quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
Ok, for the record (and my curiosity), who is the Sam Hell, actually believed this OSR bullshit? Come on, grow a pair and fess up (I'm too lazy to go back and read all the posts). jorge[FLASH_VIDEO] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...re=player_detailpage [/FLASH_VIDEO]

Graeme Wright does. He describes it in detail starting on page 225 of his book Shooting the British Double Rifle (3d Edition). So do all the British double rifle makers.

Then he would be wrong.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Dave,

I'm really not trying to shoot the messenger. Not at all. I'm simply trying to get someone, anyone, to tell me, from a physics standpoint, how can a bullet, softer than the steel of the barrel it travels down, cause rifling to imprint itself on the outside of a barrel without first bursting that barrel.

For instance, take a coin. Consider the amount of pressure it takes to make the imprint on it. Realize, that when it is struck, there is a backing that the hammer pushes against in order to achieve the required amount of pressure to make the imprint. With a bullet traveling down the barrel, whatever pressure is being exerted outward on the barrel is unopposed. There is nothing pressing inward and providing a backing on the outside of the barrel to contain the pressure causing the imprint to take. The lack of anything opposing the pressure caused by the bullet will cause the barrel to split and or burst as the amount of unopposed pressure necessary to make the imprint would surely be in excess of the structural limits of the steel.

Seriously, I'm listening. Explain it.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
With a bullet traveling down the barrel, whatever pressure is being exerted outward on the barrel is unopposed.

Todd, The strength of the steel tube is the opposing force. The thinner the tube the less the strength.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Brooks:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
With a bullet traveling down the barrel, whatever pressure is being exerted outward on the barrel is unopposed.

Todd, The strength of the steel tube is the opposing force. The thinner the tube the less the strength.

Mike, that is my point exactly. There is no way that steel tube is strong enough to withstand the amount of force necessary to make an imprint without first bursting.

Even if it were possible, which it isn't, why is it that OSR is only spoken about in terms of double rifles and not single barreled rifles? What is it about running a thin line of solder down the length of a barrel that suddenly transforms it into being susceptible to OSR?

Apply some critical thinking to it. It doesn't make any sense and I think Michael and Sam have substantially put this wives tale to rest.

Bolt guns have heavier barrel walls IIRC.
The solder has little to do with it IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Brooks:
Bolt guns have heavier barrel walls IIRC.
The solder has little to do with it IMO.

Mike,

I'm sorry my man, but I can't accept this explanation either. There are many featherweight bolt guns with very thin barrels. The barrels on my 577NE were damn thick by comparison.

But let's look at your statement. If the issue was simply the thickness of the barrel, wouldn't that mean that the thinner the barrel, the less outward pressure it would be capable of supporting before splitting since you stated that the opposing force comes from the strength of the steel tube itself? The thinner the tube, the less opposing stress it can support before splitting. The thinner the barrel and corresponding opposing force, the more likely the barrel is to split instead of providing enough resistance to the bullet to allow an outprint of the barrel's rifling!

Again, realize that the steel barrel is cold when the bullet travels down it. How difficult is it to mold a piece of red hot steal into a particular shape? Now we are supposed to accept that a bullet softer than the barrel's steel is capable of exerting enough outward, unopposed pressure to cause a permanent and perfect outprint of the internal rifling on the outside of the barrel without it splitting first!! Even a blacksmith shaping a simple horseshoe has an opposing force to work with as he hammers the shoe against an anvil.

I'm sorry my friend. I'm trying to see how it can be but I just don't.

Well, I guess that we'll just need to disagree.
I've got enough of a backround in heavy mechanics and engineering to know that it's possible. I also know of the integrity of some of the folks that have reported seeing this anomoly. I will buck the tide and stay where I'm at.

But then again with your backround flying the "Boeing 373" you might have an edge...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Brooks:
Well, I guess that we'll just need to disagree.
I've got enough of a backround in heavy mechanics and engineering to know that it's possible. I also know of the integrity of some of the folks that have reported seeing this anomoly. I will buck the tide and stay where I'm at.

But then again with your backround flying the "Boeing 373" you might have an edge...

The ole B-373! That'll do it!!

But seriously, with your "backround" in heavy mechanics and engineering, you sound like just the person to explain HOW it is possible. Seriously, I'd like to hear the specifics. I'm not saying that to be a smart ass. As you can tell Mike, I like to dissect claims and get to the actual why's and how's of things. This whole OSR topic has amused me since I first heard it. I've asked for anyone who has the "backround" to explain in a logical manner how OSR could be possible. So far, all I've received is "Well it just is" or "reputable guys say 'Well it just is'", sometimes even "A reputable guy says 'Well it just is' and even said so in his book". I just don't find much there that I can hang my hat on for holding an opinion of such.

Surely, we can agree to disagree and still be friends. I have absolutely no problem with that at all. But I will say that along the same lines as the barrel strain data that Sam and Michael produced with their earlier research, this latest experiment of turning the barrels thinner and thinner and shooting the exact bullets labeled as offenders, specifically the old style barnes, and coming up without any measurable evidence of the OSR phenomenon IS something I can point to and say with confidence that I believe OSR is not real. YMMV however!

Did you ever make a 'zip gun' back in the day?(Don't do this at home kiddies) Using an old car antenna that was a brass tube with other smaller sections inside it?
There was a seam where the flat stock was fused back onto itself formin the pipe.
After running a few 22's down htere the seam would split open. BUT the seam would have moved outside on the tube.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Brooks:
Did you ever make a 'zip gun' back in the day?(Don't do this at home kiddies) Using an old car antenna that was a brass tube with other smaller sections inside it?
There was a seam where the flat stock was fused back onto itself formin the pipe.
After running a few 22's down htere the seam would split open. BUT the seam would have moved outside on the tube.

A brass tube antenna and a steel barrel are not exactly in the same ballpark in terms of withstanding a bullet traveling down their internal length.

Can't say I have much "backround" with zip guns however. Ya might have the edge on me there!

But it's the same principal,
Brass is much softer than steel. But a soft 22 slug is also much softer than a copper/brass slug.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Brooks:
But it's the same principal,
Brass is much softer than steel. But a soft 22 slug is also much softer than a copper/brass slug.

Come on man! You are yanking my chain now just for fun, right?

