My problem with the "parallel node"

[Foster Arvin]

The world's population is 6.7 billion people -that's a lot of people. Eliminate any one person out of those numbers and rimfire would be exactly where it is today -maybe even father along. It is nice to give credit where credit is due but to dismiss 6.7 billion people is ludicrous. joe

Joe, "Ludicrous" I thought he was a RAPPER?? that's why it's hard to find good ammo 6.7 Billion rimfire shooters?

 

[Beau]

So, Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, and Hitler had they never been born would not have mattered. Everything would have played out exactly the same, maybe better, to think otherwise would be ludicrous. Seems like a sound theory to me if you believe everything is pre-destined. Wait though, is pre-destination in line with the laws of physics?

 

[404tbang]

Dan......

This is one of the most fascinating threads I have read on this forum, ever. I say that for two reaons.

First, it is very diverse technically, and has helped me visualize a number of things I have simply looked at as voodoo over the years.

Second, it is also like sitting in an airport or similar location to "people watch", as the various contributions, as well as reactions to them, disclose a lot about the participants.

I have worked for over 30 years in a field populated by engineers and "hands on" folks. I have made my living for the most part as an engineer who can speak english. I take the technical stuff and translate it for lay people like regulators or legislators. I am a professional witness of sorts.

What I "think" I see going on is a very classic example of design versus build. The engineers and designers here are a little different in that most of them also get hands on. But still, it is essentially a social conflict between the college mind and the builder mind.

The engineer/designer can explain why or predict what will happen, and illustrate data to support these assertions.

The builder guy has experience in putting into real world terms what the designer comes up with. The builder guy does this without the deep technical expertise, but WITH an incredible sense of what looks and feels right. Mechanical genious cannot be taught, it just exists because of a certain set of skills that some seem to be born with.

What occasionally happens over time is that builder guy becomes expert in what he does to a point where he is regarded to be as knowledgable as the designer/engineer. This occurs because of physical results rather than the more academic process of publication.

Builder guy wants to teach what he knows. He develops his own jargon that is used to explain what he does by touch and perception.

The engineer/designer can look at the end result and disect it technically and more accurately than builder guy. And this causes the engineer/designer to take issue with the inaccuracy of builder guy's jargon. To add frustration to this, many engineers cannot duplicate builder guys product, even though they know how and why it works better than builder guy does.

This conflict has no end and no resolution until and unless there comes to pass a masterful builder guy, best in all the land, who is also an engineer/designer. I fear that the existance of such an individual would be like matter and anti-matter and some cataclismic event would occur.

I will now go back to sitting on the fence, as that is where the view is best.
regards,
Dan
(post little and listen a lot)

Howdy Dan,
That was the finest, and fairest way that I have seen this summed up!

Thank you.

Greg

 

[martyh]

So, Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, and Hitler had they never been born would not have mattered. Everything would have played out exactly the same, maybe better, to think otherwise would be ludicrous. Seems like a sound theory to me if you believe everything is predestined. Wait though, is predestination in line with the laws of physics?

well just change the subject, if the muzzle is stopped, how can you put a slow round say 1040 in the same hole as a fast round say 1080? just answer that one question ???????????????????????????

 

[Beau]

If the gun tracks straight back, you can't. That's kinda obvious. However, most don't. Most track back in a manner that causes the muzzle to rise. Now, you understand you're not putting the bullet in the same hole at 50, 100, 150 yards, etc. You're only intersecting at approx 42 yards and then the slower bullet prints higher than the faster bullet at 50 yards; however, at 50 yards they're still pretty close. I proved that to you in an experiment you designed, remember. At some point you should intersect again as the faster bullet is flatter. I remember reading this in Shooting Times probably twenty years ago.

You know Marty, if it works for you, do it. I'll do what works for me.

 

[404tbang]

It was a response to JGEE's thought.....

well just change the subject, if the muzzle is stopped, how can you put a slow round say 1040 in the same hole as a fast round say 1080? just answer that one question ???????????????????????????

Well, two can do that! Martin, or MartyH, or whoever else posts under Martin Hammond, or MartyH's account, or however many you have, check out this thread.

http://benchrest.com/showthread.php?72542-New-Tunas-and-a-different-one

I believe you will find a pic of a tuner that violates your 4.6 ounce dictate. It is easy to find, it is the first pic in the first post. After having viewed the pic, I believe you will have to agree it probably weighs more than 4.6 ounces. Yet the shooter apparently shot a 2300 and a couple of 2350's with it. And according to Pete Wass, the guy thought it was a couple of ounces too light!

So, if a 4.6 ounce tuner is the bees knees, how can THAT one work?

Meanwhile, Dan, with the brilliant (and I say that with ALL sincerety) post sits back and chuckles at human nature.

Greg

I am pretty sure that Tuna is NOT going to willingly delete that thread!
I will be nice now.

 

[mks]

... Now, you understand you're not putting the bullet in the same hole at 50, 100, 150 yards, etc. You're only intersecting at approx 42 yards and then the slower bullet prints higher than the faster bullet at 50 yards; however, at 50 yards they're still pretty close. ... At some point you should intersect again as the faster bullet is flatter.

