Is Chris Long (Techshooter) still about?

[GeoffreyKolbe]

I have been trying to get more information about the Optimum Barrel Time theory that Chris Long invented back in 2016. The paper on his website is questionable in a number of respects and I have tried to get in touch with him, but no response. The last time the website was updated was also back in 2016, and the last time he posted on this forum was in 2016, so perhaps he just lost interest or he not with us any more. Anybody know....?

 

[ormandj]

No idea, I hadn’t seen anything from him in a while. Try emailing him on his site when you reached out with the subject line he requested?

I saw a N1CL from his city that went by that name on the airwaves, so he might be an amateur radio operator too.

@techshooter

 

[243Mendoza]

I saw him on the range about 2 years ago. He is very busy with his business.

BTW, I read a paper written by 2 college students on their Master thesis on the theory and experiment of the response of longitudinal waves on rifle barrel to bullet travel but I lost that AIAA paper.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

So youre looking for him to challenge a part of his theory?

 

[GeoffreyKolbe]

So youre looking for him to challenge a part of his theory?

There was very little theory in the paper to challenge. No references to more detailed explanation of his 'filter' model or of his Matlab model. There has been no experimental work to show that the theory is valid - that is, that the phenomenon described in the theory actually exist and their effects are as stated.

I like to keep an open mind, even for a theory as arm-waving as this one, with no mathematical validity whatsoever than I can determine. I would like a more detailed explanation so that I can see the error in my ways before declaring the errors in the OBT theory.... but Chris Long does not reply to emails and it seems he no longer frequents this forum.

 

[APGE]

Th

There was very little theory in the paper to challenge. No references to more detailed explanation of his 'filter' model or of his Matlab model. There has been no experimental work to show that the theory is valid - that is, that the phenomenon described in the theory actually exist and their effects are as stated.

I like to keep an open mind, even for a theory as arm-waving as this one, with no mathematical validity whatsoever than I can determine. I would like a more detailed explanation so that I can see the error in my ways before declaring the errors in the OBT theory.... but Chris Long does not reply to emails and it seems he no longer frequents this forum.

There's a mountain of empirical evidence to support the theory. I've lost count of how many loads I have worked up for myself and friends using quickload that landed very, very close to a predicted OBT node. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had this experience.

 

[GeoffreyKolbe]

Th

There's a mountain of empirical evidence to support the theory. I've lost count of how many loads I have worked up for myself and friends using quickload that landed very, very close to a predicted OBT node. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had this experience.

There would appear to be some effect whereby a certain load will give more accurate groups than different loads with the same powder. There is empirical evidence for that. The question is whether Chris Long's OBT theory explains the phenomenon?

First off, shooters in general have a very loose grip on statistics. There is a tendency to shoot one group of three or five for each increment of powder and pick the best group as 'obviously' the best load. Well, it takes a lot of powder, bullets and time to do proper statistics, so that is understandable. Then there is fact that such trials are generally not 'blind'. That is you will usually know in advance what the magic nodes are and so it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

Secondly, like I say, Chris Long's paper was very short on detail and such arm-waving as there was did not make much sense to me. I am a physicist and I like to see the laws of physics observed. And, there is no experimental evidence that the radial vibrations Chris Long invoked to explain the phenomenon actually exists or has the effects on the barrel that he claimed.

So, there may well be some physics going on which explains the phenomenon of tight groups with certain loads, but there is no evidence that the physics is described by Chris Long's OBT theory.

Like I say, I generally have an open mind on new theories and if the theory makes sense theoretically and there is some experimental evidence to show what is claimed to be going is actually going on, then that is fine by me.

So, here I am, looking forward to somebody filling in the details on how the OBT theory works, preferably in a way which does not contravene the laws of physics. That is all I want.

 

[dgeesaman]

There would appear to be some effect whereby a certain load will give more accurate groups than different loads with the same powder. There is empirical evidence for that. The question is whether Chris Long's OBT theory explains the phenomenon?

First off, shooters in general have a very loose grip on statistics. There is a tendency to shoot one group of three or five for each increment of powder and pick the best group as 'obviously' the best load. Well, it takes a lot of powder, bullets and time to do proper statistics, so that is understandable. Then there is fact that such trials are generally not 'blind'. That is you will usually know in advance what the magic nodes are and so it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

Shooters are not blind to statistical significance. Hang out with the rimfire crowd and you’ll see it appear at times. However centerfire shooting requires serious compromises due to raw cost and barrel wear.

So if statistical significance is your baseline requirement to respect others work, invent a barrel that doesn’t wear or change tune for the duration of statistically significant testing. Because that’s a real world limitation that statistics does not solve for.

Statisticians seem to have a very loose grip on the significant effects of centerfire shooting.