A 22 slug is harder than a brass antennae/tube/'zip gun' barrel. A copper/brass slug is no where near as hard as a steel barrel.

It's the same principal along the same lines as flying a kite and a "B-373"! Hell, I know that even with my "backround"!

Cheers mate!

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Brooks:
Bolt guns have heavier barrel walls IIRC.

Mike, this is absolutely true. But the barrel Sam turned down had a wall thickness of .03735. Now, from Sam's experience, the thinnest double rifle barrel he has ever seen was .0800, I think an old black powder gun. He measured a few of the modern doubles, wall thickness of .1000. This morning, I measured some shotgun barrels and the thinness shotgun barrel I have here is .0770, most at .0800 +.

.03735 is pretty THIN..................... No rifle barrel on the market today is that thin.....!

Now, Graeme Wright, on page 227, first paragraph, he states he has personally seen two cases of so called OSR. Both as he states were shot with "Steel Jacketed" solids. He says he "Examined" these, not that he actually "Witnessed" OSR happening?

In the very next paragraph down, he says that Geoff MacDonald of Woodleigh, did an experiment by "Turning Down" a .375 barrel to " .0900 inches Wall Thickness" Then forced various projectiles down the barrel using a hydraulic Ram. Measuring outside diameter as the bullet passed, with a "Steel Jacketed" solid he measured an increase of diameter of the barrel .0005, but the barrel spring back to original diameter after the bullet had passed. .0900 is 2.40 times thicker than the barrel Sam and I tested!



Now Guys, I don't know a lot about all the makes, models and so forth when it comes to double rifles. But as I understand this OSR..... Over Stressed Rifling debate, issue, topic...... All I have been hearing it is "Caused By Shooting Hard Projectiles down Thin Walled Double rifle Barrels"... therefore, being the "PROJECTILE" at fault for this.

Some paragraphs later in Graeme Wrights book, he talks about very OLD Guns, made 100 yrs ago, being of softer steel..... Yes, of course, we all know that steel made a hundred years ago is not up to modern standards. Everyone should agree on that point, I do.... He also states clearly, than many of these barrels are very "UNDERSIZED"...... Now, this is where it gets very interesting, if a barrel is undersized, old soft steel, this absolutely increases stress and pressures regardless of the projectile being shot, if you are shooting a bore size projectile down an undersized barrel. Fault of the projectile? Hardly.

Also he talks about a certain kind of rifling that was done 100 yrs ago as well. He states on page 229, bold heading, Rifling type, that both of the cases he "Examined" were Semi-Smooth rifliing. Rounded lands, not sharp cutting lands. This type rifling popular back in black powder days to reduce black powder fouling. He also states clearly that this is a "Possible Explanation", not absolute by any stretch.

It is my contention, that the facts are, no one really knows WTF this is. Not Graeme Wright, certainly not the Brits, and neither do I. I can state only ONE THING, as fact, in the test Sam and I conducted with the thinnest barrel walls EVER TESTED and DOCUMENTED, that we experienced absolutely zero issues, no barrel expansion, no OSR, NO NOTHING. The closest we came to anything, was with the bullets that had large bearing surface, the barrel did HEAT UP, expand slightly but as it cooled back down it went back to exactly the same diameter...... that was it, and this caused by friction and heat of bearing surface of even softer bullets. I contend, from nothing but the test work completed so far, that with a barrel of proper proportions, proper bore size, modern steel, proper modern rifling, that you cannot experience this so called OSR.

Now who is to say what actual sort of damage can occur from steel that is 100 yrs old, UNDERSIZED, and black powder rifling? I cannot, as I have not tested such, and can draw no such conclusions concerning this. But what I would say, its the faulty barrel, and not a faulty bullet that would be the issue.

This is just my opinion based on a considerable amount of test work done in this area, which would include the study of barrel strains as well, and in addition to this little simple OSR test with extremely thin barrel wall of .03735.......... Remember, 2.40 times thinner than what Geoff MacDonald tested! He found no issues or problems and no OSR at .0900, and we found no problems, issues, and no OSR at .03735!

Michael

Great info... who needs myth-busters when we have you Michael!!

Micheal I might have missed it, did you ever measure barrel pressure with a heavily oiled barrel?

Todd:

I don't have much of a vested interest here because I don't have an opportunity to shoot many solids. I take it from your response that your don't have Graeme's book. Aside from this discussion, you should buy a copy. It is the definitive book on doubles, new and old.

Okay, I am just going to give you the first two paragraphs of the chapter 13, Damage to Double Rifles:

"The first and most frequent problem is what I will refer to as over-stressed rifling. This is when the barrel has not returned to it's original shape and size after the projectile has gone through the bore. This has sometimes been refered to as "the rifling appearing on the outside of the barrel" and there has been a lot of misunderstanding about what this really means."

"What does not happen is that the rifling, in all it's glory, appears on the outside of the barrel and the inside of the barrel looks like a smooth bore. In fact, when looking through the bore it is often impossible to detect any difference. In some cases the tops of the lands may have a slightly flattened appearance. It is the outside of the barrel where the damage is more obvious. It can be seen when looking down the outside of the barrels at an acute angle using the same technique as examining a shotgun barrel for dents and bulges. The damage appears as raised metal areas following the lands of the rifling. Maybe a better description is "shadows outlining the rifling." Generally it is visible from just in front of the chambers to the muzzle. In severe cases, even more damage can result. In some cases the barrels have come apart at the muzzles, breaking the solder of the ribs and bending the barrels. One British gun maker has reported a case where the right barrel was bent one inch up and to the right, and the solder of the ribs cracked half way down the barrels."

Graeme has been in contact with both David Winks and Russell Wilkin at H&H. They both report that doubles operated without problem until late in the 20th century. Apparently, bolt action rifles had pushed velocities well above traditional double rifle velocities. That's when "hard" projectiles started coming into play. He defines a "hard" projectile as any bullet other than a conventional lead core bullet with a gilding metal or copper jacket, including modern steel jacketed solids.

Anyway, Graeme says OSR is quite real and I would be glad to make a copy of this chapter and send it to you. It's a very interesting read.

Once again, please don't kill the messenger.