The bullet trajectories only intersect once beyond the muzzle. After the intersection, the path of the faster bullet will be increasingly higher than that of the slower bullet.

Cheers,
Keith

 

[mks]

If the gun tracks straight back, you can't. That's kinda obvious. However, most don't. Most track back in a manner that causes the muzzle to rise. ...

Beau,
If the muzzle rises due to the rifle tracking back in the rests, is it still "stopped?" (Not looking to cause any argument here, just trying to understand the terminology.)

Thanks,
Keith

 

[Beau]

Yes, but the slower bullet will print higher than the faster bullet at 50 yards (we're assuming standard rest angles). At some distance , if the bullets are not stopped, the slower bullet will print lower on the target. Of course, we're considering only intersection of paths and not time.

 

[Beau]

Beau,
If the muzzle rises due to the rifle tracking back in the rests, is it still "stopped?" (Not looking to cause any argument here, just trying to understand the terminology.)

Thanks,
Keith

Okay, I'm not the stopped muzzle expert. As I've said, I do what works for me. I've tried many methods that do not work for me, if one did I would use it. Anyway, the idea is the elevation of the muzzle in this case is caused by the angle of the rest. In general, if you pull your rifle back in its rest, it will elevate the POA. The slower bullet moves the rifle back further and, therefore, raises, the muzzle further. Of course, if it's tracking straight back, this changes things, but neither case really involves the stopped muzzle theory. You have to keep in mind that the rise of the muzzle is due simply to the angle of a standard rest set up.

 

[Jetmugg]

Do you think it's possible to plot the trajectories of the 2 bullets (fast and slow) to show how they can intersect at 42 yards, for the slow one to be higher at 50 yards, and for the slow one and fast one to intersect again at some greater distance?

 

[martyh]

Well, two can do that! Martin, or MartyH, or whoever else posts under Martin Hammond, or MartyH's account, or however many you have, check out this thread.

http://benchrest.com/showthread.php?72542-New-Tunas-and-a-different-one

I believe you will find a pic of a tuner that violates your 4.6 ounce dictate. It is easy to find, it is the first pic in the first post. After having viewed the pic, I believe you will have to agree it probably weighs more than 4.6 ounces. Yet the shooter apparently shot a 2300 and a couple of 2350's with it. And according to Pete Wass, the guy thought it was a couple of ounces too light!

So, if a 4.6 ounce tuner is the bees knees, how can THAT one work?

Meanwhile, Dan, with the brilliant (and I say that with ALL sincerety) post sits back and chuckles at human nature.

Greg

I am pretty sure that Tuna is NOT going to willingly delete that thread!
I will be nice now.

top 2 shooters ara state +343 points per target from 2 in the middle, top 2 ara club meets+275 points per target from the 2 in the middle, top national 2 shooters +273points per target from 2 in the middle. if you can't see what's happening it's because you don't want to.

 

[martyh]

this years Ara indoors just posted the top 2 shooters + 404points per target over the 2 mid pack. one or two shooters excelling can happen when tuning down, but it is the averages that when you tune with too much weight 5 clicks throws a rifle off tune. the vast majority of rifles with any number of anomalies will then be off tuned. turning a harrell's tuner 5 clicks is the approximate equivalent of 2/300 of an ounce, so 2/300 of an ounce throws these rifles off of tune. think about it

 

[Beau]

Marty, have you ever shot in the Barn? No. Well, I have. You seem to be under the impression that the only variable is the tune of the rifle. Well, making that assumption is what would get you beat badly, and I mean badly. The barn has heavy plastic sides. It is also generally heated close to the front of the firing line but not down the firing line. You will see the plastic move in and out in relation to whatever wind is affecting it but even the lightest indicator may pick up no movement down the line. Also, if you walk down to the target area, at least this time of year, you can feel the temperature gradient. Now between just those three variable whicsh do you think has the most affect? I think I know, having shot a horrible first target last year (around 60th or so) but finishing at 18th I believe I know which has the most affect. I would not go with the tune; I would go with what I determined last year. Of course, that's just my thoughts; something totally different may work for you or at least we may come to a different conclusion as to what variable is most important.

But, you know, the barn, with, as you seem to think, its laboratory conditions would have been the perfect place for you to take or send your rifles and show that all your work is correct because if it is you could not have lost.

 

[mks]

Yes, but the slower bullet will print higher than the faster bullet at 50 yards (we're assuming standard rest angles). At some distance , if the bullets are not stopped, the slower bullet will print lower on the target. Of course, we're considering only intersection of paths and not time.

Still talking about the two bullets crossing paths at 42 yards? If so, the path of the slower bullet must be higher than that of the faster one out to 42 yards, then its path will be lower than that of the faster one for all longer yardages, including 50. It's easy enough to confirm with an online ballistics calculator.

