10" twist results

[runfiverun]

first the load
37.0 imr 4895, win l.r. primers 165 r.c.b.s. silhouette 172.2 gr lubed and checked

i pushed a clean tight patch through the bbl before starting it came out
clean and no tight spots in the bbl.
the bbl is conditioned and no lead in bbl,
the rifle is a ruger m-77 mk-2 stainless with 20" bbl.
it will , has and still can shoot 1" groups at 100 yds. with cast or jacketed.

the results shot today air temp 58-65 degrees and the wind was light very light.
i loaded this load in winchester and remington brass and shot both.

the winchester brass loads averaged 2065 fps at 8' from the bbl
the remington brass averaged 2120 fps 8' from bbl.

here are the numbers... these are outside to outside measured.

remington brass at 50 yds 6 shots 1 1/2 in high x 1 1/4 wide with 2 flyers and 2 warming shots.
win brass at 50 yds 7 shots in 1 3/8 wide and 1" high 1 flyer and 1 warmer shot.

rem brass at 100yds 8shots in 2 3/8 high x 3 3/8 wide 1 flyer and 1 warmer.
win brass 100 yds 7shots in 2 3/4 high x 1 7/8 wide i flyer and 2 bbl warmers.

rem brass 200 yds 8 shots in 11" wide x 12 1/2 high 2 warming shots
win brass 200 yds took 12 shots here as they were the last i had and could see no reason to keep them. 11 1/2 wide x 10 7/8 high. with 1 warming shot.

i had11 rounds of rem brass left shot them at 300 yards..
3 warmers 8shots at a target and all the backing paper i had left..:holysheep


the 4 i could find were 14wide and 16 tall.
i pushed the same patch turned over when donea nd i could still use if i wished
there is a beautiful lube star on the end of the bbl.
and before i left i shot one 3 shot group with the 50 yd load that this rifle likes

next time i believe i will shoot for a 28 grain load without changing any-thing
else unless i see a wide velocity variation them i will use a filler[ dryer-lint]
and it measured1/2 wide by 5/8 high.

i have drawn NO conclusions from this test...... i just shot it.... you guys
judge it..

[GabbyM]

Do you have a scope sight on that rifle?
Almost sounds like something has come loose.
I've had internals of scopes come loose where you could bench rest the rifle and while tapping on the scope sight see the reticle shift.
Where did the three shots it likes go?

[runfiverun]

i must have fat fingered the puter again
those three shots were measured outside. to outside and are a couple of lines below.
this test is part of one that is concurrent with the tale of three twists
[or see if you can give larry an exploding anurism] whichever title you like.

if this is linear or not i am not sure of what direction but the cone looks misshapen to me.

[Ben]

runfiverun

I just read your # 1 thread above .

I think I just walked into the last 60 seconds of the movie.

I haven't been able to figure out what caliber that you're shooting.

Ben

[runfiverun]

.308... this should have went with the twist rate test that larry gibson is doing
but he went out of town[ i believe ]and wont be able to do his test for a week or so.
bassackward come up with the idea for the test.
it is to see if at a higher rpm wether the accuracy loss is linear in nature
i.e. 1" at 100 ,2"at 200 etc..
this is why i gave outside measurements the way i did it is easy to see what happened here.
i will try and do the loading and shooting for this test under as similar conditions as possible.
there will be two more sessions [ the proposal was for only one more]
one at the low end of the rpm scale the load above, and one near the middle
about 32 grains maybe with h-4895 instead of imr-4895.

[Bass Ackward]

.308... this should have went with the twist rate test that larry gibson is doing
but he went out of town[ i believe ]and wont be able to do his test for a week or so.
bassackward come up with the idea for the test.
it is to see if at a higher rpm wether the accuracy loss is linear in nature
i.e. 1" at 100 ,2"at 200 etc..
this is why i gave outside measurements the way i did it is easy to see what happened here.
i will try and do the loading and shooting for this test under as similar conditions as possible.
there will be two more sessions [ the proposal was for only one more]
one at the low end of the rpm scale the load above, and one near the middle
about 32 grains maybe with h-4895 instead of imr-4895.


Runnfiverun,

Sure looks like RPMs got ya. So .... I pulled up Quickload and input your data using the same bullet as it has BC already calculated. It said that you should be getting 2116 fps from that load which is close.

I then input that data into Quicktarget. Your 200 yard velocity is only 1200 fps. Your 300 yard velocity is only predicted to be about 850 fps. So I believe RPMs got you, but they got you on the slow end because you lost velocity enough to destabilize.

The 28 grains is about 1600 fps muzzle. That is 1200 fps at 100 yards and 875 fps at 200 yards. In other words about the same as 200 and 300 at the longer ranges with the HV load. See what happens.

[BABore]

I'm not buying that it is rpm at all. You claim your rifle is capable of a solid 1 inch at 100 yards with cast. You don't mention at what velocity. Then your test groups are at 50 yards and they exceed what your 100 yard groups are. I'm thinking it's the "crap in, crap out" syndrome. Work up an accurate HV load, then test it.

