CAPITALS when he gets EXCITED.

I love it.


Karl.

You boys have beat this dead horse so long that there is only damp ground left. That or you are really into troll baiting.

Hog Killer

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hog Killer:
You boys have beat this dead horse so long that there is only damp ground left. That or you are really into troll baiting.

Hog Killer

---

You are right Hog Killer. I tried to ignore it, but it got so ridiculous we had to do some stomping.

quote:

---

Russ, Old Boy, was that sixth grade physics that you graduated tops in, and which country, or planet?

When you throw in the gravitational constant to convert weight to mass, you do indeed end up with ft.-lbs. as a real unit of Kinetic energy.

Go study up, for maybe that was not covered in whatever different universe you studied previously. This is the Universe where the planet Earth exists, you know, third rock from the Sun. That might help get you to the proper gravitational constant.

Quit digging, throw down that shovel, as Jeffe has said.

---

RIP,

I had a good laugh at your post. Wow!

Your knowledge of Newtonian physics is consistent with your (old) avatar (the infant). And for your information, Newtonian physics works on every planet. It only breaks down when objects are moving very fast, approaching the speed of light, in which case Einstein's theory of relativity comes to bear.

I said I was done but since nobody else seems to be willing or able to educate you, I will do it.

Actually, when you multiply MASS by g (acceleration due to gravity), you get a force (F=ma remember?), correctly called weight (not to be confused with the everyday use of the term as a substitute for mass), not kinetic energy (which is only a property of MOVING objects). This force is measured in Newtons in the metric system. The same force can be expressed as kilograms-force (kgf), which is the force exerted by gravitational attraction on one kg of mass. 1 kgf is approx equal to 9.8N, since gravitational acceleration is approx 9.8 m/s2.

In the imperial system, the force exerted by gravity is called pounds-force (lbf) and one lbf (force exerted by gravity on one lb) is 32 poundals. A poundal is that force required to accelerate a mass of 1 lb at a rate of one foot per second per second (or one foot per second squared). Since g is 32 ft/s2, 1 lbf=32 poundals.

So you are wrong on every count. Applying the gravitational constant converts mass to weight, not the other way round, and you don't end up with ft-lbs, you end up with lbf (pounds force) or poundals whichever you prefer to use. You also don't end up Kinetic Energy as you stated, you end up with a force. The only correct statement you made is that KE can be measured as ft.lb although you hosed it up by using a hyphen. In metric, that would be Joules (J or KJ).

Now for one last lesson, especially for you RIP. The SLUG. A SLUG is that mass that accelerates at 1 ft/s2 under the force of gravity. It's called a SLUG because it's really slow to get moving. One SLUG has a mass of about 32lb. There is an equivalent in the metric system called a metric slug, rarely used, equal to 9.8 kg. A metric slug weighs less than in Imperial slug.

That's it, I'm done with the physics tutorial.

Back to the topic at hand, Russ has Mr. Claude Bouchet made traditional double rifles as well? Do you have any pics of them? I am curious whether this unique design is the current pinnacle of his design efforts, having started from more humble beginnings, or do these rifles represent Mr. Bouchet's first appearance on the custom rifle roadmap?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ Gould:

quote:

---

Russ, Old Boy, was that sixth grade physics that you graduated tops in, and which country, or planet?

When you throw in the gravitational constant to convert weight to mass, you do indeed end up with ft.-lbs. as a real unit of Kinetic energy.

Go study up, for maybe that was not covered in whatever different universe you studied previously. This is the Universe where the planet Earth exists, you know, third rock from the Sun. That might help get you to the proper gravitational constant.

Quit digging, throw down that shovel, as Jeffe has said.

---

RIP,

I had a good laugh at your post. Wow!

Your knowledge of Newtonian physics is consistent with your (old) avatar (the infant). And for your information, Newtonian physics works on every planet. It only breaks down when objects are moving very fast, approaching the speed of light, in which case Einstein's theory of relativity comes to bear.

I said I was done but since nobody else seems to be willing or able to educate you, I will do it.

Actually, when you multiply MASS by g (acceleration due to gravity), you get a force (F=ma remember?), correctly called weight (not to be confused with the everyday use of the term as a substitute for mass), not kinetic energy (which is only a property of MOVING objects). This force is measured in Newtons in the metric system. The same force can be expressed as kilograms-force (kgf), which is the force exerted by gravitational attraction on one kg of mass. 1 kgf is approx equal to 9.8N, since gravitational acceleration is approx 9.8 m/s2.

In the imperial system, the force exerted by gravity is called pounds-force (lbf) and one lbf (force exerted by gravity on one lb) is 32 poundals. A poundal is that force required to accelerate a mass of 1 lb at a rate of one foot per second per second (or one foot per second squared). Since g is 32 ft/s2, 1 lbf=32 poundals.

So you are wrong on every count. Applying the gravitational constant converts mass to weight, not the other way round, and you don't end up with ft-lbs, you end up with lbf (pounds force) or poundals whichever you prefer to use. You also don't end up Kinetic Energy as you stated, you end up with a force. The only correct statement you made is that KE can be measured as ft.lb although you hosed it up by using a hyphen. In metric, that would be Joules (J or KJ).

Now for one last lesson, especially for you RIP. The SLUG. A SLUG is that mass that accelerates at 1 ft/s2 under the force of gravity. It's called a SLUG because it's really slow to get moving. One SLUG has a mass of about 32lb. There is an equivalent in the metric system called a metric slug, rarely used, equal to 9.8 kg. A metric slug weighs less than in Imperial slug.

That's it, I'm done with the physics tutorial.

---

Where is Scott S when we need him.

Russ,

Is claude Brochet related to Paul Brochet and the familly currently making the Darnes in France?

Thanks

Russ,

here's a little link that converts all these pesky units for you... yes sirrah, UNITS

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/ConvForc.htm

your posting habits reamin constant.. the entire world is WRONG and you are right... "groups suck" "aren't regulated" "no such thing as ftlbs" (in russ's world)

after all, EVERY one but russ calls it ftlb... just like a torque wrench!!!

don't going try to switch to metric, buddy, you've already shown your mastery of that.

foot pounds is easy fella... really easy... especially in recoil..

Ft# is how man FEET it can move a given POUND (no time units), but, since friction comes to play, it's generally understood how many POUNDS it can move a foot.

think of it as FEET * Pounds!!! it's drawn ft/lbs for clarify

in the case of 110 ft# why... it could move 110POUNDS 1 foot... or 1lb 110 ft (again, that presky friction comes to play) or a 2# 55 feet.. aint math neat that way?

what you are trying to talk about, (sigh) is the velocity of that movement, in fps...

so, 110ft# of recoil, at 27 fps would move that 110# weight, 1 foot in 1/27 seconds... and that's quite a bit more brutal than 110 at 22fps..

or, say, a slightly light for caliber 460 weatherby vs the same in 577 nitro...


This shouldn't be news to a palma match shooter..

jeffe