As a scientist...I was taught to have a healthy dose of skepticism for proclamations on things with out good evidence.

It seems very unscientific to me that somebody held a rifle (of which they have no first hand info on) up to the ceiling lights once and made an observation and voila...OSR was born!

First-off the name it self is unsubstantiated. It should have been named: candy-striped barrel phenomenon as no one knows what the hell caused it.

Dam! I am glad Michael is a friend of mine so that I can still get his help from time to time...as he is a wealth of knowledge.

This OSR thing has demonstrated how myths get started. Nobody can proclaim that OSR exists until they reproduce it. It is a fundamental part of Koch's Postulate (reproducing that is). Until somebody reproduces it...the most definitive thing anyone can say is: "Gee, I can see the outline of the rifling of this barrel when I hold it up to the ceiling light."

quote:

Nobody can proclaim that OSR exists until they reproduce it. It is a fundamental part of Koch's Postulate (reproducing that is).

Not everything can be reproduced at will some take a combination of errors to get it right.. You as a scientist should know that too.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Brooks:

quote:

Nobody can proclaim that OSR exists until they reproduce it. It is a fundamental part of Koch's Postulate (reproducing that is).

Not everything can be reproduced at will some take a combination of errors to get it right.. You as a scientist should know that too.

Agreed...but until it is...it ain't fact...it is opinion (or more scientifically...a hypothesis).

Michael,

I too wish you would reconsider. I completely understand your frustration however as it seems the most basic of reading comprehension just doesn't seem to be taking hold on this topic. I simply don't understand how comments once written by Graeme Wright that clearly do not address the actual causes of the barrel marks he observed in any scientific manner by ruling out all other possible causes to arrive at the conclusion can be taken as gospel allowing absolutely NO room for dissension. It seems that developing a method to attempt to PROVE the bullet as the culprit is taken as blasphemy since it goes against what the all mighty Graeme once wrote! Specifically, it HAS to be the Barnes X bullet. Can't be anything other such as a manufacturing process or even defect. And of course it HAS TO BE THE BARNES X because no one ever mentions the A-Square monolithic solid. Could it be simply that Barnes X bullets were a greater threat to the established bullet makers when they suddenly found that a major competitor had developed a bullet capable of 100% weight retention with perfectly controlled expansion over a never before known velocity envelop? Of course if A-Square had been a larger player in the market, maybe we would stil be hearing of it's sinister characteristics in destroying barrels as well?

That nasty old Barnes X bullet. The range of things it's been blamed for since it's introduction is amazing. At times it's been too hard on barrels and causing rifling to magically pop out the end of barrels and / or pop through steel walls and appear on the outside of barrels. But never fear, just keep reading because in the next paragraph, it will be blamed for being too soft and unnecessarily fouling barrels. Can it truly be that versatile; shape-shifting it's characteristics at will fulfilling its role as culprit de jour? Being as bad as it is has certainly kept all the other bullet manufacturers from attempting to copy it, right?

Rest assured Michael, the work you and Sam have done, while not accepted by all, certainly has dispelled many wives tales and greatly advanced our understanding of how bullets affect our barrels as well as the extensive advancements in terminal performance. All by a couple of guys who don't even have an interest in selling a single bullet or rifle.

Remember back when I told you of the steps to acceptance one must go through? First it will be questioned, then denied, then ridiculed, and finally accepted. That applies to both the bullet designs you and Sam worked on as well as these myth busting experiments with OSR and barrel strains. If it goes against the prophets' teachings, it must pass through these stages. Do not give up on advancing the knowledge base just because you've made it to step 2 and 3 of the process. There are many of us who are benefiting greatly. Others will benefit as well as time passes, whether or not they are willing to admit it today. Press on!! Please!

