M
Mike Marcelli
Guest
Gene Beggs:
Aren't you glad you bowed out now. I think you saw this one coming.
Mike
Aren't you glad you bowed out now. I think you saw this one coming.
Mike
Depends on your point of view. Bill Calfee's science is, well, his own. For science, I'll take Don Jackson, Varmint Al, Jim Borden, etc. Bill Calfee is a doer. If I wanted a competition rimfire rifle built, and he'd be willing, I wouldn't hesitate a second to have Calfee make it. I don't much care for the fact that he ignore the people who have come before him, with tuners, with flat-engagement sears, but again, he is a doer, not a historian. If he's not willing to do something, like make a centerfire rifle with a tuner, that speaks volumes.
We know all this about Bill Calfee, or at least we should. Lots of words in Precision Shooting, lots of words on BR Central. The wrinkle in this latest "test" is Lynn. We're use to him on the 1,000 yard forum, but he posts on CF quite a bit less. I'd say his reaction to any criticism is indicative of the man; judge for yourself.
JerrySharrett
Senile Member
Dave Short, very astute observations.
jackie schmidt
New member
Mike
This is like trying to shoot a .150 agg using a target frame that is moving and swaying in the wind 1/4 inch.........jackie
This is like trying to shoot a .150 agg using a target frame that is moving and swaying in the wind 1/4 inch.........jackie
BJS6,
I think the 42 came from the theory that a rimfire is most accurate at that yardage.
Roger
K
Kathy
Guest
My centerfire friends
My centerfire friends:
WOW! I got up this morning and turned the machine on....I guess my post struck a cord..........
I made a mistake when I posted the method I use to set my device weight for my rimfire benchrest guns.......
With all the engineers and scientists and math folks on this forum I figured it would be obvious why I test at 42 yards, seeing as we shoot in competition at 50 and 55 yards.......or sometimes 100 yards...
Centerfire muzzle device development will continue......there are folks, very open minded folks, going about it in several different ways.....just as has happened in rimfire, the best method will emerge one day down the road.....
Your friend, Bill Calfee
My centerfire friends:
WOW! I got up this morning and turned the machine on....I guess my post struck a cord..........
I made a mistake when I posted the method I use to set my device weight for my rimfire benchrest guns.......
With all the engineers and scientists and math folks on this forum I figured it would be obvious why I test at 42 yards, seeing as we shoot in competition at 50 and 55 yards.......or sometimes 100 yards...
Centerfire muzzle device development will continue......there are folks, very open minded folks, going about it in several different ways.....just as has happened in rimfire, the best method will emerge one day down the road.....
Your friend, Bill Calfee
V
Vibe
Guest
Bill you really need to get a new pencil - that one just ain't "figuring" none too good. I've read most all the posts on this topic and have yet to comprehend how 42 yards has anything at all "obvious" about it.
42 being the answer to "Life, the Universe, and Everything" comes just about as close as anything else.
If this post was written 3 weeks from today, maybe then I could understand the "obvious" part.
Last edited by a moderator:
T
tim in tx
Guest
mr calfee sir
so we should continue testing just short of the target is that what you are saying?just trying to learn here as i would like to do the test according to your judgements.the main problem i see,for one is that 20fps variance will not show up at 100yds with high speed rounds,not even 80 fps will show up in some cases,so we have had to create a seeable drop to determine these patterns.lynn has been very helpfull in showing everybody how to do this as it would pertain to centerfire .they may not match the rimfire criteria but it has served a valid purpose ,bill i do respect your opinions but remember this is centerfire,the test have to be modified a bit becuase the speeds are 3 times faster than rimfire.give me a phone number and i will call you ,i would like to continue to test your theories,not for notoriety but just to get this figgured out once and for all and to help all shooters in the sport,just as shooters on this forum have helped me over the years. tim in tx
so we should continue testing just short of the target is that what you are saying?just trying to learn here as i would like to do the test according to your judgements.the main problem i see,for one is that 20fps variance will not show up at 100yds with high speed rounds,not even 80 fps will show up in some cases,so we have had to create a seeable drop to determine these patterns.lynn has been very helpfull in showing everybody how to do this as it would pertain to centerfire .they may not match the rimfire criteria but it has served a valid purpose ,bill i do respect your opinions but remember this is centerfire,the test have to be modified a bit becuase the speeds are 3 times faster than rimfire.give me a phone number and i will call you ,i would like to continue to test your theories,not for notoriety but just to get this figgured out once and for all and to help all shooters in the sport,just as shooters on this forum have helped me over the years. tim in tx
R
Rich-Allen
Guest
If Bill tested his tuner @ 42 yards because the shooting distance is 50 yards..... wouldn't you test @ 1000 yards if thats what you normally shoot?