I've found many, many loads for both handguns and rifles that look outstanding at ranges out to 100 yards, only to have them blow apart after that. My standard for a good handgun load is below 3/4" at 25 yards with 1/2" groups preferred. Then they're tested at 50, 100, and 200 yards. Only a good load will hold group at long range. Just last weekend I tested a 358446, cast from 40 to 1, in my S&W 686. I was searching for a light target/plinking load. I used 5.0 and 5.5 grs of WW 231 and lubed the bullets with two different lubes. One lube averaged 2" at 25 yards. The other averaged 3/4". At 50 yards this load went 1 1/4". I then tried several groups at 200 yards looking mainly for those 3-4 ft flyers. None. I had a good load. I had prevously run this same exact test with an alloy that was 3 bhn harder and you couldn't keep them on a barn at 200 yards. I've had the same type of results with HV rifle. If the load's not capable, it's just not. Try another one. Trying to prove a point with a crap load will give you crap results, with data that seeks an excuse and not an answer. You can't just take an accurate 1,600-1,800 fps load, jack up the velocity and presuure, and expect it to perform. It takes alot more work.

[pdawg_shooter]

I load a 311466, sized .301 and patched back up with 16# paper over 58.0gr of AA2700. This load gives me just over 3000fps with close to 1" accuracy at 100 and 2.5 at 200yds. Why is this load not destroyed by RPMs?

[45 2.1]

I load a 311466, sized .301 and patched back up with 16# paper over 58.0gr of AA2700. This load gives me just over 3000fps with close to 1" accuracy at 100 and 2.5 at 200yds. Why is this load not destroyed by RPMs?

Because the supposed RPM effects are fictitous. Other factors are at play.

[pdawg_shooter]

45 2.1, I have been saying that since the first post on RPM limits. Just got me called stupid !

[45 2.1]

45 2.1, I have been saying that since the first post on RPM limits. Just got me called stupid !

Several of us have disagreed with the RPM hypothosis. Have you read the last page of that one?

[pdawg_shooter]

No but I will.

[runfiverun]

from 50 to 100 yds this load appears to be linear.
the way that the groups with the different brass shot did give me some pause here also.
mainly because of the way they were formed.

the main thing i noticed was the temp of the bbl, versus the temp of the lube.
or in other words the approx temp needed to makr it flow in the lubrisizer was
about where the few shots that had the best accuracy were.
as in the 100 yd win brass shots were twoxtwoxtwo and some scattered shots
filling in between.
it appears that this bullet fits the bbl and throat quite well,does not lead and the lube is doing its job properly.
so why no accuracy? and no i have not been able to recover a boolit yet.
am i using too much lube?
will try the other loads and will see what happens.

when i looked at the 100 yd targets i was unsure about what was happening
as when using open sights, shooting my model 92 in 44 mag it will shoot better groups than these

so what i am getting here is..... if i take this load up higher it will shoot better?

[leftiye]

Pdawg, Not to second guess 45 2.1, but I think he's saying that disagreeing with Larry on Larry world (or with Larry in general) has gotten all of us who did it called stupid. And etc..

[Tiger]

It is good to see more step up to prove good accuracy at high velocity and rpm. This more then just one or two shooter hey.

Ralf

[BABore]

from 50 to 100 yds this load appears to be linear.
the way that the groups with the different brass shot did give me some pause here also.
mainly because of the way they were formed.

the main thing i noticed was the temp of the bbl, versus the temp of the lube.
or in other words the approx temp needed to makr it flow in the lubrisizer was
about where the few shots that had the best accuracy were.
as in the 100 yd win brass shots were twoxtwoxtwo and some scattered shots
filling in between.
it appears that this bullet fits the bbl and throat quite well,does not lead and the lube is doing its job properly.
so why no accuracy? and no i have not been able to recover a boolit yet.
am i using too much lube?
will try the other loads and will see what happens.

when i looked at the 100 yd targets i was unsure about what was happening
as when using open sights, shooting my model 92 in 44 mag it will shoot better groups than these

so what i am getting here is..... if i take this load up higher it will shoot better?

It can be a bunch of different and inter-related things. The faster you go, the more each one matters. You've heard them all before I'm sure, but I'll bore you yet again. Bullet fit to the chamber neck, throat, bore and groove. Bedding. Trigger. Alloy and alloy hardness. Bore condition. Lube. Powder and all things related to it such as starting pressure, exit pressure, burn rate, yaata, yaata. Primer. Cases and how they're prepped. I could go on. That's if'in you really want to go fast consistent.

You already got a rifle that you,ve said will shoot. What I'd start with is the simple things first cause you really didn't say what your goals were. Start with your lube. You didn't say what you were using now. LBT blue is very hard to beat at HV. It can be too much for some designs, but is a good reference point. Work up the powder/velocity ladder and see if the gun responds. Try to seat the bullet to engage. If it don't work, give it a little running room. Watch and record your group size and more importantly the shape. Mark each hole down on your notes showing group shape. Note how increasing powder charges will impact slightly higher than the last and then drop down some on the next increase (nodes). If you don't get round groups that are small enough for you, change powders and try again with the same everything else. You will find that most powders will exhibit vertical stringing when they not burning well. As you go up the ladder they will tighten to almost round , then my spread horizontal. This may repeat several time before a final roundish group, then they blow apart on you. (How do you think this looks out at longer ranges when your trying to prove the linear thing.)When you exhaust all the sane powder choices, try a different alloy. Most shoot HTWW's or WW/Lino mix. I started that way too until I tried HT'd 50/50 WW-Pb at HV. It's softer (22 bhn) than the others, but tougher. Sometimes tougher is good, sometimes not. Try it. 50/50 will start to peter out around 2,400 fps, then you need harder. When you change alloys, you can go back to where a specific powder showed promise and work it up/down slightly. If, and when you get close, play with the little things. Change lubes slightly or primers.