One final thought. In talking to the people at Krieghoff USA, they advised me against shooting monometals in my K-guns. However, that being said, I just don't have any problem with shooting the bore riding bullets from North Fork. CEB seems to have adopted a bore riding design as well. Barnes has addressed this problem by adding bands and making their solids slightly undersized. If you are going to shoot solids, you have to pick your poison but I think the best idea is not to shoot too many.

Dave, I'd say you are right back to square one on the monometal vs conventional bullet issue from your last statement. You might want to start back at page one of this thread and reread about the suitability of those "solids".

Just because Graeme wrote that he had seen a barrel with the candy stripes doesn't mean that a bullet fired down the barrel caused it. Let me say this again and pardon me but I'll shout it so you actually read it this time: I HAVE ALSO SEEN A RIFLE WITH A CANDY STRIPED BARREL. I OWNED IT. IT WAS A RUGER M-77 BOLT ACTION RIFLE IN 338 WIN MAG I PURCHASED IN THE EARLY 1980'S. SOMETIME AROUND 1983 IIRC. BUT THAT RIFLE HAD THE CANDY STRIPED PATTERN ON THE OUTSIDE PRIOR TO ANY BULLETS BEING FIRED DOWN THE TUBE ONCE IT LEFT THE FACTORY. Whew, sorry about that but you didn't seem to have heard that before. Anyway, that M-77 had a total of 2 bullet types ever fired down the tube while I owned it. Hornady Interlocks and Nosler Partitions. That's it. That's all. No monometals as they didn't exist at the time; at least to my knowledge. But it doesn't matter, the barrel was striped like that from the factory.

That's where you and I are hung up on Mr. Wright's statement in his book. You take his statement as the end of the argument. I take it as the beginning of the argument in that I have more questions. Questions such as, did Mr. Wright observe the barrel without the candy striping, then fire a Barnes or other "Hard" bullet down it, then observe the striping had appeared as a direct and irrefutable result of the "hard" bullet firing? If not, then there is no correlation to the stripes on the barrel being caused by a "hard" bullet. More likely, it was caused by the manufacturing technique as it was in my Ruger M-77, 338WM; you know Dave, the one with the candy striping I said I owned and observed myself?

Look Dave, I hold my opinions strongly as do most people. I really like to learn about new things and especially like learning about double rifles. But I don't take everything at face value without doing some research. To the best of my ability, I try to hang my hat on opinions that I can back up with some verifiable and repeatable data. An informed opinion if you will. A perfect example is the issue of cup and core bullets being recommended in doubles because they "looked like the old Kynoch" bullets. But the research that Sam and Michael performed showed across the board that the CEB Monometal bullets produced the least amount of barrel strain while the Woodleigh FMJ, Hornady DGS, and Hornady DGX produced the first, second, and third highest barrel strains across the board in all calibers tested. Results reported right here in this thread. In fact, that's what this thread was all about for the first 15 pages or so.

If that is the case, then the CEB's and other banded monometal or "solid" bullets are the least likely to damage a double rifle or single barreled rifle alike. Doesn't matter if it is a "solid" or soft. Across the board results, repeatable, and verifiable. I'll hang my hat on that data to support my opinion. Why would you state that you don't recommend shooting very many solids with that type of data available? Almost sounds like something Shootaway would say; for that matter he has said! The same applies here. Michael and Sam shaved and turned down a test barrel to much, much thinner than any double rifle barrel produced today or in the past. They shot all types of bullets down it. It did not produce the candy striping. I'll hang my hat on that data to support my opinion as well concerning OSR. If you or anyone else desires to believe otherwise, be my guest. I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me. Far from it. Just stating my opinion, but I do think it is an informed opinion.

I've thrown out several reasons why I don't think OSR is real. You can go back and read them if interested. No need to continue repeating them. But here is another one to consider. We've heard from the OSR believers that the thinness of the barrel contributes to the striping on the outside of the barrel. But consider this. How thick is the rifling on the inside of the barrel itself? Is the rifling shorter than the thickness of the surrounding barrel? Of course it is. Then, why would a "hard" bullet not simply tend to just flatten or damage the rifling instead of causing the rifling pattern to transfer to the outside of the barrel? Again, from a critical thinking standpoint, I don't see it.

Why has no metal specialist been able to offer a clear, logical, straight line point of reasoning to how OSR can occur if it is real? Until Mr. Wright or anyone of the other highly reputable OSR proponents can show proof by taking an unmarked barrel, then fire a "hard" bullet down it, then show the candy striping as a direct and irrefutable result, I'll remain dubious on the subject. I will continue to say however, that if someone can show me that example described in the previous sentence, I'll reconsider and accept it. Something tells me not to worry.

One last point of fact to consider Dave, I've now owned 3 double rifles, and I'm about to take delivery of my 4th. One of those is the little Chapuis 9.3 with the paper thin barrels. I'm not sure how many rounds I've shot in those 3 rifles combined but I'm guessing it is closing in on 2,000 at this point. Maybe a bit less but for sure over 1,500. With the exception of 7 A-Square lion loads fired in the Merkel 500NE, every one of the bullets fired in those rifles has either been a Barnes TSX, Barnes Banded Solid, CEB #13 Solid, or CEB Non-Con. So for all practical purposes, every round has been a solid. None of those rifles have a candy striped barrel, non have a separated solder joint. Non of the issues I was so sternly warned about when I first received the Merkel have occurred in any of those rifles. Furthermore, to the point that the Kreighoff guys recommended not shooting any monometal bullets in their rifles, I've yet to see a manufacturer not recommend against shooting handloads or reloads either. Butch might be the exception but I've not read a manual on his rifles so I can't say for sure. I feel pretty safe going forward with the same plan I've pursued to this point.

Now, are there barrels out there with the candy striping. Yes, of course there are. I OWNED ONE. But it wasn't caused by a "hard" bullet.

Cheers my friend.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:


A 22 slug is harder than a brass antennae/tube/'zip gun' barrel. Hell, I know that even with my "backround"!

Material Brinell Hardness Number

Soft brass 60

Mild steel 130

Annealed chissel steel 235

White cast iron 415

Nitrided surface 750


And from casting bullets I know that soft lead like 22 slugs is 6-8 maybe 9.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Brooks:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:


A 22 slug is harder than a brass antennae/tube/'zip gun' barrel. Hell, I know that even with my "backround"!