I'm sorry I ever decided to explore OSR because if it has caused Michael to have lost interest or even hate double rilfes its all my fault. I was the person who after meeting Michael the first time saw how he loved finding out about how things worked and what caused this and that when it can to bullets and guns. He and I hit it off like we had known each other all our lives. Michael is one of the most generous people I have ever known. He was willing to do anything to help anyone needing knowledge about guns. He has helped me learn so much more than just what bullet I might want to use for what game. He has a wealth of knowledge that few in the firearms industry or in the shooting community realize. Michael has done so much for you double rifle lovers including me that you can't thank him enough. Michael started this thread for me because I didn't know how to go about getting it started or posting photos plus I was kinda shy about trying to put information on here when very few of the people on AR had a clue who I was or if I was just another signature. Because of Michael being so well known here and the fact that his Terminal work is beyond fantastic I knew he could help getting all this information out to you. I have spent so much time trying to think of things that would help double rifle users just so I could drive down to Michael's and see if I could get him to help me test it. He has always bent over backwards to help me. Spent a bunch of his own time and money to help all of us not only on this thread but many others. As Michael said he is not a double rifle guy, he isn't in the bullet selling business and he doesn't work for anyone in the industry either. He does all this because he loves the science of bullets and guns. He wants to find the best of the best and tell everyone about it. He tells it like it is too!!!!!! If a bullet tumbles or goes dead straight he tells you and it doesn't matter who's bullet it is. I so thankful for all Michael has done for me and the double rifle community and it is a sad day that he doesn't want to work with anything to do with this thread or double rifles anymore. I take the blame because I pushed all of this on him and didn't realize just how upsetting it was to him to hear some of the comments people were making about the work being done here. I hope Michael will forgive me for not seeing my faults in pushing something on him that he didn't really have an interest in. His friendship to me is worth more than any double I own and I wouldn't do anything to hurt that.
Thanks Michael for everything you have done for me. I'm sorry I pushed all this on you without knowing it would cause issues.

Sam

I found this on the Barnes web site. I thought it was kind of interesting:

http://www.barnesbullets.com/b.../07/13/from-the-lab/

If Cal had said: "yep...I saw a barrel set once that demonstrated what Graeme described so 'something' might be going on." That would be an accurate statement.

But to say that I (being Cal) held a barrel up to the light once and saw stripes on the outside matching the rifling so therefore...OSR is alive and well...that is an 'inaccurate' or maybe more correctly...an 'unsubstantiated' statement.

Michael's (and Sam's) work provides hard fact that it is unlikely a 'hard bullet' problem...IF...it s a problem at all.

Dave:
Vintage makers seem to have a quality that has been lost beginning with the post WWII years. One fella in the know suggested it was because so many of the skilled gunsmiths were killed in the war and those that took their place did not have the same training. Just his opinion,of course.

As to my solid or favorite makers: Henry, Holland, Westley, Lang, and Wilkes.

To our question on bands. I would assume the less bullet metal in contact with the bore the less pressure. If all else is equal a bullet with bands will show less pressure than without bands. I have shot four boxes of Barnes Banded Solids in my .600 Wilkes with no problem.

Lane:
You are correct about my use of words. I am guilty of writing thoughts perhaps too quick. Sometimes without thinking of the analysis of those reading. For example, LionHunter stated there were no photos to substantiate OSR and even if there were, photos can be doctored. I never thought when viewing the (OSR or candy striping) on the .450-400 to photograph it as there was not reason to as, for the time, it was just interesting to me. I also never thought one would infer I was not being truthful when stating I saw such a thing. I do wish the gent who owned the rifle would come on here and post his info and photos. I am in contact with Graeme off and on and will ask him to pass the word on to the owner.

There is one thing for certain, however, that is whatever name one wishes to call it, the "images" on the barrel's exterior were not made that way when the barrel was produced and they only occurred after firing solid bullets. That said, I do not believe it was just the bullet in itself. The other variables would be diameter, velocity, etc...

As to my observation, the (OSR?) was so light it could only be seen by reflection of the light--not seen or felt. To describe it another way: I had an oval bore 12-bore ball and shot gun. The bores were out of round by about .005" which could not be seen. However, if held to a bright light shining down the bore the reflected light would show the discrepancies in the bore's contour.

Yes, what I did see was an image that did show what Graeme has wrote about. The striping seemed to exactly (by view, without measurement) show the same twist and size as the rifling grooves.

I do hope Michael will continue his work as it is indeed valuable. It would be interesting to see the same experiments on vintage barrels. Of course, due to value, this can't occur.

Anyway, Lane, I hope I was now more illustrative in my commentary.
Cheers, all.
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
But to say that I (being Cal) held a barrel up to the light once and saw stripes on the outside matching the rifling so therefore...OSR is alive and well...that is an 'inaccurate' or maybe more correctly...an 'unsubstantiated' statement.

