Possibly, but to disprove something is the same a proving it in that either way you have to do it.You’re using OCW to prove that OCW works? Thats circular logic.
Yes. The question becomes, how do we get as much of it(pc) as possible. I think you'll agree that stock and overall design of what we currently shoot may not be the most conducive design for this one aspect of making these things shoot. That's one reason I don't hang my hat on pc and look more at accuracy and groups that are easy to read when tune goes away vs focusing hard on pc. If I can see tune on target, I feel like I can fix it. It's those guns/groups that shoot pretty good, just not good enough, even when a little out of tune that drive me crazy. I call it "talking to me." I actually prefer it to shoot big but still predictable shapes when it starts going out of tune on me because I move my tuner based on group shape above anything else. POI is relative to pc but I put that secondary to group readability. Maybe further down the list of things that matter to me when tuning.
That was my point too. I think a gun designed specifically for getting as much pc as possible would look a lot different than what we typically shoot. What we shoot works pretty well for strictly accuracy and feasibility, not to mention meeting the various rule books. But I think testing more for pc will yield some useable info and you're right...it hasn't been thoroughly tested, that I'm aware of. A guy by the name of Keith Sharpe did some testing a few years back. Sharp guy, a professor at the University of Louisville..mechanical engineer, I think. I remember the gun he was shooting was built very much for pc with a lot of attention to its center of gravity and how it rotates around it in all directions..fwiw. Fugly ass gun though! Lol!
So you would leave a tuner off a barrel on a 1000yd rifle and just try different powders and see what shoots best? Just trying to understand.. thanks
Different powder and/or different charge, the same still applies. I can understand why you might think tuners hurt pc but IME, the opposite is true. The big thing I think to remember here is that while more weight at the end of the beam(bbl) will typically reduce amplitude,(physics teaches us that this is true) , it does so over time. The time we are worried about though, is while the bullet is still in the bbl, which of course is a very short period.
No thats not what Im saying at all. And I should not have said tuners, I should have said any device that ads mass to the muzzle. One component of building pc into a rifle is the fact the rifle wants to rotate on it c/g while the bullet is traveling down the barrel. We need that for pc. So adding weight to the ends of the rifle is not something you would do to encourage that. We need to get the muzzle traveling up. Thats why a softer stock helps, its like a spring with stored energy. But there are much larger driving forces on the harmonics, so you can still get there with a muzzle device. Its not all about getting as much pc as possible, you only need the right amount. The other thing you see when you add a muzzle device is the poi becomes more stable. We need poi change to get pc at longer ranges. But theres still enough to make it work as many guys are doing it. If you could imagine an extreme example of no barrel harmonics and a tune going through the same hole at 100yds, your down range groups could not shoot less vertical than the es predicted.
Yes. I’m crazy enough. This I choose for mental health reasons to take a full pass.
Barrel contour important.
When I first built my Rail Gun back in 1998, I decided to install the barrel in a tube that had a 1.750 ID and a 2 1/8 OD. The 1.450 blank was centered in the tube with alignment rings. The space was filled with pourable Devcon.