Material Brinell Hardness Number

Soft brass 60

Mild steel 130

Annealed chissel steel 235

White cast iron 415

Nitrided surface 750


And from casting bullets I know that soft lead like 22 slugs is 6-8 maybe 9.

We are not dealing with soft brass here.It is as hard as a rock.Just try and smash it with a sledge hammer.It will react like you were smashing a rock.
I was amazed when I shot Barnes banded solids out of my CZ barrel for the first time.It was the only bullet that the barrel lands could not cut into to twist and stablize and they could not hit anywhere near the target-just sprayed all over the place and I said-What is this crap?

I realize that this might tax your abilities , but re-read the context of the statement.

Dave

I do have Graemes book and it is a good book. Good reference for many things, reference.......

quote:

Maybe a better description is "shadows outlining the rifling." Generally it is visible from just in front of the chambers to the muzzle. In severe cases, even more damage can result. In some cases the barrels have come apart at the muzzles, breaking the solder of the ribs and bending the barrels. One British gun maker has reported a case where the right barrel was bent one inch up and to the right, and the solder of the ribs cracked half way down the barrels."

Now, Todd has seen this on that Ruger Bolt gun he used to have, Hard bullets were not responsible for that shadowing effect or candy striping! No doubt of that.

As for the barrel being blown up and bent one inch up and to the right, caused by OSR? NO NO NO, I do not believe that at all. As you see.... "One British GUn Maker Reported"..... Reported? I see nothing that points to absolute proof of such, no details of how that happened, what, nothing..... Just Reported! I hear a lot of crap "Reported", and find it is an active imagination, or a cover up of someones sorry handloads, or dirt/snow/snot in the end of the barrel, or something else altogether. REported does not make it so! I would have to see much more detail before I would buy into that.

quote:

Graeme has been in contact with both David Winks and Russell Wilkin at H&H. They both report that doubles operated without problem until late in the 20th century. Apparently, bolt action rifles had pushed velocities well above traditional double rifle velocities. That's when "hard" projectiles started coming into play. He defines a "hard" projectile as any bullet other than a conventional lead core bullet with a gilding metal or copper jacket, including modern steel jacketed solids.

Every single word of this is PURE CONJECTURE on the part of two guys having a conversation. "Well, everything was just fine until these hard bullets came along, must be that!" Pure Conjecture, nothing more than that.

quote:

One final thought. In talking to the people at Krieghoff USA, they advised me against shooting monometals in my K-guns.

Just because a person works at K does not make him an expert on anything. There are a lot of people in the industry, that don't have a clue about a lot of things, but repeat like parrots what they have heard. I see it ALL THE TIME, and have for years! You would not believe the stupid remarks I have heard from these so called experts within many areas of shooting. Just at DSC one of the other sales people at Chapius made the exact same statement!

As I pointed out as well in my post above;

quote:

Now, Graeme Wright, on page 227, first paragraph, he states he has personally seen two cases of so called OSR. Both as he states were shot with "Steel Jacketed" solids. He says he "Examined" these, not that he actually "Witnessed" OSR happening?

quote:

In the very next paragraph down, he says that Geoff MacDonald of Woodleigh, did an experiment by "Turning Down" a .375 barrel to " .0900 inches Wall Thickness" Then forced various projectiles down the barrel using a hydraulic Ram. Measuring outside diameter as the bullet passed, with a "Steel Jacketed" solid he measured an increase of diameter of the barrel .0005, but the barrel spring back to original diameter after the bullet had passed. .0900 is 2.40 times thicker than the barrel Sam and I tested!

quote:

Some paragraphs later in Graeme Wrights book, he talks about very OLD Guns, made 100 yrs ago, being of softer steel..... Yes, of course, we all know that steel made a hundred years ago is not up to modern standards. Everyone should agree on that point, I do.... He also states clearly, than many of these barrels are very "UNDERSIZED"...... Now, this is where it gets very interesting, if a barrel is undersized, old soft steel, this absolutely increases stress and pressures regardless of the projectile being shot, if you are shooting a bore size projectile down an undersized barrel. Fault of the projectile? Hardly.

Also he talks about a certain kind of rifling that was done 100 yrs ago as well. He states on page 229, bold heading, Rifling type, that both of the cases he "Examined" were Semi-Smooth rifliing. Rounded lands, not sharp cutting lands. This type rifling popular back in black powder days to reduce black powder fouling. He also states clearly that this is a "Possible Explanation", not absolute by any stretch.

It is my contention, that the facts are, no one really knows WTF this is. Not Graeme Wright, certainly not the Brits, and neither do I. I can state only ONE THING, as fact, in the test Sam and I conducted with the thinnest barrel walls EVER TESTED and DOCUMENTED, that we experienced absolutely zero issues, no barrel expansion, no OSR, NO NOTHING. The closest we came to anything, was with the bullets that had large bearing surface, the barrel did HEAT UP, expand slightly but as it cooled back down it went back to exactly the same diameter...... that was it, and this caused by friction and heat of bearing surface of even softer bullets. I contend, from nothing but the test work completed so far, that with a barrel of proper proportions, proper bore size, modern steel, proper modern rifling, that you cannot experience this so called OSR.

No where do I see definitive proof of anything, all conjecture. No one tested other than Geoff MacDonald, and he found no OSR. I don't actually trust manufacturers or the factories, they are all very quick to blame something else, for something that might come from their own shop! Or, in cases where they cannot explain something, then they pull some things out of their ass, or from the air and that is that!

I can't find where Graeme actually witnessed this? Only where he examined two old blackpowder guns that might have had it. Only conjecture to the real cause. There is no telling how those guns were rifled to begin with, what sort of tools, what sort of soft steel the barrels were, or how much abuse those rifles had, where they had been, nothing.......???????

That just leaves way too many questions open to accept as the "Gospel", at least for me it does, especially after the test work we just did on that .03735 wall thickness barrel!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by Zephyr:
Micheal I might have missed it, did you ever measure barrel pressure with a heavily oiled barrel?

Zeph

No, you did not miss it yet, the other day when Sam left with the test rifle, I thought of that then, but was too late!

