Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Long range barrel profile
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bart B" data-source="post: 100619" data-attributes="member: 5302"><p>UncleB says: "I see that you have a new computer program,while I'm sure that it is a significant upgrade over your previous Inspector Gadget Lab. it is still no better than the information fed into it."</p><p></p><p>You made a wrong assumption. My computer is not an 'Inspector Gadget Lab.' I think it's a 'Barbie Doll Boolean Darling' and I affectionatley call it my 'BDBD' or 'Beady-Beady.' I'll have to find the box of Cracker Jack it came out of and re-read the advertisement on it. The darned thing is too cheap to have any nameplate on it. But it seems to work OK. I think it's worth the 79 cents I paid WalMart for that box of Cracker Jack.</p><p></p><p>UncleB says this, too: "it is obvious that you are very good talking with your computer but not so good feeding it correct information ,you are playing cyber gun guru but have you ever shot a real rifle (other than the Daisy Red Ryder you dand near put your eye out with last christmas)."</p><p></p><p>No, I don't shoot reel rifles; that's too fishy. I just put on my $725 Kurt Thune prone jacket (made in Finland and popular with Olympic shooters), lay down on my belly and hold a bullet between my extended left hand's thumb and forefinger like some 5-year-old holding his 'Shooter' marble at the edge of a circled string around a nest of cat's eye's, then flick that bullet down range such that it spins fast enough to stabilize it. (Excuse me while I turn my reality switch back the 'on' position.)</p><p></p><p>I really did laugh out loud when I read this one's comment about the Daisy Red Ryder. Fact is, a friend of mine has done almost that very thing and I came close to doing it myself. He took a 17 caliber barrel, rechambered it for a wildcat case with a large rifle primer pocket then screwed it into an old action. After priming the case, a pellet or a BB would be put in the case mouth then shot through a chronograph. Hot or magnum primers would produce higher velocity than milder ones. Primers shooting that BB or pellet out with the lowest velocity also produced the best long range accuracy. One could also tell which primers were most uniform ignition wise 'cause their velocities had the lowest spread. Sometimes primers with the lowest spread in BB velocity didn't shoot as accurate in normal handloads as primers having the lowest BB average velocity but just average in velocity spread. But the guy whose underground 100-yard range I helped him build had to move back east so I didn't get my BB gun to shoot my eye out for any Christmas.</p><p></p><p>UncleB continues with: "Most of your idea's if not all have zero merit in the real world. I would love to see your remmy with a 6 foot barrel along with the target and 6 foot group on it but I'm sure I wont because it's all just BS."</p><p></p><p>Whatever you think about my ideas is fine with me. That was a concept statement; not reality. I think most folks figured that out. </p><p></p><p>And UncleB next says: "just out of curiosity just what numbers did you put into your computer to come up with a model70 being 3 times stronger eeerrr stiffer (don't want to mis quote you)than a remington. and how do you do your static and dynamic measureing on your computer game."</p><p></p><p>I put Arabic numbers into my BDBD computer when I need to, you know 0, 1, 2...and so forth all the way up to 9. There aren't any Roman numerals on the keyboard's numeric keypad.</p><p></p><p>I didn't use my computer software to check out receiver stiffness; I don't have any software to do that. It's easier, more meaningful and simpler to do the dynamic method; measuring how much a receiver bends with a 40-pound weight hung on it. Take a barreled action placed horizontally on a benchtop resting on the bottom of its recoil lug with the receiver out over the edge, then anchor its barrel down solid. Mount a dial indicator atop the front receiver ring, place its measuring plunger midpoint on the receiver bridge then zero it. Hang a 40 pound weight on the receiver's tang then note how much the dial indicated the receiver bent. Compare as many receivers as you want as long as the weight and dial indicator is placed in the same position on all receivers. I tested only bending in the vertical axis as that's the axis the barrel whips in. Folks I've convinced to do this are usually amazed at which receivers bend most and least. The nice thing about this method is it's very good, realistic and doesn't require any math or computer skills.</p><p></p><p>The static method involves math using fourth order mathematical equations. You may well be better at math than I am so go check out "modulus of elasticity" on your web search engine and do your own stuff. It's the same stuff used to calculate how stiff fluted and plain barrels are. Harold Vaughn's old book "Bolt Action Rifles" (I think that's the title) has a section on receiver stiffness. Besides Remington 700 and Winchester 70 models, others are listed along with the math formulas he used to make the calculations. It's this reference that lists the Winchester to be 2.7 (?) times stiffer than a Remington receiver of the same type. This information compares favorably with my static methods of measuring receiver stiffness.