cast bullets and high velocity cartridges

[vzerone]

THis 'theory' discussion is silly. I learned that in 3rd grade, spinning thumb tacks on the school desk. They hit something and take off at weird angles. Run them slow enough and they begin to wobble and fall over (often taking off in some direction). Unbalance with some nail polish or just blow on it - zoom. It exists (for a given boolit, fps,alloy, etc.) get over it! Does you HV boolit turn sideways @ 20ft and destroy itself (turn to dust)? I use Cu enhanced alloy (RNFP) to get HV with med speed powder, it works fine (to 200 yds so far). I will use jacketed for long range shots (usually moving pigs) as I can't gauge range that good and the better BC makes the difference in DROP (yea, fps too). Yes, I hit steel @ 200 (1700 fps?) and found one sliver of boolit. My conclusion is it 'broke' off the nose as the nose slumped. I use this terminology as from experience of a 40SW that hit stone. 3/4 of the TC nose was >0.4 but a 'proud' part was still TC nose.
Sometimes the words we use aren't quite 'correct' but the best we can find.

popper that spinning top isn't an appropriate analogy for the simple fact that the nose of it is touching the table. That has a major influence on what that top does. However, I do agree with you that the theory discussion is silly.

There are those, and in this thread, that see no need for HV and I can understand that. There are others who do want to explore it. So you cannot condemn either group.

VZ

[popper]

No different than air pushing on the nose of a boolit. 200+ years old gyro math. Larry and others have tried to show how to do it (HV cast), others show that it isn't always the wisest choice for hunting. Whatever!

[vzerone]

No different than air pushing on the nose of a boolit. 200+ years old gyro math. Larry and others have tried to show how to do it (HV cast), others show that it isn't always the wisest choice for hunting. Whatever!

Not arguing with you, just trying to get you to see that's still not a good explanation. The table is a hard non-moveable thing. The air the bullet goes through is entirely different. That's like an idea that was posted many years ago on this forum and that's putting a straight piece of copper wire in a variable speed drill. You spin it slow it stays straight, but the faster you spin it the more it bends until it becomes like a propeller. That's never ever going to happen to a bullet and besides the one end of the wire is anchored by the drill chuck and the rest of it can move.

[HangFireW8]

One thing that bothers me about this "threshold" debate is that this "threshold" is a matter of physics; the study of physics is governed by laws and these laws don't change. It's very real, whether we understand it or not. We can't move this threshold any more than we can change the laws of physics. We CAN change some of the dozens of variables that determine where this threshold is found. How we manipulate these variables (when possible) is what makes this line of conversation and research beneficial. Identifying these variables and learning how to work with them should be the focus of this debate, IMHO.
The other thing that bothers me about this debate is the personal attacks. I don't know why this topic attracts this type of behavior but I'm tired of it. As a group we have the ability and resources to do an awesome amount of research and testing but we have to wade through the personal attacks to follow an interesting topic. Let's play nice and figure out how to make better boolits, OK?

Lack of precision in technical terminology is a real problem on this board, one I look past, but it is the least of this board's problems.

When people from the military's finest labs get called flat earthers; when amateur theorists make obvious mistakes like calling a test barrel swollen when it was not; clearly betraying a total lack of knowledge about the spring tempering of the barrels involved... and no one here has enough knowledge to call them on it... When a certain few have unlimited license to insult... and others get banned... No I have no faith any breakthroughs or advances, or even help for the advanced hobbysts will be found here.

[vzerone]

Lack of precision in technical terminology is a real problem on this board, one I look past, but it is the least of this board's problems.

When people from the military's finest labs get called flat earthers; when amateur theorists make obvious mistakes like calling a test barrel swollen when it was not; clearly betraying a total lack of knowledge about the spring tempering of the barrels involved... and no one here has enough knowledge to call them on it... When a certain few have unlimited license to insult... and others get banned... No I have no faith any breakthroughs or advances, or even help for the advanced hobbysts will be found here.

I couldn't agree with you more. I have the knowledge, but my hands are tied by a big black ban cloud over me!!!!

[Larry Gibson]

No one is going to get banned for posting actual test results such as detailed load and test information along with resulting targets, chronograph printouts and pictures.

[HangFireW8]

Well I agree with Larry on just posting data. It's the discussion after that, that becomes hazardous.

[Preacher Jim]

I am aware non agree on many things but honest discussion without arguments are productive. Attacks because you disagree are not helping new people learn. My goal is putting information out allowing actual testing and the posting of results. What was is not what is,, if a person experimenting can not come up with close results.
I have spent 58 years pursuing a 10 shot one hole group at 100 yards. I can tell you how not to get it but not how to do it because I never have accomplished it. The thing that keeps me experimenting is no one else has either, 2 have come closer than anyone else.
Guys if you do not have 2 independent witness see how, what you do, and sign off on a target you information is not fact.

[Preacher Jim]

I am looking for information on type bullet, bnh of bullet, twist of barrel used. Larry and his work have caused me to want to test his ideas.
so far his work has been good. so I have in stock 10, 12, 14 and 17twist 308 blanks all 30" finish and 308 long neck reamer over next few months I will be playing. I only have 600 yard range here available to use to test.
thank you for information Larry.

[Larry Gibson]

Your welcome. Been PD shooting in Montana this last week. Used the 30x60 XCB one day. Killed 10 out of 15 at 200 to 300 yards. Did excellent (60 %) from 300 to 485 yards. Will post more when I get back to a computer.

[rockydoc]

Mr. Gibson, if you have written a book on cast bullets, I would like to know where to buy it. If you haven’t, I think you ought to. I think many others would agree. I like your work and your ability to explain it. Please keep it up.

[popper]

the study of physics is governed by laws and these laws don't change. well. not in the world of physics WE deal with anyway. We can measure the forward momentum and rotational momentum in a cast boolit but we are hard put to measure the 'inconsistency' in a cast boolit. Forward momentum is only slowing the projectile by air resistance. Sudden OR slight changes in angular momentum cause a change in direction! Match factory ammo & BR shooters can spend lots of $$ for 'perfect' bullets. The automated manufacturing and inspection costs $$ but there are those willing to pay for it. RPM theory is a fact, like the speed of sound but the (SoS) transitional regionis +/- 10% for ANY atmospheric conditions. No need to argue, if you want to push it, work harder - on everything in casting and loading (& shooting of course). The posted results and methods are there for us to learn.