Of course, I am still not running pressure traces yet. I have the units back, they are said to be working, but I have heard that for over a year with the new unit, and I still don't believe it. I know that when I do hook up, it is not going to read correctly, I will be extremely upset, it takes a lot of effort just to get everything put together, and when it don't work I will be so pissed, I am quite sure I will be testing the meanest, fastest NonCon on that bitch thing that I can get my hands on quickly, and will be pissed for a month thereafter. So, I have been putting off hooking up! Its my blood pressure you see!

HEH HEH>......
Michael

quote:

Material Brinell Hardness Number

Soft brass 60

Mild steel 130

Annealed chissel steel 235

White cast iron 415

Nitrided surface 750


And from casting bullets I know that soft lead like 22 slugs is 6-8 maybe 9.

Mike, good info! What is modern steel we use in our barrels these days you think?

Another point to ponder, who was making those barrels that were examined? Both were reported as old black powder guns, with rounded rifling? Who made them? What procedure did they use to do the rifling? What steel did they use? So many questions......... And no definitive answers. For that matter, where do todays barrels come from on all these different makers of double rifles??

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
Todd:

I don't have much of a vested interest here because I don't have an opportunity to shoot many solids. I take it from your response that your don't have Graeme's book. Aside from this discussion, you should buy a copy. It is the definitive book on doubles, new and old.

Okay, I am just going to give you the first two paragraphs of the chapter 13, Damage to Double Rifles:

"The first and most frequent problem is what I will refer to as over-stressed rifling. This is when the barrel has not returned to it's original shape and size after the projectile has gone through the bore. This has sometimes been refered to as "the rifling appearing on the outside of the barrel" and there has been a lot of misunderstanding about what this really means."

"What does not happen is that the rifling, in all it's glory, appears on the outside of the barrel and the inside of the barrel looks like a smooth bore. In fact, when looking through the bore it is often impossible to detect any difference. In some cases the tops of the lands may have a slightly flattened appearance. It is the outside of the barrel where the damage is more obvious. It can be seen when looking down the outside of the barrels at an acute angle using the same technique as examining a shotgun barrel for dents and bulges. The damage appears as raised metal areas following the lands of the rifling. Maybe a better description is "shadows outlining the rifling." Generally it is visible from just in front of the chambers to the muzzle. In severe cases, even more damage can result. In some cases the barrels have come apart at the muzzles, breaking the solder of the ribs and bending the barrels. One British gun maker has reported a case where the right barrel was bent one inch up and to the right, and the solder of the ribs cracked half way down the barrels."

Graeme has been in contact with both David Winks and Russell Wilkin at H&H. They both report that doubles operated without problem until late in the 20th century. Apparently, bolt action rifles had pushed velocities well above traditional double rifle velocities. That's when "hard" projectiles started coming into play. He defines a "hard" projectile as any bullet other than a conventional lead core bullet with a gilding metal or copper jacket, including modern steel jacketed solids.

Anyway, Graeme says OSR is quite real and I would be glad to make a copy of this chapter and send it to you. It's a very interesting read.

Once again, please don't kill the messenger.

One final thought. In talking to the people at Krieghoff USA, they advised me against shooting monometals in my K-guns. However, that being said, I just don't have any problem with shooting the bore riding bullets from North Fork. CEB seems to have adopted a bore riding design as well. Barnes has addressed this problem by adding bands and making their solids slightly undersized. If you are going to shoot solids, you have to pick your poison but I think the best idea is not to shoot too many.

Yes agree.Just common sense,IMO! One reason to stick with Woodleigh.Also,soft solids can transfer shock as well instead of zipping through.I am worried some eles that we see shot in videos,during charges and not go down are shot with flat nose bullets that zip through.

Sounds like Wright is also coming on board with the monometals.

"Recently I have experimented with some brass solids in a 500 nitro. These have the driving bands as described above and seem to have the same characteristics as a normal lead cored soft point. Recovered bullets clearly show the main bullet shank has not touched the bore and that the metal of the driving bands has easily been displaced by the rifling. More work and pressure tests need to be done in this area for double rifle use, however it does show promise. Non toxic rifle projectiles may well be part of our future so I believe that experimenting in this direction is essential. ("Shooting the British Double Rifle" Graeme Wright Page 230)

The second sentence is interesting in that he compares the mono metals to softs and not what he terms "hard" projectiles which includes traditional solids with steel beneath the copper such as the Woodleighs.

quote:

He says he "Examined" these, not that he actually "Witnessed" OSR happening?

Michael

How can you witness OSR happening ?

If it happens with one bullet,
it is over in a blink of an eye.

The only thing you can do is examine it.


Also, "I can't find where Graeme actually witnessed this? Only where he examined two old blackpowder guns that might have had it."

I can't remember where that is in the book.
Anyone give me a page No ?

Reason is, I was sure that one of the rifles
with OSR was a 404 Bolt action.

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:

quote:

He says he "Examined" these, not that he actually "Witnessed" OSR happening?

Michael

How can you witness OSR happening ?

If it happens with one bullet,
it is over in a blink of an eye.

The only thing you can do is examine it.


Also, "I can't find where Graeme actually witnessed this? Only where he examined two old blackpowder guns that might have had it."

I can't remember where that is in the book.
Anyone give me a page No ?

Reason is, I was sure that one of the rifles
with OSR was a 404 Bolt action.

How do you Witness it happening? WTF.... Where the F**K have you been?

See Page 19.... That is how you witness it!

My Post on Page 20... This page, just above you This is what page it is on and what he says.

Jesus F*** Christ, is no one capable of blabbing their fu*** Mouth off before reading? Reading F**King Comprehension is way the hell out there somewhere.........??????

quote:

Mike, this is absolutely true. But the barrel Sam turned down had a wall thickness of .03735. Now, from Sam's experience, the thinnest double rifle barrel he has ever seen was .0800, I think an old black powder gun. He measured a few of the modern doubles, wall thickness of .1000. This morning, I measured some shotgun barrels and the thinness shotgun barrel I have here is .0770, most at .0800 +.

.03735 is pretty THIN..................... No rifle barrel on the market today is that thin.....!

Now, Graeme Wright, on page 227, first paragraph, he states he has personally seen two cases of so called OSR. Both as he states were shot with "Steel Jacketed" solids. He says he "Examined" these, not that he actually "Witnessed" OSR happening?