This disertation could go on for chapters, but I hope you get the idea. You got to use your head and not be afraid of making changes and trying things. Good notes are important cause after awhile you will start seeing patterns or "cause and effect". You may find yourself in a box with a certain bullet and it just won't shoot fast. Then it's time to get beyond the "I think it fits" and find out for real.

[Tiger]

BABORE

You say some of things that I said in other thread to Larry and I just got made fun of. I am also said I can not read. But now you say about same things.

Ralf

[45 2.1]

BABore just put up a really good synopsis of what it takes to get high velocity accuracy. Pay attention if you want to learn to shoot accurately at high velocity.

[BABore]

BABORE

You say some of things that I said in other thread to Larry and I just got made fun of. I am also said I can not read. But now you say about same things.

Ralf

Must have read the same books, "Listening, Trying and Doing", 3rd Ed., or "Thresholds, Fences and Limits are for Cattle". [smilie=b:

Don't worry, they were really just making fun of your broken English. Not cause they didn't understand what you were talking about. :veryconfu

[Larry Gibson]

Runfiverun

Keep up with your tests. You are learning.

BaBore's test are interesting but not relevent as the twist of the handgun (S&W 686) and the velocity of his loads puts his bullets nowhere near the RPM threshold. He is right that there are other things at play and it is not the RPM threshold as he wasn't there.

Pdawg's example of the paper patched bullet has been rehashed but he just doesn't understand and continuously brings it up. He will say that I am ignoring it but I am not. A PP's bullet wheter cast or not is not part of the question we are asking. Some would call his comments "stupid" but I think more misguided in this case. I answered his questions as to why PP'd bullets don't apply to this test but he just continued to argue. He would not accept any onter answer unless I agreed with him it appears. I would not agree as he is wrong so here we are.

As I said, keep testing. Your tests are valid ones concerning the adverse affects of RPM. Let's continue to conduct those tests.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

BABORE

You say some of things that I said in other thread to Larry and I just got made fun of. I am also said I can not read. But now you say about same things.

Ralf

Ralf

Your insinuation here is deplorable, particularly since BaBore has jumped onto it with his insinuating smart *ss comment. You know darn well that I did not "make fun" of you. I know darn well that I've spent an inordinant amount of time explaining things to you. You also know I was the one that gave you the benifit of the doubt. I was hoping, while your English may not be the best, you had soem some integrity. Though we disagree I would hope you will not disappoint me in that regard.

Larry Gibson

[BABore]

Runfiverun

Keep up with your tests. You are learning.

BaBore's test are interesting but not relevent as the twist of the handgun (S&W 686) and the velocity of his loads puts his bullets nowhere near the RPM threshold. He is right that there are other things at play and it is not the RPM threshold as he wasn't there.

Your correct, it has nothing to do with your RPM threshold, but you miss the point. A bad load is a bad load. If it's not the absolute best load for the pressure and velocity, then what good is it. Why did I get consistent long range grouping by simply changing the brinell hardness 3 points? The same thing applies to HV loads in reverse. This incidently, was just an example of a test I did last weekend, so it was fresh in my mind and it solved a problem. I have done the same thing with HV rifle loads.

Pdawg's example of the paper patched bullet has been rehashed but he just doesn't understand and continuously brings it up. He will say that I am ignoring it but I am not. A PP's bullet wheter cast or not is not part of the question we are asking. Some would call his comments "stupid" but I think more misguided in this case. I answered his questions as to why PP'd bullets don't apply to this test but he just continued to argue. He would not accept any onter answer unless I agreed with him it appears. I would not agree as he is wrong so here we are.

Seems as though this problem is not limited to Pdawg, though I'm sure he would take exception to that charge.

As I said, keep testing. Your tests are valid ones concerning the adverse affects of RPM. Let's continue to conduct those tests.

Larry Gibson

If your goal is to shoot HV, your tests should be geared toward overcoming it, not setting yourself up for failure. Why even bother using a 15-17 bhn alloy. Such a waste of good powder. Try pure lead. Then you can fail even slower and save powder.

[Larry Gibson]

BaBore

"Your correct, it has nothing to do with your RPM threshold, but you miss the point. A bad load is a bad load. If it's not the absolute best load for the pressure and velocity, then what good is it. Why did I get consistent long range grouping by simply changing the brinell hardness 3 points? The same thing applies to HV loads in reverse. This incidently, was just an example of a test I did last weekend, so it was fresh in my mind and it solved a problem. I have done the same thing with HV rifle loads."