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bart B, post: 100619, member: 5302"] UncleB says: “I see that you have a new computer program,while I'm sure that it is a significant upgrade over your previous Inspector Gadget Lab. it is still no better than the information fed into it.” You made a wrong assumption. My computer is not an ‘Inspector Gadget Lab.’ I think it’s a ‘Barbie Doll Boolean Darling’ and I affectionatley call it my 'BDBD' or 'Beady-Beady.' I’ll have to find the box of Cracker Jack it came out of and re-read the advertisement on it. The darned thing is too cheap to have any nameplate on it. But it seems to work OK. I think it’s worth the 79 cents I paid WalMart for that box of Cracker Jack. UncleB says this, too: “it is obvious that you are very good talking with your computer but not so good feeding it correct information ,you are playing cyber gun guru but have you ever shot a real rifle (other than the Daisy Red Ryder you dand near put your eye out with last christmas).” No, I don't shoot reel rifles; that's too fishy. I just put on my $725 Kurt Thune prone jacket (made in Finland and popular with Olympic shooters), lay down on my belly and hold a bullet between my extended left hand's thumb and forefinger like some 5-year-old holding his 'Shooter' marble at the edge of a circled string around a nest of cat's eye's, then flick that bullet down range such that it spins fast enough to stabilize it. (Excuse me while I turn my reality switch back the 'on' position.) I really did laugh out loud when I read this one’s comment about the Daisy Red Ryder. Fact is, a friend of mine has done almost that very thing and I came close to doing it myself. He took a 17 caliber barrel, rechambered it for a wildcat case with a large rifle primer pocket then screwed it into an old action. After priming the case, a pellet or a BB would be put in the case mouth then shot through a chronograph. Hot or magnum primers would produce higher velocity than milder ones. Primers shooting that BB or pellet out with the lowest velocity also produced the best long range accuracy. One could also tell which primers were most uniform ignition wise ‘cause their velocities had the lowest spread. Sometimes primers with the lowest spread in BB velocity didn’t shoot as accurate in normal handloads as primers having the lowest BB average velocity but just average in velocity spread. But the guy whose underground 100-yard range I helped him build had to move back east so I didn’t get my BB gun to shoot my eye out for any Christmas. UncleB continues with: “Most of your idea's if not all have zero merit in the real world. I would love to see your remmy with a 6 foot barrel along with the target and 6 foot group on it but I'm sure I wont because it's all just BS.” Whatever you think about my ideas is fine with me. That was a concept statement; not reality. I think most folks figured that out. And UncleB next says: “just out of curiosity just what numbers did you put into your computer to come up with a model70 being 3 times stronger eeerrr stiffer (don’t want to mis quote you)than a remington. and how do you do your static and dynamic measureing on your computer game.” I put Arabic numbers into my BDBD computer when I need to, you know 0, 1, 2...and so forth all the way up to 9. There aren’t any Roman numerals on the keyboard’s numeric keypad. I didn’t use my computer software to check out receiver stiffness; I don't have any software to do that. It’s easier, more meaningful and simpler to do the dynamic method; measuring how much a receiver bends with a 40-pound weight hung on it. Take a barreled action placed horizontally on a benchtop resting on the bottom of its recoil lug with the receiver out over the edge, then anchor its barrel down solid. Mount a dial indicator atop the front receiver ring, place its measuring plunger midpoint on the receiver bridge then zero it. Hang a 40 pound weight on the receiver’s tang then note how much the dial indicated the receiver bent. Compare as many receivers as you want as long as the weight and dial indicator is placed in the same position on all receivers. I tested only bending in the vertical axis as that’s the axis the barrel whips in. Folks I’ve convinced to do this are usually amazed at which receivers bend most and least. The nice thing about this method is it’s very good, realistic and doesn’t require any math or computer skills. The static method involves math using fourth order mathematical equations. You may well be better at math than I am so go check out “modulus of elasticity” on your web search engine and do your own stuff. It’s the same stuff used to calculate how stiff fluted and plain barrels are. Harold Vaughn’s old book “Bolt Action Rifles” (I think that’s the title) has a section on receiver stiffness. Besides Remington 700 and Winchester 70 models, others are listed along with the math formulas he used to make the calculations. It’s this reference that lists the Winchester to be 2.7 (?) times stiffer than a Remington receiver of the same type. This information compares favorably with my static methods of measuring receiver stiffness. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Long range barrel profile
Top