In the very next paragraph down, he says that Geoff MacDonald of Woodleigh, did an experiment by "Turning Down" a .375 barrel to " .0900 inches Wall Thickness" Then forced various projectiles down the barrel using a hydraulic Ram. Measuring outside diameter as the bullet passed, with a "Steel Jacketed" solid he measured an increase of diameter of the barrel .0005, but the barrel spring back to original diameter after the bullet had passed. .0900 is 2.40 times thicker than the barrel Sam and I tested!



Now Guys, I don't know a lot about all the makes, models and so forth when it comes to double rifles. But as I understand this OSR..... Over Stressed Rifling debate, issue, topic...... All I have been hearing it is "Caused By Shooting Hard Projectiles down Thin Walled Double rifle Barrels"... therefore, being the "PROJECTILE" at fault for this.

Some paragraphs later in Graeme Wrights book, he talks about very OLD Guns, made 100 yrs ago, being of softer steel..... Yes, of course, we all know that steel made a hundred years ago is not up to modern standards. Everyone should agree on that point, I do.... He also states clearly, than many of these barrels are very "UNDERSIZED"...... Now, this is where it gets very interesting, if a barrel is undersized, old soft steel, this absolutely increases stress and pressures regardless of the projectile being shot, if you are shooting a bore size projectile down an undersized barrel. Fault of the projectile? Hardly.

Also he talks about a certain kind of rifling that was done 100 yrs ago as well. He states on page 229 FOR YOU 505G He states on page 229, bold heading, Rifling type, that both of the cases he "Examined" were Semi-Smooth rifliing. Rounded lands, not sharp cutting lands. This type rifling popular back in black powder days to reduce black powder fouling. He also states clearly that this is a "Possible Explanation", not absolute by any stretch.

It is my contention, that the facts are, no one really knows WTF this is. Not Graeme Wright, certainly not the Brits, and neither do I. I can state only ONE THING, as fact, in the test Sam and I conducted with the thinnest barrel walls EVER TESTED and DOCUMENTED, that we experienced absolutely zero issues, no barrel expansion, no OSR, NO NOTHING. The closest we came to anything, was with the bullets that had large bearing surface, the barrel did HEAT UP, expand slightly but as it cooled back down it went back to exactly the same diameter...... that was it, and this caused by friction and heat of bearing surface of even softer bullets. I contend, from nothing but the test work completed so far, that with a barrel of proper proportions, proper bore size, modern steel, proper modern rifling, that you cannot experience this so called OSR.

Now who is to say what actual sort of damage can occur from steel that is 100 yrs old, UNDERSIZED, and black powder rifling? I cannot, as I have not tested such, and can draw no such conclusions concerning this. But what I would say, its the faulty barrel, and not a faulty bullet that would be the issue.

This is just my opinion based on a considerable amount of test work done in this area, which would include the study of barrel strains as well, and in addition to this little simple OSR test with extremely thin barrel wall of .03735.......... Remember, 2.40 times thinner than what Geoff MacDonald tested! He found no issues or problems and no OSR at .0900, and we found no problems, issues, and no OSR at .03735!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
Todd:

I don't have much of a vested interest here because I don't have an opportunity to shoot many solids. I take it from your response that your don't have Graeme's book. Aside from this discussion, you should buy a copy. It is the definitive book on doubles, new and old.

Okay, I am just going to give you the first two paragraphs of the chapter 13, Damage to Double Rifles:

"The first and most frequent problem is what I will refer to as over-stressed rifling. This is when the barrel has not returned to it's original shape and size after the projectile has gone through the bore. This has sometimes been refered to as "the rifling appearing on the outside of the barrel" and there has been a lot of misunderstanding about what this really means."

"What does not happen is that the rifling, in all it's glory, appears on the outside of the barrel and the inside of the barrel looks like a smooth bore. In fact, when looking through the bore it is often impossible to detect any difference. In some cases the tops of the lands may have a slightly flattened appearance. It is the outside of the barrel where the damage is more obvious. It can be seen when looking down the outside of the barrels at an acute angle using the same technique as examining a shotgun barrel for dents and bulges. The damage appears as raised metal areas following the lands of the rifling. Maybe a better description is "shadows outlining the rifling." Generally it is visible from just in front of the chambers to the muzzle. In severe cases, even more damage can result. In some cases the barrels have come apart at the muzzles, breaking the solder of the ribs and bending the barrels. One British gun maker has reported a case where the right barrel was bent one inch up and to the right, and the solder of the ribs cracked half way down the barrels."

Graeme has been in contact with both David Winks and Russell Wilkin at H&H. They both report that doubles operated without problem until late in the 20th century. Apparently, bolt action rifles had pushed velocities well above traditional double rifle velocities. That's when "hard" projectiles started coming into play. He defines a "hard" projectile as any bullet other than a conventional lead core bullet with a gilding metal or copper jacket, including modern steel jacketed solids.

Anyway, Graeme says OSR is quite real and I would be glad to make a copy of this chapter and send it to you. It's a very interesting read.

Once again, please don't kill the messenger.

One final thought. In talking to the people at Krieghoff USA, they advised me against shooting monometals in my K-guns. However, that being said, I just don't have any problem with shooting the bore riding bullets from North Fork. CEB seems to have adopted a bore riding design as well. Barnes has addressed this problem by adding bands and making their solids slightly undersized. If you are going to shoot solids, you have to pick your poison but I think the best idea is not to shoot too many.

Yes agree.Just common sense,IMO! One reason to stick with Woodleigh.Also,soft solids can transfer shock as well instead of zipping through.I am worried some eles that we see shot in videos,during charges and not go down are shot with flat nose bullets that zip through.

See Dave, I told you. Your comments sounded like something Shootaway would say. You guys are on the same page now. And we all know that physics behave differently in Shootaway's Matrix world. You know, the la la land where he is "The One"!

quote:

See Dave, I told you. Your comments sounded like something Shootaway would say.

I knew that was coming..... Just a matter of time! LOL........................


Look here, I have to ask, has anyone measured for themselves just how THIN .03735 Is???
Which is the barrel Wall Thickness Sam and I just tested! If you measure that, and you see how
thin that barrel wall is, then you will throw OSR out the door on modern steel barrels. Of course,
unless you are f**k**G STUPID, and all apologies, as I know no other way to put it or explain how you could think OSR could happen with modern steel, if it does not with a wall thickness tested of .03735 Inches with 458 caliber!