The loads in my test are good loads, we have been over this before. The actual measurements attest to this. The accuracy was not good and RPM was shown to be the reason why. That's not conjecture, that's not my "idea", that is fact. Again let me point out that the test is not to determine the most accurate load or even to develop the most accurate load. The test loads were to demonstrate, if possible, what the adverse affect of RPM is and/or if it was caused by RPM. The loads succeded, that's "what good is it". You got consistant accuracy at long range by changing the BHN because the bullet then sustained less deformation during acceleration as was not as unbalance. The affects of RPM are still what caused the bullet to become inaccurate. However it was in a different way (it was actually the usual way RPM effects bullets) than if the bullet had been up into or through the RPM threshold. It does for the most part applies in reverse except there is the phenomina of the RPM threshold. You were not up into so the effect of the RPM threshold do not apply. That is a nice shooting load in your S&W BTW.

"Seems as though this problem is not limited to Pdawg, though I'm sure he would take exception to that charge."

That is true. The problem is they are continuously bringing up examples that either don't apply to the RPM threshold or are seeking me to admit I'm wrong. This is just like the example you brought up. Those loads did not even get close to the RPM threshold so they do not applie. There were other things happening which I readily stated. Some of things apply the same in the RPM threshold but others don't. Unless the load is above the threshold we can't understand what would happen to it because that is only conjecture. I will admit I am wrong only if proven so by actual tests of regular cast bullets into or through the RPM threshold. Quotiing others opinions or giving wxamples that do not apply will not prove me wrong. Only facts will. The others seemingly want to ignore the facts. Pdawg is one of them. He just doesn't want to accept the fact that a PP's bullet is not a regular cast bullet, it is a PP'd bullet. The rules of regular jacketed bullet external ballistics. apply. I really would like to see actual proof of his consistant 1" groups over 3000 fps BTW but he won't provide that either.

Bass has a coceptual problem also as he consistantly brings up examples with his LBT bullet. I have readily agreed with him that the LBT bullet is one that can push through the RPM threshold. The LBT bullet is not the type of "regular" cast bullet we are talking about. I think the tests he has posted and the one he suggested I run ( will when I get home) will be most enlightening, The continued tests, yet to be completed, that I have laid out will also prove enlightening. Unfortuneately others are trying to prove the results of those test to be false even before they are conducted. They offer no tests of their own with regualr cast bullets going into or above the RPM threshold as facts. Would be a lot better if they would.

Thanks for your questions. They were pertinant and applicable to a reasonable discussion.
Larry Gibson

[leftiye]

Larry,
Surprise, I disagree! Paper patched boolits ARE relevant (this ain't about your study, nor is it your thread). You're the one who doesn't understand. If all boolits could leave the bore as cool, strong, and undeformed as Pdawg's paper patched boolits, then THEY'D ALL GO 3000FPS, AND SHOOT 1 MOA! And yep! you've ignored it all along. It was relevant when it was asked on your thread too. If you don't get my point it's probly because you refuse to.

[Tiger]

Ralf

Your insinuation here is deplorable, particularly since BaBore has jumped onto it with his insinuating smart *ss comment. You know darn well that I did not "make fun" of you. I know darn well that I've spent an inordinant amount of time explaining things to you. You also know I was the one that gave you the benifit of the doubt. I was hoping, while your English may not be the best, you had soem some integrity. Though we disagree I would hope you will not disappoint me in that regard.

Larry Gibson

Larry

I did not mean make so much fun of me how some pick on certain student in school. I meant you keep telling me about my reading and did I read your test.

Ralf

[runfiverun]

yeah the p/p still has to fit the rifle though
it isnot the answer i tried to take a boolit that a rifle hated and did the p/p thing
with it it still did not want to shoot it to any degree.
you are still doing the high velocity things to it, and in my opinion paper is really
rough on a bore.
probably a good thing to hunt with as you can use a softer lead. like the j-words do.
and just jacket them with paper instead of copper.

this all leads back to bass's test [ my conclusions]
that the external hardness of lead no matter how it is done has a greater bearing
then is being realized, in all applications.
lost my train of thought here...

[leftiye]

Larry, you need to forget adding the phrase "in my test" we're debating the concept, not your test.

[Tiger]

Larry,
Surprise, I disagree! Paper patched boolits ARE relevant (this ain't about your study, nor is it your thread). You're the one who doesn't understand. If all boolits could leave the bore as cool, strong, and undeformed as Pdawg's paper patched boolits, then THEY'D ALL GO 3000FPS, AND SHOOT 1 MOA! And yep! you've ignored it all along. It was relevant when it was asked on your thread too. If you don't get my point it's probly because you refuse to.


This how I see paper patch bullet. First I say we know cast bullet need something to travel through the bore. We use lube. Lots of debate to what lube actually does to. Okay I see paper patch as replacement for lube. Still same old cast bullet under paper.

Ralf

[Larry Gibson]

Larry

I did not mean make so much fun of me how some pick on certain student in school. I meant you keep telling me about my reading and did I read your test.

Ralf

Ok Ralf, I'll buy that given your English problems. No doubt some does get lost in the translation. By "reading" my posts I did not mean that in the litteral sense of just reading the words. I meant understanding what I said. However by understanding I do no mean you have to agree. You can disagree and I dn't have a problem with that. If you have questions about "understanding" what I say then please ask. I'll always try explaining in another way. If you want to disagree that's fine but please supply facts to back up your disagreement. Sepplying someone else's opinion is not supplying facts BTW. I guess I'll keep talking with you then, I have to say it is interesting.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Larry,
Surprise, I disagree! Paper patched boolits ARE relevant (this ain't about your study, nor is it your thread). You're the one who doesn't understand. If all boolits could leave the bore as cool, strong, and undeformed as Pdawg's paper patched boolits, then THEY'D ALL GO 3000FPS, AND SHOOT 1 MOA! And yep! you've ignored it all along. It was relevant when it was asked on your thread too. If you don't get my point it's probly because you refuse to.