Rich
Rich
jackie schmidt
New member
Tim
Are you interested in having what I have built. You see it all in the pictures Gary posted. All you have to do is thread the end of a barrel for .937 36 tpi. You pay the postage, and it's yours.........jackie
Are you interested in having what I have built. You see it all in the pictures Gary posted. All you have to do is thread the end of a barrel for .937 36 tpi. You pay the postage, and it's yours.........jackie
V
Vibe
Guest
I'm wondering if one would chose 840 yards (since 42 is 84% of 50), or 952 yards so it would also be 8 yards short.
But then again I haven't figured out what was so "obvious" about using 42 yards.
S
steve b.
Guest
Jackie,
If you are gonna start handing out items from your shop, where does the line form??! I have a few ideas!
s.
If you are gonna start handing out items from your shop, where does the line form??! I have a few ideas!
s.
The only significance of 42 yards that I can see is that according to my ballistic program. Using Eley EPS ammo when sighted in at 50 yards the apex for the bullets flight (velocity 1035fps to 1075fps, Bills 2 lots of testing ammo) is at 34 yards, 50-34=16, 16/2=8 and 50-8=42. Thus 42 yards is half way between the apex and zero point of aim.
Bill am I on the right track or still lost?
James
Bill am I on the right track or still lost?
James
V
Vibe
Guest
Well that explanation sounds logical. Provided you can safely assume that everyones scope is at the same distance above the bore, as this affects the relationship between point of aim and angle of launch.
M
Mike Marcelli
Guest
I'm curious. Why are you guys guessing?
I was corporate counsel for an enginnering company and responsible for overseeing / drafting their engineering engineering proposals and contracts. The first thing you learn when you are doing this is that you have to have design and performance criteria. Without these, your engineering project WILL FAIL. In the corporate world, this means you'll either go broke trying to make the customer happy (because the results are never quite good enough to meet the customer's performance criteria) or the customer will be off the hook as far as payment goes.
Apparently, in the BR world, it means you take a stab in the dark and when it doesn't work, get ridiculed by some self-professed guru for chosing the "wrong" performance criteria. Well, we are the customers in this scenario and we want accuracy at 100 yds, so our performance criteria aren't wrong.
I've read through most if not all the posts on this tuner / muzzle device issue. Nowhere have any definite performance or design criteria been established? Why? Because they don't exist. Jackie's is the first experiment to implement any performance controls (Lynn talks about how well his rifle groups with the tuner, but has never established a baseline for how it performs without the tuner so who knows what effect the tuner has had).
The Guru sits back and says nothing for a week and a half while Jackie and Lynn hash out particulars (on line no less), then professes to be on Mars when the tests tend to disprove his theory and paint him in a less than favorable light. Now some of you beg to sit on the guru's knee and be schooled as to what went wrong? I don't get it. Why would you do this? Lemings do this. We are human beings. Face facts. Your guru doesn't have the answers you seek. Just empty promises.