Why inaccurate ?

OSR - Over stressed rifling.

Candy striping on the outside of the barrel matching the rifling would indicate OSR ?

As to what caused it, yes, well, that is another matter.

If Michaels work seemed fair and accurate and truthful to me I would be one of his biggest fans.
Unfortunately it does not.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
If Michaels work seemed fair and accurate and truthful to me I would be one of his biggest fans.
Unfortunately it does not.

I don't get into these arguments often, preferring to pop in occassionally with my smart-ass quips.

But that has to be the craziest thing I have ever read, shootaway. You are definitely off your rocker.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
If Michaels work seemed fair and accurate and truthful to me I would be one of his biggest fans.
Unfortunately it does not.

George, you're a FUCKING ASSHOLE. No really, you are!! Considering the number of posts credited to your handle, you are without a doubt the most discredited poster on the entire forum. Lately your posts have gone beyond being idiotic and have run more toward abusiveness and insulting of people who hold advanced and professional degrees such as the one you had to retract directed at RIP and physicians in general. I can play that game as well since that's how you want to proceed.

Cite specific examples of Michael's work that you believe to be untruthful, inaccurate, or fair. He has posted information exactly as it unfolded. While working on the #13 design, they encountered many failures or results that were not up to performance standards. They used this information to tweak the designs to make it better. His commentary and test work has identified several great designs other than CEB which you and others mistakenly believe he has financial interest in; namely North Fork. The fact that the owner of bullet companies such as North Fork would come and spend the weekend with Michael in hopes of refining their bullet's performance instead of simply printing sales copy to sell more bullets, such as Barnes's decision to go back to the Round Nose design after promoting it for years, is testament to his standing and credibility.

Your comment that he has been unfair, inaccurate, and especially untruthful, is disgusting. Nigel disagrees with Michael about many of the theories and has debated him strongly. He never insults in this fashion as you have done today. Nigel, I apologize for putting your name in comparison with Shootaway but I'm trying to point out the difference of disagreeing and remaining a gentleman, as you have done. What credibility do you bring to the discussion George? Absolutely none. You are an ASS CLOWN 100% and personally, I'm done showing you any polite consideration going forward after this latest statement. If it gets me banned from AR, so be it. I lived without this forum for 49 years and I can certainly do so now.

George, you are a psycho pure and simple, badly in need of medications. You would be the absolute first person I would look to concerning keeping firearms out of the hands of lunatics. You have yet to put forth a coherent statement of value on this forum and whether or not you understand it as you live in your alternate universe, you are the laughing stock of the entire forum. Shut the FUCK up and go back to your piss poor shooting that at best reminds one of a shotgun at extreme range. You don't have a clue about guns, shooting, bullets, or hunting. Your a total social misfit. Fuck Off!

You asked awhile back why I walked away after saying hello to you out at the SCI show. It should be obvious at this point. I don't do ASS CLOWN!

Todd,
Quit pussy footing around and tell him how you really feel!

Todd:

As I said at the beginning, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't shoot many solids and would have no problem shooting a North Fork, CEB, or a Barnes in my doubles. My pick would be the North Fork as I think the their bore riding design is the best one. For softs, I just use Hornady cup and core for practice if they are available and Woodleighs for hunting. Hornady makes 286 9,3, 300 grain .375, and a 400 grain Interlocks. I shoot a lot of those. For my 500, I just shoot Woodleigh softs but would have no problem shooting a North Fork solid in that gun.

However, I just wanted to toss this thought out to you. Maybe OSR does exist but the bullets from North Fork, CEB, and the newer Barnes banded solids and TSX bullets just don't cause it.

Damn, Todd.

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
But to say that I (being Cal) held a barrel up to the light once and saw stripes on the outside matching the rifling so therefore...OSR is alive and well...that is an 'inaccurate' or maybe more correctly...an 'unsubstantiated' statement.

Why inaccurate ?

OSR - Over stressed rifling.

Candy striping on the outside of the barrel matching the rifling would indicate OSR ?

As to what caused it, yes, well, that is another matter.

No...it does NOT indicate that it 'IS' over stressed rifling. Could it be??? Yes! But...until it can be reproduced and barrel strain documented with strain gauge measurement verification...it is purely conjecture.