Not relevent but I appreciate your disagreement.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Larry, you need to forget adding the phrase "in my test" we're debating the concept, not your test.

Wrong, we're debating the results of the test and what they point to. The test is all about proving the concept. It's beyond the "concept" phase and into actual testing, in case you've failed to notice.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Runfiverun

Please keep testing, your'e adding valuable contributions to resolve this question (concept - to please leftiye). If I and the concept are wrong, we (as in you and I and Bass will prove it) will be the first to admit it and point it out. At least we will have facts to do so. If I and the concept are right the credit will belong to those of us who actually conduct the tests. The armchair quarterbacks will no doubt take credit either way.

Larry Gibson

[leftiye]

"BaBore's test are interesting but not relevent as the twist of the handgun (S&W 686) and the velocity of his loads puts his bullets nowhere near the RPM threshold. He is right that there are other things at play and it is not the RPM threshold as he wasn't there. " - Larry Gibson

Again YES relevant - as the point being made was that other things could be happening besides the rpm issue. If the boolit has GONE already for another reason (factors), it is one of those factors that may be being attributed to the rpm causality. Though pistol boolits don't turn the r's that are pertinent to your theory, the causes of what BaBore is illustrating could be causing your "rpm" problems in the cases of other cartridges that WERE turning the appropriate rpms.. If this was the case, the "bad load" factor would be indistinguishable from rpm.

[leftiye]

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftiye
Larry, you need to forget adding the phrase "in my test" we're debating the concept, not your test.


"Wrong, we're debating the results of the test and what they point to. The test is all about proving the concept. It's beyond the "concept" phase and into actual testing, in case you've failed to notice." Larry Gibson

That's your misconception. You can't hide behind your test here.

YOU are debating the RESULTS of your test, Larry. No one else is. The rest of us are illustrating concepts that challenge your concept as regards the present test.

You also need to get over telling others what THEY are concerned with. They usually have already told you what they were talking about. The trick is to believe them.

[leftiye]

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftiye
Larry,
Surprise, I disagree! Paper patched boolits ARE relevant (this ain't about your study, nor is it your thread). You're the one who doesn't understand. If all boolits could leave the bore as cool, strong, and undeformed as Pdawg's paper patched boolits, then THEY'D ALL GO 3000FPS, AND SHOOT 1 MOA! And yep! you've ignored it all along. It was relevant when it was asked on your thread too. If you don't get my point it's probly because you refuse to.

"Not relevent but I appreciate your disagreement." Larry Gibson

Absolutely brilliant evasion of THAT issue Larry! Again, here I decide what I want to present, you answer the question or beg it (we know what you did here, eh?). Who made you god so that you could decide what was relevant? You can argue relevance, but you don't decide what is relevant overall. If it is presented either answer it or don't, only politicians and hustlers try to "baffle 'em with B.S.". This kind of evasion of the issues only makes it futile to try and discuss anything with you.

[Larry Gibson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftiye
Larry,
Surprise, I disagree! Paper patched boolits ARE relevant (this ain't about your study, nor is it your thread). You're the one who doesn't understand. If all boolits could leave the bore as cool, strong, and undeformed as Pdawg's paper patched boolits, then THEY'D ALL GO 3000FPS, AND SHOOT 1 MOA! And yep! you've ignored it all along. It was relevant when it was asked on your thread too. If you don't get my point it's probly because you refuse to.

"Not relevent but I appreciate your disagreement." Larry Gibson

Absolutely brilliant evasion of THAT issue Larry! Who made you god so that you could decide what was relevant, and toss aside anything that disagreed with you? This kind of evasion of the issues only makes it futile to try and discuss anything with you.


It's my test, that's who made me "god". You want to be "god" run your own damn tests.

Larry Gibson

[leftiye]

So who has the "hearing" problem here? As has been said before Larry nobody cares about that. Get back on your own thread then.(Absolute waste of time).

[45 2.1]

It's my test, that's who made me "god". You want to be "god" run your own damn tests.

Larry Gibson

Any human being who alludes to being a god of any kind is being blasphamous. Hardly the language to use on a forum like this.

[leftiye]

Sorry if I offended anyone.

[runfiverun]

this thread is about the linear accuracy at distance
were the results lineal?
i donot think so this load was at the top of the threshhold not the very top either
i think 1 more grain would be there though and i wanted some sort of accuracy
so i could keep the loads on paper based on what was predicted [ mostly by me and what i saw based on the rpm theory]
the load falling farther and farther apart based on this shows the rpm's.
look at bass's latest test he went even faster then i did my 100 yd accuracy was far better then his but our 200 yd results were near the same.
his scope is much better then mine [ power wise] yet we were near the same group size
with similar tests done independantly?
so what gives here ,we got a bunch of guys that can shoot good but don't know crap
about casting or loading?
and a bunch that cannot shoot but are the best loaders in the world? [ my claim is i can load
better than i shoot] but i can do both well enough to know if something needs fixed.