David

 

[ormandj]

Your tone in the last few posts reminds me of academia and seems quite antagonistic. I’m not sure why you’d think anyone would want to engage in discourse after seeing your approach. As the director of a ballistics company, as you appear to be, I definitely wouldn’t come to one of the most used forums for shooters and reloders with the approach you have; that’s a great way to completely alienate your entire potential user base.

I don’t personally buy into OBT but if I wanted to discuss the subject with the person who proposed it, I would take a significantly more tactful approach than making statements about shooters not understanding statistics and Chris Long arm-waving with no basis.

It comes off as you coming to attack gentleman who used to frequent this forum to prove how wrong he is and how right you are. It is rather disgusting, in my humble opinion.

 

[BCBRAD]

I apply Long's OBT and Newberry's OCW theories to QuickLoad (it does the math). Following the rules/operating parameters of QL a good load is easy to get.

What do others do to get a good load?

 

[M-61]

It sure sounds to me you just joined this site to find someone who wrote something 5 years ago that you find fault with. Actually....no....sounds like you wish to start a fight about it.
Great approach if I'm reading this correctly. I'm sure he'll rush to engage you.

 

[Dgd6mm]

I apply Long's OBT and Newberry's OCW theories to QuickLoad (it does the math). Following the rules/operating parameters of QL a good load is easy to get.

What do others do to get a good load?

Between these to things, owning QL, I believe I'm set up good enough for my accuracy requirements to take me to my grave. It works for me. Also, I'd like to add, I do not care for people like Jeffrey. We've seen it before on here from others in multiple subjects. JMO.

Don Dunlap

 

[243Mendoza]

For theory, you can try some finite element modeling that has unsteady features that models stress waves induced by a pressure pulse.

 

[jackson1]

Enjoyed reading the thread. Glad to see there are a number of you further down the rabbit hole than me.

 

[6ShotsOr5?]

If I understand the situation, Chris Long doesn’t appear to be selling anything except maybe some advertising on his site. I appreciate the work he did setting up the web site and providing a lot of useful information to shooters. I don’t mind using an unproven theory if it seems to work, until someone comes up with a better one. Here’s a big thank you to Chris for your contributions, even if somebody comes up with a better theory someday.

 

[Dgd6mm]

If I understand the situation, Chris Long doesn’t appear to be selling anything except maybe some advertising on his site. I appreciate the work he did setting up the web site and providing a lot of useful information to shooters. I don’t mind using an unproven theory if it seems to work, until someone comes up with a better one. Here’s a big thank you to Chris for your contributions, even if somebody comes up with a better theory someday.

Yeah, it's like, JBM isn't the best ballistic calculator but people still use it.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Your tone in the last few posts reminds me of academia and seems quite antagonistic. I’m not sure why you’d think anyone would want to engage in discourse after seeing your approach. As the director of a ballistics company, as you appear to be, I definitely wouldn’t come to one of the most used forums for shooters and reloders with the approach you have; that’s a great way to completely alienate your entire potential user base.

I don’t personally buy into OBT but if I wanted to discuss the subject with the person who proposed it, I would take a significantly more tactful approach than making statements about shooters not understanding statistics and Chris Long arm-waving with no basis.

It comes off as you coming to attack gentleman who used to frequent this forum to prove how wrong he is and how right you are. It is rather disgusting, in my humble opinion.

Exactly what i was thinking. A guy comes up with something that works for him, others try it and it works for them, 5yrs later it doesnt agree with science and im going to prove to you on paper why it wont work on paper. Since you didnt get 450 groups worth of data its not going to work anymore

 

[Dusty Stevens]

This is exactly why the people that know dont come on here and talk about what they know. A world champ respected in every circle will get dogpiled on a forum by anonymous internet “handles” and it gets worse as the posts go on. Like “ive never actually chambered a barrel, but i can tell you how to do it because i know a guy with a lathe”

 

[ormandj]

I think many of us here would love to have open discussions regarding theory, statistics, and hypothesis related to the 'why' - or better yet a better method to mathematically calculate optimal loads without firing a single shot. I hate wasting 50-100 rounds (or more on new cartridges/barrel mags) of useful barrel life to find an accurate load. Not all of us are ignorant fools, after all. I just think the approach to having that discussion could have been handled in a thousand other ways significantly better than this was.

Again - I don't agree with OBT in terms of explaining the _why_ behind some loads working and others not in a particular barrel. I do think the model sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, much like any imperfect model will tend to do. I'm sure we'll eventually figure out what's really going on, and I'd love to be a part of that discussion, but I won't be having it with a keyboard commando attempting to assert their intellectual dominance on a forum full of people with decades of _practical_ experience.

 

[kelbro]

I was also a physicist/engineer and saw a guy tuning a barrel (in Phoenix,AZ) with some bent coat hangers and a brass mallet. Chris' method has a little more thought behind it but they both seem to work for some folks.