finding an "accuracy node".

[dmoran]

GSPV -

Good question !.!.!...
Which I will not even begin to try and give an answer to, nor do I have the knowledge.
A good source to some information of your question is Varmint Al's website (varmintal.com) and then on his Barrel Harmonic and Tuner pages.

I personally don't believe its all about "the knot" (I like your term).
But I do believe "the knot" has relevance, and I base this belief from the repeated accuracy resultants I see on or around the OBT parameters in my pressure traces.

Like Catshooter stated in post #34, "lots of things change" and there are a lot of separate aspects happening all at the same time, such as combustion, expansion, harmonics, friction, heat distribution, etc., etc., etc. and all can have separate effects as well as some similar effects - IMO

Donovan

 

[Raythemanroe]

Wouldn't barrel blocks mess with the "wave"? When I hear wave I think of shock wave and can't get in my mind multiple waves going back and forth.. I still go with the idea of barrel whip and vibrations and maybe an initial shock wave..Just because something works doesn't mean the theory is sound

Ray

 

[CatShooter]

Wouldn't barrel blocks mess with the "wave"? When I hear wave I think of shock wave and can't get in my mind multiple waves going back and forth.. I still go with the idea of barrel whip and vibrations and maybe an initial shock way..Just because something works doesn't mean the theory is sound

Ray

Badda bing, Badda booom... +1

 

[seymour fish]

Cat, No fee offered as One is able to infer from your posts that you could complete the assignment in your sleep. Your reward is self-discovery, a glimpse of the scientific method. Donovan, see above. LOL. Seymour

 

[CatShooter]

Cat, No fee offered as One is able to infer from your posts that you could complete the assignment in your sleep. Your reward is self-discovery, a glimpse of the scientific method. Donovan, see above. LOL. Seymour

The task cannot be done, for to try it would be as useless as trying to weigh a faerie on a scale - there are no shock waves to measure.

 

[Jay Christopherson]

Further, if such waves were running back and forth in a barrel with a bullet (backed with 55Kpsia of very hot gasses) traveling down it - every time the wave passed by the bullet, the expanded section of the barrel would let burning hot, high pressure gas to slip past the bullet... and that would cause melted copper to be blown forward of the bullet and settle on the cold bore. All of that would mean that - the bullet(s) could never leave the barrel the same way as the others, since this effect would be random, and - the barrel would have to be cleaned every two or three shots.

If you look at the physics and the mechanical elements of this.... it is impossible.

Why would it ?
I disagree and my input is the resultant reflected waves from the shock wave are a disruption of the barrel steel at the point of the reflected wave, but not as a total bore-expansion as your alluding.

Oscilloscope tests show very well barrel movement and disruption to the entire length of the barrel, both in front of the bullet and behind (before & after affects), as well as the exact of movement and bore expansion at the bullet, for the extent of its in-bore travel. The actual bore-expansion can be measured with an oscilloscope and can not be with a pressure sensor.

Personally I have never tested with an oscilloscope, but I have and use a strain gauge pressure trace system (RSI) since 2006, and I am a very firm believer in Optimal Barrel Times (OBT) and Chis Long's theory's. The trace software has the OBT parameters in it, and repeatedly to very high percentages, where I find optimal best accuracy, will line up directly or almost directly inline with the OBT markers, which proves the theory very well.

Donovan

I'm gonna have to side with Donovan here. CatShooter has provided nothing but a lot of strawman rhetoric to back up his rather nebulous arguments. A JPEG of someone else's data, that provides no provenance nor indication of the scales or process involved does not constitute contradictory evidence. If you have some sort of first hand data that you have acquired to disprove Chris Long's theory, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, you're pissin' in the wind as far as I'm concerned.

If you look at the physics and the mechanical elements of this.... it is impossible.

I don't have the background to prove or disprove this statement. I don't believe you do either - or at least, nothing I have read of your posts would convince me of it. Everyone on the Internet is a physics "genius" as far as I can tell, given the number of Wikipedia quality references I see in debates like this.

 

[savagedasher]

Go to No... Maybe.. YES I repeated the same result with 3 different powders. No change in seating depth .2 loads were what I always shoot the last was a pressure and a crony test.
I have repeated the same thing with many other guns. Tuners . Larry

 

[Raythemanroe]

Same calibers, same bullets, same powder having a similar accuracy node proves barrel whip just as fast as the wave theory.. The tuning is very similar on ladder testing so who's theory is wrong? Just because you get good results doesn't make chocolate the only kind of ice cream..


Ray

 

[jlow]

I'm gonna have to side with Donovan here. CatShooter has provided nothing but a lot of strawman rhetoric to back up his rather nebulous arguments. A JPEG of someone else's data, that provides no provenance nor indication of the scales or process involved does not constitute contradictory evidence. If you have some sort of first hand data that you have acquired to disprove Chris Long's theory, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, you're pissin' in the wind as far as I'm concerned.