[Larry Gibson]

Leftiye

Yadda, yadda, yadda.......

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

45 2.1

I put the word "god" in quotes as it was used as a figure of speech. It was not "blasphamous". In the context it was used it did not put any other before God. I really don't think God is paying much attention to this discussion. I do not need to be "politically correct" to fit some elses definition or attempt to make either leftiye or I look bad. Nothing here to apologise for.

Larry Gibson

[Bass Ackward]

Man, this discussion is sorta like a Jerry Springer show or something.

I can tell you that for people that high velocity came fairly easy, they were lucky. I probably fall into this category. And you can tell who these people are by the confidence of their posts. What I am seeing is what we see all the time, a fence. And the only way to get over that fence is to do it. That is the problem to express. Even if someone understands what you say, it can be even harder to accomplish which has to add to the frustration.

What I want to see in these trials is if people are actually creating RPMs issues. I don't think runfiverun did because of the high end, but his next test will tell.

Runfiverun,

I would continue to test just as you planned. This is relevant to all these discussions because the RCBS 165 is a fairly high ballistic coefficient bullet and you see how much velocity it lost velocity rather quickly. It had to pass through the sound barrier at 1100 fps. Another negative to cast because GC grooves and shoulders worsen BC too, not just nose shape that we always discuss.

My load I listed is a poor load at 50 degrees so I wanted to see why at 50 degrees. It was still linear but poor. Over 80 degrees, the lube softens and is used up more and it drops to MOA. But that is one load. The whole reason is because I am using too soft of a bullet. If I used a harder bullet, it would be way more accurate at 50 degrees, but .... it would not be as accurate above 80 anymore. This is my groundhog load and the bullets need some expansion, so I tolerate it as such.

And some want to talk about paper patch. Well, a 10 twist has a certain angle on the bullet. A 12 twist a slighter angle to affect wind less. And what is the propeller angle on a paper patch? Ain't one is there? Wonder if he is using a solid slug or a standard cast just sized down so that it still has GC grooves?

[45 2.1]

45 2.1

I put the word "god" in quotes as it was used as a figure of speech. It was not "blasphamous". In the context it was used it did not put any other before God. I really don't think God is paying much attention to this discussion. I do not need to be "politically correct" to fit some elses definition or attempt to make either leftiye or I look bad. Nothing here to apologise for.

Larry Gibson

So you say, but in the end no humans opinion will count for much.

[pdawg_shooter]

Man, this discussion is sorta like a Jerry Springer show or something.

I can tell you that for people that high velocity came fairly easy, they were lucky. I probably fall into this category. And you can tell who these people are by the confidence of their posts. What I am seeing is what we see all the time, a fence. And the only way to get over that fence is to do it. That is the problem to express. Even if someone understands what you say, it can be even harder to accomplish which has to add to the frustration.

What I want to see in these trials is if people are actually creating RPMs issues. I don't think runfiverun did because of the high end, but his next test will tell.

Runfiverun,

I would continue to test just as you planned. This is relevant to all these discussions because the RCBS 165 is a fairly high ballistic coefficient bullet and you see how much velocity it lost velocity rather quickly. It had to pass through the sound barrier at 1100 fps. Another negative to cast because GC grooves and shoulders worsen BC too, not just nose shape that we always discuss.

My load I listed is a poor load at 50 degrees so I wanted to see why at 50 degrees. It was still linear but poor. Over 80 degrees, the lube softens and is used up more and it drops to MOA. But that is one load. The whole reason is because I am using too soft of a bullet. If I used a harder bullet, it would be way more accurate at 50 degrees, but .... it would not be as accurate above 80 anymore. This is my groundhog load and the bullets need some expansion, so I tolerate it as such.

And some want to talk about paper patch. Well, a 10 twist has a certain angle on the bullet. A 12 twist a slighter angle to affect wind less. And what is the propeller angle on a paper patch? Ain't one is there? Wonder if he is using a solid slug or a standard cast just sized down so that it still has GC grooves?

In 30cal I use a 311466 and a 311284, sized to .301 and patched back up with 16# green stripe computer paper. Lube is BAC.

[Bret4207]

Fer cryin' out loud! Could you guys try and at least PRETEND to be nice to each other?!:killingpc

[runfiverun]

when i take it all in, my lube ,the way it works in my bbl. the shape of the boolit
the way the nose fits the lands, the way the body fits the grooves. and how the lube
tends to stay in the grooves. after exiting the bbl.
and the sonic barrier. and the nice round holes in the paper.
the lube star on the muzzle.
plus a few other observations i have made..
i think i am starting to agree with chaos ,reading all this is making my head hurt.

[leftiye]

"Leftiye
Yadda, yadda, yadda.......
Larry Gibson

Another of your famous intelligent answers Larry! (Or, "Now we're getting somewhere!")

[joeb33050]

Runnfiverun,

Sure looks like RPMs got ya. So .... I pulled up Quickload and input your data using the same bullet as it has BC already calculated. It said that you should be getting 2116 fps from that load which is close.