Measure .03735 and see what that looks like to you, barrel wall thickness! I can tell you, its about as thin as Piss On A Rock!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
Sounds like Wright is also coming on board with the monometals.

"Recently I have experimented with some brass solids in a 500 nitro. These have the driving bands as described above and seem to have the same characteristics as a normal lead cored soft point. Recovered bullets clearly show the main bullet shank has not touched the bore and that the metal of the driving bands has easily been displaced by the rifling. More work and pressure tests need to be done in this area for double rifle use, however it does show promise. Non toxic rifle projectiles may well be part of our future so I believe that experimenting in this direction is essential. ("Shooting the British Double Rifle" Graeme Wright Page 230)

The second sentence is interesting in that he compares the mono metals to softs and not what he terms "hard" projectiles which includes traditional solids with steel beneath the copper such as the Woodleighs.

Mike

Absolutely great point, and also leads to something else that I said to Dave, earlier this morning, about the "Sales Reps" or people that work at various gun companies, what have you. They, the uneducated, ignorant, or just plain stupid, you know who THEY are, LUMP all Mono Bullets together, all of them, old, new, banded, no bands, copper, bronze, brass, or anything else. They are all "MONO" and should be avoided like Ebola! When nothing could be further from the truth.

Does Dave really think that K Rep, sales person, or whatever he was, knew what he was talking about? Or just repeating stupid shit like a trained parrot? I dare say, I know the answer to that!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:

quote:

He says he "Examined" these, not that he actually "Witnessed" OSR happening?

Michael

How can you witness OSR happening ?

If it happens with one bullet,
it is over in a blink of an eye.

The only thing you can do is examine it.


Also, "I can't find where Graeme actually witnessed this? Only where he examined two old blackpowder guns that might have had it."

I can't remember where that is in the book.
Anyone give me a page No ?

Reason is, I was sure that one of the rifles
with OSR was a 404 Bolt action.

You witness it by taking a rifle with confirmed, unmarked barrels, meaning absolutely no evidence of candy striping, shadowing, or what ever else is claimed as OSR, then firing a "hard" bullet down the barrel, then observing the barrel again for evidence of the shadowing on the outside of the barrel. If anyone can produce such a result, then you might have a point. But just picking up a barrel and seeing the striping and pronouncing it as OSR doesn't feed the bulldog. That is conjecture, not proof. Really, not even very good conjecture. I had a rifle with a striped barrel and it came that way from the factory. Would Graeme have picked up that rifle, and pronounced it as OSR caused by a "hard" bullet being fired down it? Sounds like it. Pure conjecture and wrong.

I agree with what Michael says about the experts who have written books and what the guys working at the factories say. I don't always trust it. Not until I've had a chance to do a little research for myself. Here is a great case in point.

Awhile back, I was interested in using TrailBoss for reduced loads in the 500NE. I had heard about the 70% rule where you measure where the bottom of the seated bullet would sit in the case, load up to that line, weigh it, then multiply by 70% and that is your starting load. Easy enough. But some guys starting warning me that Graeme Wright stated not to use TrailBoss for reduced loads in the NE guns in his book. I was advised to call the powder company and get their take on it. So I did. The response was "I consider Graeme Wright's book to be the definitive authority on shooting double rifles. He reports that he locked up a double rifle action while using TrailBoss so I therefore cannot in good conscience recommend using it in a NE double gun". Hmmmm...seems straight forward, right? Well...no, it's not. I found the reference in Graeme's book and parsed out what he actually said. Yes, he locked up the action on a DR using TrailBoss. But not in the manner I was attempting to use it. Graeme was shooting a Black Powder Express rifle, not a full Nitro Gun. He was not attempting to load reduced loads, quite the contrary. Graeme was attempting to replace black powder in order to find something that is less dirty and would clean up easier. Graeme locked up the rifle while trying to achieve full black powder velocities (1,800fps or so) in a Black Powder Express rifle. He was compressing the powder in order to achieve this. The reduced loads using the 70% rule first of all do not compress the powder, which by the way is highly warned against, and the velocities produced with the 70% rule run just over 1,050 fps or so with a 570gr bullet in the 500NE. The loads are very mild, produce no recoil to speak of, and simply do not develop enough pressure to amount to anything. I think one can see that these are two distinctly different horses of two distinctly different colors. Graeme's statement on using TrailBoss actually does not say you can't use it in a Nitro Gun for reduced loads. The guy at the powder company is warning against using his company's product for a perfectly safe use because of what "Mr. Wright said in his book", when in fact, Mr. Wright didn't say anything of the sort.

There is just so much false or inaccurate information floating around out there by people repeating what they have heard or what their brother in law's, second cousin's wife, step sister's uncle, twice removed once said, that you really have to dig into the subjects and find out for yourself. Think of it this way. Someone who is new to big bore rifles and inexperienced goes to the internet one day looking for the answer to a question on shooting big bore rifles with irons sights. He stumbles onto AR and finds one of Shootaway's posts. Not being a forum participating type of person and not coming back here often enough to understand that no one takes Shoots seriously and that he is discredited with every statement he makes, the guy takes what George wrote, runs with it, spreading this information to all of his friends who have a passing interest in the same subject. Then somewhere down the road, one of those friends gets interested and purchases a DR, remembering what his buddy said about Shootaway's comments and the next thing you know, he's shooting nothing but Woodleigh bullets, and especially with the FMJ, is actually placing the MOST stress possible on his barrels, all the while thinking he is good to go.

Todd,why dont you show these people a picture of the CEB solid from your last hunt-the one,IMO that ruined your barrel and probably was the reason for you ordering a new double.The CEB solid that was engraved everywhere.As far as Woodleigh FMJ goes I think that they can improve on them by offering a FN version like the DGS and cutting grooves into the copper like NorthFork bullets in order to foul less and give better accuracy at longer ranges.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

See Dave, I told you. Your comments sounded like something Shootaway would say.

I knew that was coming..... Just a matter of time! LOL........................


Look here, I have to ask, has anyone measured for themselves just how THIN .03735 Is???
Which is the barrel Wall Thickness Sam and I just tested! If you measure that, and you see how
thin that barrel wall is, then you will throw OSR out the door on modern steel barrels. Of course,
unless you are f**k**G STUPID, and all apologies, as I know no other way to put it or explain how you could think OSR could happen with modern steel, if it does not with a wall thickness tested of .03735 Inches with 458 caliber!