"Strawman rhetoric" - LOL! Nailed it! ;D

 

[6BRinNZ]

I'm gonna have to side with Donovan here. CatShooter has provided nothing but a lot of strawman rhetoric to back up his rather nebulous arguments. A JPEG of someone else's data, that provides no provenance nor indication of the scales or process involved does not constitute contradictory evidence. If you have some sort of first hand data that you have acquired to disprove Chris Long's theory, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, you're pissin' in the wind as far as I'm concerned.

"Strawman rhetoric" - LOL! Nailed it! ;D

Wouldn't this stand for all comments unless someone conclusively proves what is occurring?

At the end of the day until someone proves what is occurring it is of mild interest and we will actually keep following our pet practices with disregard to the actual physics.

 

[Jay Christopherson]

I'm gonna have to side with Donovan here. CatShooter has provided nothing but a lot of strawman rhetoric to back up his rather nebulous arguments. A JPEG of someone else's data, that provides no provenance nor indication of the scales or process involved does not constitute contradictory evidence. If you have some sort of first hand data that you have acquired to disprove Chris Long's theory, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, you're pissin' in the wind as far as I'm concerned.

"Strawman rhetoric" - LOL! Nailed it! ;D

Wouldn't this stand for all comments unless someone conclusively proves what is occurring?

At the end of the day until someone proves what is occurring it is of mild interest and we will actually keep following our pet practices with disregard to the actual physics.

Yes, I would agree with your sentiment, except that I think sometimes people need a reminder that just because you say it on the Internet, doesn't make it a fact. If you are going to state something as an absolute, you better be prepared to back it up with arguments based on real data, IMO.

And I think your second comment is spot on. I know I have some pet practices that serve no other purpose than to make me feel better about what I'm doing.

 

[CatShooter]

"... If you are going to state something as an absolute, you better be prepared to back it up with arguments based on real data, IMO.

Well, hell, that just about eliminates 97% of all discussions on this site. Gonna get real quiet here

 

[Syncrowave]

"... If you are going to state something as an absolute, you better be prepared to back it up with arguments based on real data, IMO.

Well, hell, that just about eliminates 97% of all discussions on this site. Gonna get real quiet here

 

[jlow]

LOL! Not even close to being true. 8)

Double talk is never constructive, but much of the stuff I learned on this board does in fact make a difference on my target. Went out to shoot my 308 yesterday and was amazed that the 14 rounds I fired had an extreme spread of 13 fps and a SDev of 4 fps – I would attribute this mostly to what I learned on this board.

 

[spclark]

Wouldn't barrel blocks mess with the "wave"? When I hear wave I think of shock wave and can't get in my mind multiple waves going back and forth.. I still go with the idea of barrel whip and vibrations and maybe an initial shock wave..Just because something works doesn't mean the theory is sound

Picture a round kid's wading pool filled with water. Toss a rock into the center, watch the waves go out then bounce back off the sides. Look carefully where they meet one another on the way back, particularly when you miss hitting the center with the rock so the 'frequency' gets uneven.

Same thing in a rifle barrel except it's metal crystals not water molecules reacting to the energy causing the ripples.

Pretty much everything we know as "reality" depends on vibrations of one kind or another.

 

[jlow]

This is exactly correct.

A gas block will affect the “wave” but will not block it, but a better example of things that does affect this "wave" are barrels that are not free float but touch the handguard – we all know how good that is for accuracy…

 

[Raythemanroe]

Wouldn't barrel blocks mess with the "wave"? When I hear wave I think of shock wave and can't get in my mind multiple waves going back and forth.. I still go with the idea of barrel whip and vibrations and maybe an initial shock wave..Just because something works doesn't mean the theory is sound

Picture a round kid's wading pool filled with water. Toss a rock into the center, watch the waves go out then bounce back off the sides. Look carefully where they meet one another on the way back, particularly when you miss hitting the center with the rock so the 'frequency' gets uneven.

Same thing in a rifle barrel except it's metal crystals not water molecules reacting to the energy causing the ripples.

Pretty much everything we know as "reality" depends on vibrations of one kind or another.

I like the idea and agree, But I see vibration and barrel whip more then the wave theory.. I see the pool as round and a barrel round, okay send a rock down the center of the pool and the vibrations (wave) go outward not up and down.. Same thing in a barrel, you send a bullet down the tube and the shock wave goes down and I don't agree it keeps recurring. In the barrel and like the pool the vibration go outward like in the barrel whip and ladder test theory.. You conclude your theory is sound because of the end result when tuning.. How do you know if your tuning to whip or wave?

Ray

 

[jlow]

Does not the wave cause a whip?

 

[Raythemanroe]

Yep, How many waves vs how many whips?.. Like the pool, if the wave was recurring, the whip (outwardly) vibration would be conflicting and hard to tune to.. Like a disturbance in the pool..


Ray

 

[Raythemanroe]

I won't chime in anymore I believe the tuning is sound but the theory is a theory I guess no chocolate ice cream for me


Ray