I then input that data into Quicktarget. Your 200 yard velocity is only 1200 fps. Your 300 yard velocity is only predicted to be about 850 fps. So I believe RPMs got you, but they got you on the slow end because you lost velocity enough to destabilize.

The 28 grains is about 1600 fps muzzle. That is 1200 fps at 100 yards and 875 fps at 200 yards. In other words about the same as 200 and 300 at the longer ranges with the HV load. See what happens.

Bass;
I don't think our numbers are correct. They looked wrong to me.
With mv = 2116fps, 200 yard v = 1200 fps, the BC is .138 from my ballistic calculator
mv = 2116 fps, 300 yard v = 850 fps, BC = .097, same calculator
See Lyman 3rd, 311291 169 gr., BC = .202; 311041 170 gr., BC = .22

Somethings astray with your program. What is the BC you used?
joe b.

[runfiverun]

joeb the boolit is the rcbs 165 silhouette.

[Bass Ackward]

Bass;
I don't think our numbers are correct. They looked wrong to me.
With mv = 2116fps, 200 yard v = 1200 fps, the BC is .138 from my ballistic calculator
mv = 2116 fps, 300 yard v = 850 fps, BC = .097, same calculator
See Lyman 3rd, 311291 169 gr., BC = .202; 311041 170 gr., BC = .22

Somethings astray with your program. What is the BC you used?
joe b.


Joe,

Certain data is already programmed and the program has it as:

Std ICAO = .290
Std Metro = .295

What ever that means.

RCBS says it's .286

I don't really understand how they calculate this stuff because BC lowers with increased velocity. The BC you get should be between the points that you measured the velocity as you can launch with more or less wobble that is going to ater the actual figures considerably.

[Larry Gibson]

"See Lyman 3rd, 311291 169 gr., BC = .202;"

Agrees with actual BC computed from TOF loss with M43 during test at 2500 fps give or take.

Larry Gibson

[joeb33050]

Joe,

Certain data is already programmed and the program has it as:

Std ICAO = .290
Std Metro = .295

What ever that means.

RCBS says it's .286

I don't really understand how they calculate this stuff because BC lowers with increased velocity. The BC you get should be between the points that you measured the velocity as you can launch with more or less wobble that is going to ater the actual figures considerably.
Bass;
ICAO and METRO refer to the atmosphere, temp and pressure.
With a BC of .286, 200 yard v = 1608 and 300 yard v = 1395; with mv = 2116; all fps. According to Frenchu.

It seems not true that BC lowers with increased v, at least sometimes.

"The BC you get should be between the points that you measured the velocity as you can launch with more or less wobble that is going to alter the actual figures considerably." Wobble? I Don't understand this sentence.

In your post you say: "So I believe RPMs got you, but they got you on the slow end because you lost velocity enough to destabilize."
First your v calculater seems broke. Second, I know of no source saying that loss in v destabilizes a bullet, at least over any reasonable = correctly calculated vs. If you can cite a source, I'm very interested.

Please review your calculations and software, and explain.
Thanks;
joe b.

[Bass Ackward]

Joe,

Yep, my fault, you are correct. There are two lines on the graph. One is blue and the correct one is apparently red for the velocity. I don't see red very well and was using the blue line. Using the 2116 fps, the program pedicts now very close as you calculated depending on the location of my " + ". I'll send runfiverun a message to use your figures and try and correct the other posts later.

You never saw destabilization on the low end huh?

One of the best close range loads in 44 Mag is the 7 grains of GreenDot with a 429421 Keith. 2" or less at 25 yards and then you can't hold an 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of paper. Sometimes, as some guns do differently. I have one 44 that is good to 100 yards with it. So one gun starts out stable but ends up exibiting signs of RPMs. Both guns shoot it equally well at 25 yards. Is this RPMs?

What you think depends on what you see with the above guns. But the wadcutter story is renouned for losing stabilization by 50 yards. RPMs gotta still be very close to the same as it started out, only difference has to be velocity loss. No sound barrier issue here either.

Go to a long range black powder match. Sometimes you can hear and see the flutter happen.

[runfiverun]

i think that the sound barrier is where the de-stabilization comes in
you already broke it in the bbl so no wobble there, but a boolit slowing to near that
velocity,and down through it would/could be affected very negatively.
especially if it has lots of corners on it,empty grease grooves,area around g/c,flat nose.
an out of round or yawing boolit is really in trouble here.
i think that high velocity boolits suffer these same things just more then once.
3-4 times but their outer constructon and shape help to overcome these problems.
and the "go to sleep" thing is a bullet slowing down , caused by the air in front of it
at some point there is an area [distance] that works on the bullet more [harder]
and it then settles in for a ride and the heavier bullets make it through these better
because of [shape ], but more by length, and momentum.
there are thresholds and barriers at work here but to understand what they are
and what they do is the way to beat them.
it is better to identify them and their causes then to just keep trying something new
untill it works.

[Bass Ackward]

i think that the sound barrier is where the de-stabilization comes in
you already broke it in the bbl so no wobble there, but a boolit slowing to near that
velocity,and down through it would/could be affected very negatively.
especially if it has lots of corners on it,empty grease grooves,area around g/c,flat nose.
an out of round or yawing boolit is really in trouble here.

Run fiverun,

I posted the corrected velocity figures on the other Trial 2 thread, you weren't close to the sound barrier before, but you will be this time at 300, just so you know.

