whiskey three precision

[Michael Courtney]

Both of them... LOL

But that's because when ever you approach anyone for work they find out who you really are and how much you are willing to hurt your fellow man.

The people who hire us are usually paying us good money to give them accurate evaluations of products so that they do not get hurt by exaggerated marketing claims. Lots of companies aspiring to big DoD contracts exaggerate the specs of their "magic bullets", lightweight armor, revolutionary small arms systems, etc.

Assessing the accuracy of product claims may have the short term effect of "helping" the customer or potential business partner and "hurting" the company that may lose a bit of business in the short term. However, in the context of products pitched to the DoD, assessing the accuracy of product claims helps the DoD, saves, the taxpayer money, and strengthens defense related industries in the long term.

One recent project we completed showed how the current generation of lead free primers had a lot of misfires when exposed to heat and humidity and ignition delay times over 50 ms even without environmental conditioning. I'm sure in the short term, this caused some pain to the companies holding patents on DDNP based lead free primers. But on the plus side, soldiers are protected from being forced to use inferior products. In addition, we've probably pushed back the date when lead free primers are mandated for hunting and other civilian uses. Other work of ours is geared toward clarifying the disadvantages of lead free bullets. Yes, this is going to hurt companies that are heavily invested in lead free bullets, but should help the industry as a whole and those who would be harmed by being forced to use lead free bullets before they are truly as good as jacketed lead bullets.

Yep, we are always willing to cause this kind of pain to our fellow man.

In the present case, how are we causing harm to the shooting community by pointing out W3Ps exaggerated BCs or by strongly encouraging them to perform their own BC measurements to provide potential customers with accurate specifications?

 

[BryanLitz]

how are we causing harm to the shooting community by pointing out W3Ps exaggerated BCs ...?

How about offering to test the bullets rather than sit back and 'point things out'. Isn't that what a ballistic testing group does?

Don't trouble yourself, I'm on it.

You can sit at your keyboard and continue to 'point out' minutia, as usual.

I'll be here testing and providing useful analysis, as usual.

-Bryan

 

[Michael Courtney]

How about offering to test the bullets rather than sit back and 'point things out'. Isn't that what a ballistic testing group does?

We've never aspired to be a testing house that pays out of our own pocket to test every product that comes along. There's room for companies that shoot every bullet into ballistic gelatin or try and measure the BC of every bullet, but our purpose is to try and be more scientific and illuminate broad principles than a more technical approach of providing free test results for every product.

Most of our BC test results have arisen from related projects: studies of terminal performance, studies of wind drift, studies of gyroscopic stability. We view the BC of a given line of bullets as more of a technical question relating to that line of bullets than a scientific question with fundamental interest. We can accurately answer that question of there is a need or desire to. However, we do not feel the need to line the pockets of every new bullet company by ordering lots of boxes of their bullets to provide free BC testing. Other parties are free to do that if they wish.

But do your or I really either need to shoot a 142 grain 6.5 mm bullet to know for sure that the G1BC is a lot lower than 1.7?

W3P bullets may have some utility for various projects and programs we're working on, but we really need better estimates of BCs than are currently available. We believe the industry as a whole will be better served if bullet makers publish measured BCs earlier in their business cycle, rather than making outrageous claims and only later providing more accurate specs. And as pointed out above, W3P is unlikely to replace their marketing specs with your BC measurements.

Finally, within the last two weeks we posted a spreadsheet for computing stability of aluminum tipped bullets. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that might be something shooters of aluminum tipped bullets may find useful.

 

[MMERSS]

our purpose is to try and be more scientific and illuminate broad principles than a more technical approach of providing free test results for every product.

The consumer will inevitably do this anyway. I believe many retail sites have a "rate and comment" section. It should be no surprise if the manufacturer is selling a five star product. The consumer will validate that claim eventually and rate with comments accordingly……free of charge.

Is it too much to ask those willing to conduct independent tests for free to complete the tests and at least get some of those star ratings up with comment? A more ensuing discussion can follow.

 

[IdahoRedneck]

We've never aspired to be a testing house that pays out of our own pocket to test every product that comes along. There's room for companies that shoot every bullet into ballistic gelatin or try and measure the BC of every bullet, but our purpose is to try and be more scientific and illuminate broad principles than a more technical approach of providing free test results for every product.

Most of our BC test results have arisen from related projects: studies of terminal performance, studies of wind drift, studies of gyroscopic stability. We view the BC of a given line of bullets as more of a technical question relating to that line of bullets than a scientific question with fundamental interest. We can accurately answer that question of there is a need or desire to. However, we do not feel the need to line the pockets of every new bullet company by ordering lots of boxes of their bullets to provide free BC testing. Other parties are free to do that if they wish.

But do your or I really either need to shoot a 142 grain 6.5 mm bullet to know for sure that the G1BC is a lot lower than 1.7?

W3P bullets may have some utility for various projects and programs we're working on, but we really need better estimates of BCs than are currently available. We believe the industry as a whole will be better served if bullet makers publish measured BCs earlier in their business cycle, rather than making outrageous claims and only later providing more accurate specs. And as pointed out above, W3P is unlikely to replace their marketing specs with your BC measurements.