Had Cal seen the barrel before and after the striping occurred...the hypothesis would be stronger.

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Dave:
Vintage makers seem to have a quality that has been lost beginning with the post WWII years. One fella in the know suggested it was because so many of the skilled gunsmiths were killed in the war and those that took their place did not have the same training. Just his opinion,of course.

As to my solid or favorite makers: Henry, Holland, Westley, Lang, and Wilkes.

To our question on bands. I would assume the less bullet metal in contact with the bore the less pressure. If all else is equal a bullet with bands will show less pressure than without bands. I have shot four boxes of Barnes Banded Solids in my .600 Wilkes with no problem.

Lane:
You are correct about my use of words. I am guilty of writing thoughts perhaps too quick. Sometimes without thinking of the analysis of those reading. For example, LionHunter stated there were no photos to substantiate OSR and even if there were, photos can be doctored. I never thought when viewing the (OSR or candy striping) on the .450-400 to photograph it as there was not reason to as, for the time, it was just interesting to me. I also never thought one would infer I was not being truthful when stating I saw such a thing. I do wish the gent who owned the rifle would come on here and post his info and photos. I am in contact with Graeme off and on and will ask him to pass the word on to the owner.

There is one thing for certain, however, that is whatever name one wishes to call it, the "images" on the barrel's exterior were not made that way when the barrel was produced and they only occurred after firing solid bullets. That said, I do not believe it was just the bullet in itself. The other variables would be diameter, velocity, etc...

As to my observation, the (OSR?) was so light it could only be seen by reflection of the light--not seen or felt. To describe it another way: I had an oval bore 12-bore ball and shot gun. The bores were out of round by about .005" which could not be seen. However, if held to a bright light shining down the bore the reflected light would show the discrepancies in the bore's contour.

Yes, what I did see was an image that did show what Graeme has wrote about. The striping seemed to exactly (by view, without measurement) show the same twist and size as the rifling grooves.

I do hope Michael will continue his work as it is indeed valuable. It would be interesting to see the same experiments on vintage barrels. Of course, due to value, this can't occur.

Anyway, Lane, I hope I was now more illustrative in my commentary.
Cheers, all.
Cal

Cal,
That was a very professional post. Thank you sir for the clarification.

Sorry if I offended the forum guys, except George. We are all free to believe what we want about OSR and bullet design and ultimately, that matters very little. But I'll be damed if I'm going to stand by and see a good man like Michael who has spent his time and money on these tests for others benefit, be called out as a liar by a loon. Yep, I stand up to that one every time.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Sorry if I offended the forum guys, except George. We are all free to believe what we want about OSR and bullet design and ultimately, that matters very little. But I'll be damed if I'm going to stand by and see a good man like Michael who has spent his time and money on these tests for others benefit, be called out as a liar by a loon. Yep, I stand up to that one every time.

Todd,

Sometimes...you just have to call a spade a spade. Your description seems accurate to me.

We need more folks like Michael458 (course he should change his moniker to Michael.500 now)

Todd

No worries at all.

It shows George / Shootaway for what he is.
Makes snide comments but can't back it up
with DECENT discussion or fact or even
present a coherent argument.

As I clearly stated to George / Shootaway
when having a go at him for what he said about Michael "I might have my major disagreements with Michael but BS is not one of them...... "

It still stands. Michael and I have different views on bullet performance which is what we most often discuss.

I have just given up on long responses to
George / Shootaway.

.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Sorry if I offended the forum guys, except George. We are all free to believe what we want about OSR and bullet design and ultimately, that matters very little. But I'll be damed if I'm going to stand by and see a good man like Michael who has spent his time and money on these tests for others benefit, be called out as a liar by a loon. Yep, I stand up to that one every time.

+ 1

Agree totally on all points, especially
supporting Michael from a wannabe.

Thank you, Lane, for your kind words.

Todd: Shootaway suggested in the post on books and videos (where I referred to him as a "cad") that I am agreeing with others who find fault with his words due to the fact I am selling books and doubles rifles.

For whatever it is, OSR or...? the experiments are simplified as:
old bullets and old barrels no problem
new bullets and new barrels no problem
new bullets and old barrels possibly a problem.

Cheers,
Cal
PS. Since shootaway is always correct, I expect you folks to begin buying my books and rifles! I am waiting by the phone, credit card machine in hand!