Cheers,
Keith

 

[Beau]

Yes, it is because they always consider the launch angle to be zero. It's not, at least in this case. If it is zero the only place the two bullets will cross paths will be at the muzzle. The slower bullet on a standard rest will be launched at a steeper angle than the faster one. They will intersect at approximately 42 yards with the slower one still rising and faster one on a flatter trajectory. By the way, I'm not guessing. Just go shoot using a rest with a typical angle. Set up a target at 42 yards and one at 50 and see what they do at 42 yards and at 50.

Also, I went through the same thoughts you did and determined it could not work that way. It did.

 

[martyh]

Marty, have you ever shot in the Barn? No. Well, I have. You seem to be under the impression that the only variable is the tune of the rifle. Well, making that assumption is what would get you beat badly, and I mean badly. The barn has heavy plastic sides. It is also generally heated close to the front of the firing line but not down the firing line. You will see the plastic move in and out in relation to whatever wind is affecting it but even the lightest indicator may pick up no movement down the line. Also, if you walk down to the target area, at least this time of year, you can feel the temperature gradient. Now between just those three variable whicsh do you think has the most affect? I think I know, having shot a horrible first target last year (around 60th or so) but finishing at 18th I believe I know which has the most affect. I would not go with the tune; I would go with what I determined last year. Of course, that's just my thoughts; something totally different may work for you or at least we may come to a different conclusion as to what variable is most important.

But, you know, the barn, with, as you seem to think, its laboratory conditions would have been the perfect place for you to take or send your rifles and show that all your work is correct because if it is you could not have lost.

beau, the same thing holds true for ir50, all those state shoots all the club shoots were not at the barn. Wally it's analysing the data, just like june of 2009 at the ara state shoot for kentucky when you used 1047 speed tenex and had droppers. that is the data we entered along with you saying your rifle was tuned for 1061 speed, it's just data but it tells a story, a story that you and several do not want to here. but your right it's just data, so you can have opinions I'll have facts..

 

[Beau]

Marty, I recall having the 1047 speed ammo at the state shoot but I don't recall shooting it unless I it was just trying it. I may have, just don't remember. The best I recall, I shot 1324 @ 1061 fps; however, I do know I never said the rifle was tuned for 1061 fps. It was tuned with three or four different speeds of ammo. 1324 just happened to be the best ammo I've ever owned until now. It it was that easy, I would just pick 1061 fps ammo and forget it. But I suspect the printed velocity is not the actual velocity anyway.

By the way, a good researcher looks at all variables. There was a big one at the state shoot in 2009. I was running it and shooting it. So, I shot fast. I suspect most of my problems that day were due to having my mind on things other than shooting.

 

[martyh]

wally, this researcher has you in for 23.5" long .875 diameter barrel if that's incorrect we will make changes. could you please explain with your barrel stopped, or muzzle stopped, how you planned on those 1047 speed tenex, 1061 speed match and 1078 speed match eley ammo going in the same hole or pretty close thanks. marty

 

[Beau]

Marty,

The barrel on the gun I shoot the most (I have more than one) is just a little under 24". Maybe 1/8" under. The diameter is .900 except that it has been turned down slightly at the front and back. You can read that in the book under "A Rifle's Tale" to determine the reason.

I have ammo that runs from 1047 to 1071 but no 1078 but I could have had some. It would not have been much. I can see by your question the fundamental difference in the way you see a tuner works and the way that I shoot. I don't expect them to go in the same hole, nor do I want them to. What I want them to do is group very well. That's the initial test. The second test is centering the bull across the target. Whether or not they go in the same hole at 50 yards is of no concern to me. I have a scope to zero for that. If the ammo will group and go across the target in what I describe as an "easy" manner, I can do pretty good with it. The 1047 speed ammo you refer to I had very little of, but I did almost win a tournament with it in Chattanooga. Why did I lose? I suspect there is one variable that you never consider and that's the shooter. I have a lot on my mind and it tends to wander. When it does, my scores will go down. I barely lost, but it was still second just because of not keeping my mind on what I was doing.

All ammo is not created equal. I know you believe 80% or so is, but I think it's more like 30% that is actually what I call "good". If I buy it, I consider it "good" although I may choose to sell some on occasion simply because I know I will shoot other ammo predominately. Now you believe you can tune the ammo but the fact remains, and I'm not trying to insult you, your scores do not indicate that. I know you point out that you shot some 250's in IR but so what? I shot several 250's last year including one 250-23X and one 250-18X and that was on just a few IR targets because I generally used those matches to test ammo. Now if, as you say, my gun is out of tune, I must be one hell of a lot better shooter than you are, or my gun is somehow vastly superior to yours. Well, if either one of those is true, and I'm not saying they are, you don't have the equipment or ability to test tuners. I mean you're killing yourself before you start. And don't post any pictures of groups or targets that you shot when you chose. I have all kinds of those that are much better than the results of matches.

Show me match results only. When you start turning ARA scores over 2000 average and IR scores with a significant number of 250's, I'll start to sit up and take notice. I'm not saying at all that your research and analysis is not important or on the correct path, but until you eliminate all other variables, you prove nothing. No argument or insult, it's just the way it is.