Finally, within the last two weeks we posted a spreadsheet for computing stability of aluminum tipped bullets. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that might be something shooters of aluminum tipped bullets may find useful.

As usual you didnt read the thread in which you pulled the referenced bc, if you had you would know that 1.75 was the gyroscopic stability number and that they are claiming a bc of .65, this was pointed out by Al the same day they posted the thread in which you grabbed the headline where the mistake was made. All this has been right there to read, yet you keep pounding.

We all know the bcs are inflated.

I would suggest to you that unless you wanna find yourself in a hole over here big enough to bury ya in, like youve experienced over on Snipers hide, that you bow out, if people here want your services theyll get ahold of ya.

 

[adam32]

Both of them... LOL

But that's because when ever you approach anyone for work they find out who you really are and how much you are willing to hurt your fellow man.

Even if Culpepper cherry picks bullets, how would he be sure they are "the best" off the line. How much variance in BC could it make? Pure BS used as an attack.

Your endless innuendo disparaging anyone who opposes you, goes back to your vengeance attacks in 1995.

Have you had a chance to shoot your W3P bullets yet?

 

[Michael Courtney]

As usual you didnt read the thread in which you pulled the referenced bc, if you had you would know that 1.75 was the gyroscopic stability number and that they are claiming a bc of .65, this was pointed out by Al the same day they posted the thread in which you grabbed the headline where the mistake was made. All this has been right there to read, yet you keep pounding.

We all know the bcs are inflated.

The FB post has been edited, and now it reflects a realistic BC.

 

[IdahoRedneck]

The FB post has been edited, and now it reflects a realistic BC.

Yes but it was pointed out in the post the same day it was put up, had you bothered to read the thread youd know that.

 

[TheFishBox]

my bullets will be here next week it looks like so after I'm done hunting I will try and switch my scopes over and see what I find for bc but I will be the first to warn you I'm not scientific about it.

 

[TheFishBox]

so I looked in the mail and my bullets were here upon first look I got 34 bullets that in my visual inspection appeared to be flawless. 13 that had slight flaws such as slight dimples in the jacket just below where the aluminum tip meets the jacket. and a few have a vertical line in the jacket that you can easily feel with your finger nail. and then I had three that had cracks in the jacket itself. so all in all not to bad I don't think. I will use the three bad ones for load work up as I am not to sure where to start anyhow and no sense in slinging the pretty ones for nothing.

 

[TheFishBox]

I measured and weighed all my bullets and every bullet weighed within a half a grain of 200 which is good and the bullets I spot checked for length granted it is from base to tip and not the ogive were within ten thousandths of each other.

 

[Michael Courtney]

I measured and weighed all my bullets and every bullet weighed within a half a grain of 200 which is good and the bullets I spot checked for length granted it is from base to tip and not the ogive were within ten thousandths of each other.

Usually, we expect tipped bullets to be more consistent for length. We've measured a box of 100 208 AMAX bullets to all be within 0.005" of each other.

+/- 0.5 grains of the target weight is also a bigger variation than most precision bullets. The attached graph shows the weight measurements for 50 230 grain Bergers. All but one are within the Berger spec of +/- 0.2 grains.

 

[TheFishBox]

hey michael I appreciate your input on the bullet stuff but I am just giving a rough outline for the stuff I do I am not to worried about the gnats ***** for details so I just tossed them in the scale and when they appeared to be settled I just said good so I went back and reweighed cause .5 did seem like alot and it came out to .2 not .5 so my bad. It would be neat if you would buy some of these bullets and do some test instead of nit pick everyone else.

 

[Pdvdh]

hey michael I appreciate your input on the bullet stuff but I am just giving a rough outline for the stuff I do I am not to worried about the gnats ***** for details so I just tossed them in the scale and when they appeared to be settled I just said good so I went back and reweighed cause .5 did seem like alot and it came out to .2 not .5 so my bad. It would be neat if you would buy some of these bullets and do some test instead of nit pick everyone else.

Unlike Bryan Litz, Michael doesn't sell bullets for a living. As I understand it, he tests products - including bullets - under strict quality assurance / quality control standards, and then reports his findings. His testing standards and methods are reviewed by other researchers (peer reviewed) before his study findings are approved for release. Thus his attention to detail, which you classify as nit picking. If Mr. Litz didn't receive employment income from a company that sells bullets, he might be less inclined to imply that Michael should test bullets for free. Everyone has to make living.

With respect to nit-picking, no problem with you expressing your opinion on that. Freedom of speech. Asking someone to volunteer there time, expertise, and money purchasing and testing bullets, and then reporting their test results for your benefit - after your criticize them for nit picking? Good luck with that.

The part that I find troubling is the 6% cracked/split jacket rate you report upon inspection of your bullets. 3 cracked jackets out of 50 bullets, unless I misinterpret your Post. Could you post pics of these cracked jackets? Or would that be nit picking?