I can't figure out why you guys let George get to you so much. If his posts bother you, just put him on your ignore list. Me, I enjoy hearing from George now and then...LOLOLOL

Michael458,

If it is only for the poor dumb reloaders like myself...PLEASE...continue your good work...AND...posts on AR.

It is people such as your self...that make the world a better place to shoot!

You have been an invaluable resource to me over the years!!!

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Todd: Shootaway suggested in the post on books and videos (where I referred to him as a "cad") that I am agreeing with others who find fault with his words due to the fact I am selling books and doubles rifles.

Well, having just read the latest on the thread
about Graeme Wrights book, I really do think Shootaway is an absolute dickhead, summed up here by Todd.
"George, you ask for opinions on the book. When they are favorable, you say you'll pass. When they are negative, you say you'll buy. Then back and forth just to be contrarian."

or Cal
"from reading shootaway's posts I'm convinced he is of the mindset to jerk people's chains."


Just about sums up shootaway !!!

Over in the Accuracy of doubles thread, I answered the question with how much accuracy I expect from an elephant double and also answered a question from Zimbabwe about why he always tended to shoot to the left with open sites. Shootaway responded by calling my post "nonsense". I am not sure if he was calling both opinions nonsense or just one.

I could have gotten my dander up and jumped him but I chose not to respond in any way. I have suggested before to just ignore him and I suggest it again. I don't believe any one can be as stupid as George comes across here but I do think someone can be that mean and spiteful. He seems to get his jollies by jacking people up. He continually comes up with stupid ideas and often resorts to name calling and or demeaning comments about other posters. He is just plain a mean man!

If we all ignore his comments he will go away. I know it is difficult to not respond when he accuses someone of something but that is exactly what feeds him.

465H&H

It seems .45-70 shooter and Pyzda have disappeared.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Over in the Accuracy of doubles thread, I answered the question with how much accuracy I expect from an elephant double and also answered a question from Zimbabwe about why he always tended to shoot to the left with open sites. Shootaway responded by calling my post "nonsense". I am not sure if he was calling both opinions nonsense or just one.

I could have gotten my dander up and jumped him but I chose not to respond in any way. I have suggested before to just ignore him and I suggest it again. I don't believe any one can be as stupid as George comes across here but I do think someone can be that mean and spiteful. He seems to get his jollies by jacking people up. He continually comes up with stupid ideas and often resorts to name calling and or demeaning comments about other posters. He is just plain a mean man!

If we all ignore his comments he will go away. I know it is difficult to not respond when he accuses someone of something but that is exactly what feeds him.

465H&H

Ignored post by shootaway posted 04 March 2013 00:41 Show Post

Todd,
'Bout damned time somebody said it. I personally think you were light and should try a bit harder. I try extremely hard not to argue with anyone here, over anything, but George/shootaway is an idiot. Pure and simple. I have wondered why in the hell you guys even bother to respond. All it does is exagerate the importance of self in his mindless state of idiocy. Why I have him on ignore.

Random Thoughts:::

First michael458, I apologise for Chris not being able to get free to speak with you at the Safari Show, we were just covered up with clients/customers. I can assure you there was no intention to snub or ignore you.

I did not invent the term OSR. BUT as I have stated I have seen, what we are calling OSR or [Candy Striping], on many Vintage double rifles.

I know of instances where a rifle did not have what we call OSR, was shot with solid shank, ie no grooves, monometal bullets from Barnes and other makers thet did develop the signs of OSR.

Also some people have claimed that the Woodleigh Solids can cause OSR but I have not personally known of a case that this has happened.

I "think" there are some factors that contribute to OSR.
I think that a double rifle is more susceptable to OSR because of the fact that @1/4th of the barrel is soldered between the upper and lower rib, so the barrel cannot expand radially concentric, like a single barrel rifle can.

In Vintage doubles, the barrel steel is "softer" than the steel on modern guns, especially as compared to German Hammer Forged barrels.

I think a hard bullet, especially if a little oversize for a specific set of double rifle barrels, it is more likely to cause OSR.

I think OSR occures when a barrel is forced to expand away from the rib, to a larger diameter than the "working" elasticity of the steel in the barrel, and the pressure against the lands of the rifling, exerts a stress that is able to bee seen on the exgterior of the barrel.