[joeb33050]

Joe,

Yep, my fault, you are correct. There are two lines on the graph. One is blue and the correct one is apparently red for the velocity. I don't see red very well and was using the blue line. Using the 2116 fps, the program pedicts now very close as you calculated depending on the location of my " + ". I'll send runfiverun a message to use your figures and try and correct the other posts later.

You never saw destabilization on the low end huh?

One of the best close range loads in 44 Mag is the 7 grains of GreenDot with a 429421 Keith. 2" or less at 25 yards and then you can't hold an 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of paper. Sometimes, as some guns do differently. I have one 44 that is good to 100 yards with it. So one gun starts out stable but ends up exibiting signs of RPMs. Both guns shoot it equally well at 25 yards. Is this RPMs?

What you think depends on what you see with the above guns. But the wadcutter story is renouned for losing stabilization by 50 yards. RPMs gotta still be very close to the same as it started out, only difference has to be velocity loss. No sound barrier issue here either.

Go to a long range black powder match. Sometimes you can hear and see the flutter happen.

Stable bullets go through the paper and make round holes. Loss of accuracy does not equal destabilized bullets. Unless, maybe, the holes become not round. There are a lot of loads that are inaccurate and that make round holes; I know; I've shot them.
Show me keyholing and I'll agree about destabilization. No keyholes or oval holes, stability is working.
joe b.

[leftiye]

Loss of accuracy does not equal destabilization. But destabilization DOES equal loss of accuracy. Worse still, a boolit CAN be jawing without yawing enough to make oblong holes.

[Bass Ackward]

Stable bullets go through the paper and make round holes. Loss of accuracy does not equal destabilized bullets. Unless, maybe, the holes become not round. There are a lot of loads that are inaccurate and that make round holes; I know; I've shot them.
Show me keyholing and I'll agree about destabilization. No keyholes or oval holes, stability is working.
joe b.



Joe,

You can see round holes and still have stabilization issues if you don't have enough distance. At some distance they will tumble, but 200 yards doesn't always guarantee this. There are numerous histories of this.

My hollow pointing tests with handguns proved to me anyway that stabilization was the biggest single factor in handguns. Always had round holes. Always. But drill a little indent, center, off center and group sizes were cut more than 1/2 if stabilization was a problem. If stabilization was not a problem, then no improvement was seen.

Shot that GreenDot load yesterday too.

15 yards was one 5/8s" hole.
25 yards was 1 3/4"
50 yards was 5"
75 yards was two hits on a pie plate. (round holes)
75 yards with a hollow point indent on the nose, hand drilled, off center, no depth gauge, (in other words outta balance as hell) and group was 4".

So something is wrong that we normally call .... load. It is a destabilizing factor here shown by the group sizes not maintaining linearity with a standardized twist rate for caliber that has been in existence since the cartridge was brought out. Flight "seemed" accurate at close ranges. Many people would call this an accurate load and it is as long as I limit my distance. But it never was linear outta this gun and holes were round.

For guys who hunt, the kicker is, if it isn't stable in air as it slows, it won't be stable in flesh where it is going to slow much faster.

And this is with Elmer's basic design that is vaunted for long range use outta the same twist rate. Which is why I always said that testing a longer range designs to "try to" provide flight characteristics is fruitless. Launch means everything to whether a bullet flies or it don't and then how far. Some designs are easier to launch well than others. And this is the phenom at high velocity that we are trying to correct that is trivialized by calling it RPMs.

That something else is the KEY! That something else is what is magnified with higher velocity and cast bullets that results look better in a slower twist that some latch on to as RPMs. If you think in terms of RPMs, you can never solve the puzzle. It is RPMs that holds flight together until it finally does tumble, but the slug never truely goes to sleep for some reason or it wakes back up. That is what must be overcome no matter what.

[runfiverun]

bass i did that same thing this winter
but i varied the velocity instead of the distance. if i drilled the holes large enough centered,
and off centered, i found that all i did was move the weight rearward and accuracy was
the same no matter what, and that a smaller area drilled out of the side really was comical.
i was using the rcbs 45 rnfp in my model 92 and velocitys from 900 to 1450..

but you got something here either high v combined with high rpm,s
or low v with lower rpm's untill you lose stability.
they both lose stability only the high end shows the loss more dramatically
if you have a slow boolit spinning quickly it is staying "flat" untill velocity loses out to rpm
on the other end.
high vel, low rpm stays "flat" untill the velocity takes over.....
just the way i see it.......thoughts

[Larry Gibson]

Loss of accuracy does not equal destabilization. But destabilization DOES equal loss of accuracy. Worse still, a boolit CAN be jawing without yawing enough to make oblong holes.

Quite correct. Note during the test in Chapter 2 the BCs remain consistant between the different twists even though the accuracy of the 10" twist is proportionally much worse.

Larry Gibson

[leftiye]

I said this on your thread, and got oatmeal.

[Larry Gibson]

All

Ok, I'm not responding to leftiye anymore. I apologise for all this. I agree with him and he still just looks for continued argument. Again, my apologies.

Larry Gibson

[leftiye]

Larry, just the facts. No kidding. And I'd be quite happy not to argue with you, not looking for argument at all.