I was corporate counsel for an enginnering company and responsible for overseeing / drafting their engineering engineering proposals and contracts. The first thing you learn when you are doing this is that you have to have design and performance criteria. Without these, your engineering project WILL FAIL. In the corporate world, this means you'll either go broke trying to make the customer happy (because the results are never quite good enough to meet the customer's performance criteria) or the customer will be off the hook as far as payment goes.
Apparently, in the BR world, it means you take a stab in the dark and when it doesn't work, get ridiculed by some self-professed guru for chosing the "wrong" performance criteria. Well, we are the customers in this scenario and we want accuracy at 100 yds, so our performance criteria aren't wrong.
I've read through most if not all the posts on this tuner / muzzle device issue. Nowhere have any definite performance or design criteria been established? Why? Because they don't exist. Jackie's is the first experiment to implement any performance controls (Lynn talks about how well his rifle groups with the tuner, but has never established a baseline for how it performs without the tuner so who knows what effect the tuner has had).
The Guru sits back and says nothing for a week and a half while Jackie and Lynn hash out particulars (on line no less), then professes to be on Mars when the tests tend to disprove his theory and paint him in a less than favorable light. Now some of you beg to sit on the guru's knee and be schooled as to what went wrong? I don't get it. Why would you do this? Lemings do this. We are human beings. Face facts. Your guru doesn't have the answers you seek. Just empty promises.
K
Kathy
Guest
My centerfire friends
My centerfire friends:
I've been doing some bore lapping....came in for a cup of coffee and decided to turn my machine on.......
I shouldn't have posted my test method, it is obvious.....it is one of the subjects I have listed as "things to write about".....
Sometime back J. Pendergraft asked me how I did it, on another thread. I advised him to send me a stamped SAE and I'd tell him....I did. A two page lettter. I asked him not to respond publically with the information.....he has honored my request. Thank you Joel....
I would have thought my reasoning was pretty obvious.....so here's what I will do.......lets wait and see if some of the engineering folks or someone can come up with the logic of the test.......say by this time next week....
If not, (I'm sure someone will), but if not by then, I will give permission for Mr. Pendergraft, if he is willing to fool with it, and, if the folks I list will send him a stamped envelope, to send them a copy of my letter.
He has permission to respond to Posters on this thread numbers, 10, 14, 19, 23, 30, 31 and 35.......also to the feller from New Zealand if he wants to fool with it.........If Mr. Pengergraft doesn't wish to fool with this, I fully understand.....
To the rest of the posters on this thread, I know you are all good guys.
Your friend, Bill Calfee
My centerfire friends:
I've been doing some bore lapping....came in for a cup of coffee and decided to turn my machine on.......
I shouldn't have posted my test method, it is obvious.....it is one of the subjects I have listed as "things to write about".....
Sometime back J. Pendergraft asked me how I did it, on another thread. I advised him to send me a stamped SAE and I'd tell him....I did. A two page lettter. I asked him not to respond publically with the information.....he has honored my request. Thank you Joel....
I would have thought my reasoning was pretty obvious.....so here's what I will do.......lets wait and see if some of the engineering folks or someone can come up with the logic of the test.......say by this time next week....
If not, (I'm sure someone will), but if not by then, I will give permission for Mr. Pendergraft, if he is willing to fool with it, and, if the folks I list will send him a stamped envelope, to send them a copy of my letter.
He has permission to respond to Posters on this thread numbers, 10, 14, 19, 23, 30, 31 and 35.......also to the feller from New Zealand if he wants to fool with it.........If Mr. Pengergraft doesn't wish to fool with this, I fully understand.....
To the rest of the posters on this thread, I know you are all good guys.
Your friend, Bill Calfee
Last edited:
I believe he’s just offering the conveyor belt to anyone who would like to continue trying.
Personally, I’m in a holding pattern patiently waiting for a wider runway to land on.
jackie schmidt
New member
Tim
Give me an address and I will send you everything you see in those pictures,the adapter and nut, and the weight rings........jackie
Give me an address and I will send you everything you see in those pictures,the adapter and nut, and the weight rings........jackie