I have shot pieces of thick steel with a 44 Mag handgun, and seen radial marks on the nonimpact side of the steel, radiating out from the center of the impact point.


Many times you could not feel any type of deformation on the back side of the steel plate, but you could SEE the radial "pressure/impact marks".

Now you cannot call that "OSR", because there is not rifling on the steel plate, but there is not doubt a transfer of impact/energy, and a compression/compaction of "atoms" in the area where the bullet hits.

The term "Over Stressed Rifling" might not be a good "Scientific" name for what is occuring.

But, Gentlemen, I CAN assure you that "SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED" to the steel of the barrel, as you can SEE a change in the outside surface of the steel.

450no2:
I wish I had said it that clearly!
Cal

Tony,

To your knowledge has the OSR (?) caused any change in regulation or accuracy? Is the change primarily cosmetic?

465H&H

Get one these rifles that already exhibits the trait and send it to Michael. Get him to apply strain gauges and let him shoot it with a safe bullet with a safe load. Then shoot some of Sams solid shank solids in it and see if it has a massively different reading. If the barrel is deforming enough for the eye to see...it will be off the charts with a strain gauge.

If it already has it...can't hurt.

Todd - I knew this was coming He has pushed you as far as you are willing to be pushed. I applaud your stance and response. I said a long time ago that he was the idiot from the north, seems it has just taken some a bit longer to reach the same conclusion!

Lane - Your analysis is spot on. It seems to me there is a distinct lack of understanding of the scientific method AND the principles of evidence, among some of the OSR fans. As I said in prior posts, I don't know if OSR exists or not and don't care if people choose to believe it exists because they read about it in a book or have seen something being called OSR. What I do resent and care deeply about is a refusal by some of those folks to acknowledge that whatever it is, it has not been proven to exist. Their statements are merely anecdotal and carry no evidentiary value. Show me a barrel with candy-striping (or photos/videos) and I'll tell you that is not evidence of OSR until the process that caused it can be reproduced under controlled circumstances, and repeated under the same set of controls at any place by anyone. Until then, I adopt the maxim credited to P. T. Barnum regarding fooling people.

Michael - Because I am your good friend, I will support whatever decision you make. We will all be diminished, but the decision is yours. I completely understand your frustration with some of the posters on AR and the repeated personal attacks, as I suffer some of the same frustrations and attacks. I was scheduled to conduct some additional DR/load testing for Michael out here on the west coast and will continue to do so unless and until he requests I cease.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Tony,

To your knowledge has the OSR (?) caused any change in regulation or accuracy? Is the change primarily cosmetic?

465H&H

I have never known of a rifle that showed OSR to have its regulation or its accuracy effected.

I do know that some rifles have had the solder holding the barrels "pop loose" and that did effect regulation, of course, but I do not know if those rifles showed the signs of "OSR".

I've not followed this thread and don't own any doubles, but I have chambered and shot a few rifles and happen to call a few good barrelmakers good friends. About this 'stressed rifling thing'... I really think you're looking at this wrong. If you think of the engraving force on the bullet, it's pretty much done past the throat of the rifling. Could there be some residual compressive force on the bullet as its traveling down the bore?..sure I suppose, but I honestly think it has more to do with the manufacturing process of the barrel and the subsequent 'stress relief' it undergoes as it's fired in the future. How were those older gun barrels manufactured? Drilled cast steel, forged rounds, etc... I'll tell you of one experience, I had turned down and chambered a 17 Remington. The chamber cut extremely smooth (or so I thought), I polished it, assembled and test fired. It shot well but seemed to drift as the barrel warmed up. I then sent the barrel off for cryo treatment to solve any stress issues. When I assembled it and shot it again, there was a funny longitudinal pattern left in the brass, not enough to really be felt, but plainly visible in the soot pattern on the outside of the fired case. It shot very well, reloaded fine and kept a consistent POI, but the relief of the stress HAD changed some dimension in the chamber that I guarantee was not there prior and it perfectly mimicked a chattering reamer pattern that I never felt while chambering. I would bet it's in the barrel and has nothing to do with the bullet at all. I have no doubt that a thinner barrel of an older gun could indeed show a rifling pattern on the exterior through a reflected light. Even the most minuscule aberration will show up on a barrel with the right reflections. Anyway, that's my thought on that, ya don't know me and I'm no one of note, but I do study this stuff...it's been my number one hobby for over 20 years.