Measure .03735 and see what that looks like to you, barrel wall thickness! I can tell you, its about as thin as Piss On A Rock!

Michael

Michael,

I don't mean to stir the pot but is it possible thjat 1 or even 6 shots may not show a change in barrel diameter. Is it posssible that OSR is something that builds with an increasing number of rounds fired?

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
Todd,why dont you show these people a picture of the CEB solid from your last hunt-the one,IMO that ruined your barrel and probably was the reason for you ordering a new double.The CEB solid that was engraved everywhere.As far as Woodleigh FMJ goes I think that they can improve on them by offering a FN version like the DGS and cutting grooves into the copper like NorthFork bullets in order to foul less and give better accuracy at longer ranges.

George,

Really? I ordered the 500NE VC from Ken at the SCI show in February of 2012. Then later purchased the 577NE from him in August of 2012. The 500 was ordered long before the 577NE was even on the horizon. I stated numerous times that I purchased the 577 to have some fun and hunt with it once, then put it on the market. There are many examples of guys doing this very thing with a high value British double. They will purchase something like an H&H or WR, take it on a hunt to have some fun with a very cool vintage rifle, then sell it for a profit upon returning home. But your statement is yet another perfect example of why no one takes ANYTHING you post seriously!

And for the record, the barrels on that 577 are just fine. No issues with them at all. That is a very good shooting rifle. What you don't seem to understand, well... finishing that statement could take all day, but I digress, ... is that many of us buy / sell and use multiple rifles because we enjoy the variety of using different guns. Not that we are dissatisfied with any particular one, unless it happened to be one of those dremeled Sabatti's. But since you wanted to see the bullet, I'll play:



The lands just touched the shank in front of the bands, not behind. But there is no engraving in the shank at all, just a very slight mark which is more visible when the bullet is wet, as in this picture. Here is another of the same bullet and the other one which hit something very hard inside the elephant (which we never did figure out):



Also, a picture of how those "ruined" 577NE barrels as you say, shoot the CEB's at 50 yards off of sticks (2 rights and 2 lefts, no crossing):

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

See Dave, I told you. Your comments sounded like something Shootaway would say.

I knew that was coming..... Just a matter of time! LOL........................


Look here, I have to ask, has anyone measured for themselves just how THIN .03735 Is???
Which is the barrel Wall Thickness Sam and I just tested! If you measure that, and you see how
thin that barrel wall is, then you will throw OSR out the door on modern steel barrels. Of course,
unless you are f**k**G STUPID, and all apologies, as I know no other way to put it or explain how you could think OSR could happen with modern steel, if it does not with a wall thickness tested of .03735 Inches with 458 caliber!

Measure .03735 and see what that looks like to you, barrel wall thickness! I can tell you, its about as thin as Piss On A Rock!

Michael

Michael,

I don't mean to stir the pot but is it possible thjat 1 or even 6 shots may not show a change in barrel diameter. Is it posssible that OSR is something that builds with an increasing number of rounds fired?

465H&H

It won't happen with out showing up on a strain gauge. OSR is a form of plastic deformation that can only occur with high barrel strain and would definitely produce high strain gauge measurements.

Hence...all of Michael's research from the get go.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
Todd:

I don't have much of a vested interest here because I don't have an opportunity to shoot many solids. I take it from your response that your don't have Graeme's book. Aside from this discussion, you should buy a copy. It is the definitive book on doubles, new and old.

Okay, I am just going to give you the first two paragraphs of the chapter 13, Damage to Double Rifles:

"The first and most frequent problem is what I will refer to as over-stressed rifling. This is when the barrel has not returned to it's original shape and size after the projectile has gone through the bore. This has sometimes been refered to as "the rifling appearing on the outside of the barrel" and there has been a lot of misunderstanding about what this really means."

"What does not happen is that the rifling, in all it's glory, appears on the outside of the barrel and the inside of the barrel looks like a smooth bore. In fact, when looking through the bore it is often impossible to detect any difference. In some cases the tops of the lands may have a slightly flattened appearance. It is the outside of the barrel where the damage is more obvious. It can be seen when looking down the outside of the barrels at an acute angle using the same technique as examining a shotgun barrel for dents and bulges. The damage appears as raised metal areas following the lands of the rifling. Maybe a better description is "shadows outlining the rifling." Generally it is visible from just in front of the chambers to the muzzle. In severe cases, even more damage can result. In some cases the barrels have come apart at the muzzles, breaking the solder of the ribs and bending the barrels. One British gun maker has reported a case where the right barrel was bent one inch up and to the right, and the solder of the ribs cracked half way down the barrels."

Graeme has been in contact with both David Winks and Russell Wilkin at H&H. They both report that doubles operated without problem until late in the 20th century. Apparently, bolt action rifles had pushed velocities well above traditional double rifle velocities. That's when "hard" projectiles started coming into play. He defines a "hard" projectile as any bullet other than a conventional lead core bullet with a gilding metal or copper jacket, including modern steel jacketed solids.

Anyway, Graeme says OSR is quite real and I would be glad to make a copy of this chapter and send it to you. It's a very interesting read.

Once again, please don't kill the messenger.

One final thought. In talking to the people at Krieghoff USA, they advised me against shooting monometals in my K-guns. However, that being said, I just don't have any problem with shooting the bore riding bullets from North Fork. CEB seems to have adopted a bore riding design as well. Barnes has addressed this problem by adding bands and making their solids slightly undersized. If you are going to shoot solids, you have to pick your poison but I think the best idea is not to shoot too many.

Yes agree.Just common sense,IMO! One reason to stick with Woodleigh.Also,soft solids can transfer shock as well instead of zipping through.I am worried some eles that we see shot in videos,during charges and not go down are shot with flat nose bullets that zip through.

See Dave, I told you. Your comments sounded like something Shootaway would say. You guys are on the same page now. And we all know that physics behave differently in Shootaway's Matrix world. You know, the la la land where he is "The One"!

LOLOLOL That was cold Todd, really cold

Just kidding around with ya Dave!!

No problem Todd. I am just sorry about even getting into this discussion. Should have known better.