Eric...
,All should note this is not a sour grapes issue with me....I haven't invested one penny in Berger 105's since early Spring last year. But, oh the powder, cases, primers and barrel wear).
After I had wasted powder, primers, cases, barrel wear and gas to give your new lot a test, I appraised you of my initial findings.,Lot #559 was, to my knowledge, in distro chain but not shipped to shooters at that time). Only then did you choose to reveal to me the changes to the new bullets. I then suggested on April 12th that you should go onto the forums and tell your shooting customers what you had done so they would not waste their time like I did. I waited another day before deciding that, since you did not respond with a heads-up announcement of your own on the forums that some of the competitive shooters might benefit by a heads-up from me so they would know the new 105's are different. You waited 5 days, until April 17th, for whatever reasons, to respond on the forums....long after the poop had hit the fan. Yeah, I can hear the "busy" song, but you always answered me promptly and responded to earlier forum topics promptly.
For the edification of anyone interested, here are the 2 relevant emails:
From: Eric Stecker
To: Frank Beckmann
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: 1st test: Beckmann/Macaver 105's
Frank,
Since these bullets are made in a new die it is likely that they will not touch the rifling in the same manner that bullets made on the previous die will. There are two factors that cause this result.
The first is the ogive shape. It is nearly impossible for a die maker to create an exact replica of a previous ogive shape. The EDM and polishing process is not capable of producing identical ogives.
The second is the bullet diameter. The bullets made on the previous die were fatter which moves the point at which the bullet will engage the rifling forward. For sake of discussion, if you have two bullets with identical ogive shapes but one bullet is smaller,OD) than the other the point where that bullet engages the rifling moves back meaning that you will have to seat these bullets further out.
You should not look at how these bullets compare to the previous bullets in relation to layout. You should set the new bullets up as if you had not used them before by finding what COAL allows the new bullets to engage the rifling in a way that produces the accuracy you want. Only by doing this will you know whether or not the bullets are going to work well for you. Bullet dies last a long time and once you get these new bullets to shoot well in your rifle you will not have to change your settings for a while.
Regards,
Eric
April 12th.
Thanks Eric...
Wish I had known all this in advance from the guy who is eager to learn of my results. Unfortunately I learned this the hard way by being too trustful that an "improved" new would replicate the old. The warning signal,shorter so have to seat longer) was there but I ignored it. Probably will be a suprise to some others how much the difference amounts to if they run off to the range in haste like I did. Am sure a heads up from you on the forums would help the one or two other dunderheads like me.
….more etceteras……
Frank
______________________________________________________________
I have no axe to grind with Berger or you, Eric. Its just that your 105's, after lot #071, have yet to become a reliable bullet for me....for me they are not working, not in my Shilen 1:8, not in my Broughton 1:8 5C and not in either of my Bartlein 1:8 5R's, all .237's. I don't think you or anyone will note any class B barrels in my 6mm stable.
I sent you a box of substandard,0-.024 base to ogive differences) 105's,from a lot number after #071) I bought retail. You agreed they were bad and eventually, generously, sent me 1000 replacements, which also turned out faulty with a 0-.014 base to ogive difference plus the added disadvantage of having flared and dog-earred meplats. I told you that the bullets in the 10 boxes you sent looked like someone was either trying to delibertely sabotage you or had been told to salt each box with several from your factory rejects. When you got back from the NRA? show, you agreed that they were also bad and said, basically, that you had internal issues that needed correcting. You told me circa Thanskgiving or before that you'd have, basically, some good bullets in January, but subsequently told me late January-early February that you were getting too much pressure ring diameter variance.... up to .00075 with your new equipment. Everybody knows the rest of the story, starting with what I received from you on April 10th.
Really Eric, my heart doesn't bleed over your frustrations. I've wasted a ton trying to hang in there with you since early last year. Read what some of the guys are saying.....the old 105 was just great!
When you first started responding on the forums,to the "blow up in flight" issue), you said that you'd replace an order if the bullets in a box varied by more than .003 in base to ogive. You have, in the past, agreed with my measurements and I am sure there are some out here who have a better touch than me. Right from the get-go, the batch of 500 you sent me from lot #559 on 4/10 did not pass muster at the .003 threshold in addition to the myriad other problems. NO! I do not want any replacements for the replacements to the replacements for the originals.
Personally, I would like to hear you address the double taper issue rather, in my opinion, seemingly obfuscate with your comments about the forming die's polish. You know I am a manufacturing IE and know SQC inside out. Eric, I've had vendor after vendor, here and abroad, basically bankrupt themselves to once and for all definitively fix product and equipment problems that actually, or were perceived to, cause product concerns. By your admission, Everyone now knows you have an equipment problem that is making a product totally abnormal to anything being offered to the shooting public by the other brand names. Are you going to fix or replace that die?
Perhaps you'd like, but it is not my lot in life to tell you who the "good" manufacturers are that you should visit to learn how to make a good 105. You're the big guy and I'm the little shooter and despite your abilities at being a wordsmith I take strong exception to your effort, by the nature of your comment, to minimalize my comments about this bullet. You already know you have some significant big and small competition in the 105 arena. Supposedly Berger is savvy enough to sample-buy what the competitors are offering and you surely already know. If you want to really get bored with consistent measurements on pressure ring or bearing surface diameters, sit down with your measuring gear and measure some 107 SMK's, JLK 105's, and Clinch Rivers. The "lowly 107 SMK" will consistently, for me, at velocities from 2950 to 3060 shoot rings around the new Berger in my barrels.
Your 105's will continue to have a good following and I wish you and all comp shooters who use them the best.
BTW: I find it hugely disinginious that both you and Jason would ask Danny for the bullets I sent him. Both requests have all the appearances of an attempt to minimalize what Danny reported. Should I/he suspect a presto-chango-disappearo scenario once those bullets got into your hands?
BTW: I don't know Danny personally, have neither met him nor know of his accomplishments except what I read.
I'd guess you're about 500 bullets behind me, Eric. Please send 50 each, un-highgraded, to the next first 10 responders to this thread WHO HAVE MICS comparable to Danny's.....,that's what most of us shooters use week to week, Eric, not pin gauges)....but send only if they will agree to post their measurement results. Some may report greater or smnaller measurements, but I will, after their posting, send each of those with the 10 highest and 10 lowest recordings 25 bullets of what you sent me.... if they agree to post those results also. Whatever the results, we have your word that lot #559 is smaller. Smaller Bergers don't work for me.
Frank