I believe there may be some vintage rifles that would exhibit what was described no matter what was fired out of them.

Michael458,

Please:
1- Continue your teaching here
2- Put some folks on "Ignore"

(I numbered the above out of selfishness.)

I have seen several posters say "I haven't read the Thread" or I haven't followed this thread" or I didn't like the sound of the title so I haven't paid any attention to it and so on. I see why Michael got so upset because it upsets me. All we have been trying to do with this thread is find out for you and ourselves what is good or bad for a double. No I haven't written any books so I'm a dumbass. I am a double rifle lover and shooter. The whole purpose of this thread was to let other double rifle shooters in on the information we had found while doing our own tests to back up what others had said and to see if we could duplicate some of the results others had observed. Everyone has their own opinon and that's fine.
Please do me a favor, If you haven't read this thread from the start then please read it. If it doesn't interest you enough to read it then don't come on it and put it down. I think there has been some helpful and interesting stuff done here and hopefully has helped some of you make up your own minds instead of just believing everything you've read in a book. Some books are in the fiction section but I enjoy reading them and if its a good book I believe the story.

Sam

srose,
Point well taken and I should have read a bit more than 5 pages or so. I read the first 3 or so, and read the last 3 to see what the latest was. I do find it interesting and will heed your advice. Oh, and I guess I do have some very vintage english doubles and sporting rifles, but they're muzzleloaders and one WC Scott and Son breachloader....

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
If Michaels work seemed fair and accurate and truthful to me I would be one of his biggest fans.
Unfortunately it does not.

George, you're a FUCKING ASSHOLE. No really, you are!! Considering the number of posts credited to your handle, you are without a doubt the most discredited poster on the entire forum. Lately your posts have gone beyond being idiotic and have run more toward abusiveness and insulting of people who hold advanced and professional degrees such as the one you had to retract directed at RIP and physicians in general. I can play that game as well since that's how you want to proceed.

Cite specific examples of Michael's work that you believe to be untruthful, inaccurate, or fair. He has posted information exactly as it unfolded. While working on the #13 design, they encountered many failures or results that were not up to performance standards. They used this information to tweak the designs to make it better. His commentary and test work has identified several great designs other than CEB which you and others mistakenly believe he has financial interest in; namely North Fork. The fact that the owner of bullet companies such as North Fork would come and spend the weekend with Michael in hopes of refining their bullet's performance instead of simply printing sales copy to sell more bullets, such as Barnes's decision to go back to the Round Nose design after promoting it for years, is testament to his standing and credibility.

Your comment that he has been unfair, inaccurate, and especially untruthful, is disgusting. Nigel disagrees with Michael about many of the theories and has debated him strongly. He never insults in this fashion as you have done today. Nigel, I apologize for putting your name in comparison with Shootaway but I'm trying to point out the difference of disagreeing and remaining a gentleman, as you have done. What credibility do you bring to the discussion George? Absolutely none. You are an ASS CLOWN 100% and personally, I'm done showing you any polite consideration going forward after this latest statement. If it gets me banned from AR, so be it. I lived without this forum for 49 years and I can certainly do so now.

George, you are a psycho pure and simple, badly in need of medications. You would be the absolute first person I would look to concerning keeping firearms out of the hands of lunatics. You have yet to put forth a coherent statement of value on this forum and whether or not you understand it as you live in your alternate universe, you are the laughing stock of the entire forum. Shut the FUCK up and go back to your piss poor shooting that at best reminds one of a shotgun at extreme range. You don't have a clue about guns, shooting, bullets, or hunting. Your a total social misfit. Fuck Off!

You asked awhile back why I walked away after saying hello to you out at the SCI show. It should be obvious at this point. I don't do ASS CLOWN!

Worth repeating. This Village Idiot has been here for some time now and one only needs to see some of his initial posts to get the idea as to what a moronic sociopath this guy is. His posts are so ridiculously stupid and devoid of logic there can only be two possible answers:

He's a microcephallic retard or he is a sociopath and a troll. My bet it's a combination of both. There seems to be a rash of idiots here lately, that keep returning with multiple login names, but like always, this too shall pass. jorge