A proper comparison test

Ian said:
You gonna sit in there and knap points all winter, or what? Need some trade blanks?
Click to expand...
I don't think I could knap , well not nearly as well as you...that is art work..

But maybe for the trade gun..

I do need to find some shaft material for the points from Texas...
 
Foreshafts I don't know, mainshafts were usually some kind of river cane. We don't have Vybernum or Dogwood in Texas, or didn't historically. What brand/style lock is on your trade gun?
 
Don’t call people names
Don’t harass others on the open forum or via PM
When a mod tells you to calm down or back off, listen
This is someone else’s home, act like it

In general, treat others with respect and don’t be an A hole. Follow the rules and keep politics and religion out of your posts.

Pretty simple to stay within the boundaries, just be a good forum citizen
 
Last edited:
This is unfortunate.

This had the potential to generate some real results.
Pretty much every comparison I have seen between lube and PC has been at best pseudo-science, and more commonly hopelessly confounded by guns that do not shoot especially well used by shooters that do not shoot especially well.


As an actual scientist that works in actual research, it is all very painful and cringeworthy. Everyone has their secret sauce or some 'custom thing' that is not repeatable.
The OP had the right idea, compare optimized loads using stuff that has been well established to work.

-Josh
 
joshua43214 said:
This is unfortunate.

This had the potential to generate some real results.
Pretty much every comparison I have seen between lube and PC has been at best pseudo-science, and more commonly hopelessly confounded by guns that do not shoot especially well used by shooters that do not shoot especially well.


As an actual scientist that works in actual research, it is all very painful and cringeworthy. Everyone has their secret sauce or some 'custom thing' that is not repeatable.
The OP had the right idea, compare optimized loads using stuff that has been well established to work.

-Josh
Click to expand...
I used to shoot some nice groups with lube,but since I went pc,the nice groups are more often,cleaner guns,way less smoke,no more cranking handle on lubesizer,,I resisted for years,but finally I came around.

I'm currently trying to make a ar15 9mm,a real moa rifle,at 100 yards.its currently about 1.5moa,,think I can get there,,the pc bullet is the key,I'm convinced.
 
Didn't compare with anything but BLL/alox. Did 3 shot near MOA (308W AR) @ 200, 165 gr GCd, PCd, 2400 fps. This is 300 BO 145gr PB PC @ 100 from AR carbine. 2100 fps.
TgtGfx37.jpg
 
joshua43214 said:
This is unfortunate.

This had the potential to generate some real results.
Pretty much every comparison I have seen between lube and PC has been at best pseudo-science, and more commonly hopelessly confounded by guns that do not shoot especially well used by shooters that do not shoot especially well.


As an actual scientist that works in actual research, it is all very painful and cringeworthy. Everyone has their secret sauce or some 'custom thing' that is not repeatable.
The OP had the right idea, compare optimized loads using stuff that has been well established to work.

-Josh
Click to expand...


I do not think that you are as intelligent as ya think you are.... Mr. "Actual Scientist".
 
Last edited:
JBinMN said:
I do not think that you are as intelligent as ya think you are.... Mr. "Actual Scientist".
Click to expand...

Do you know what the younger folks call us?

They call us "Fuds."

The worst part is they have good reason.
Not only do we crap all over over people who dare to suggest we test something with proper rigor, we step up and insult people we do not even know because we have taken some imaginary offense.
Is this what happened to the OP of this thread? Was he subjected to this kind of ridicule and felt he had to defend himself to the point of getting banned?

Is this not supposed to be the forum that started to end the drama over at the other unnamed forum?

Here is what brought me to this thread.
This is the last targets from a new load work up I did last year before the weather turned bad.
I am pretty unhappy with these loads, I know the riffle can shoot better than this, and I certainly shoot better than this. This looks like it will shoot sub .5moa if I can sort out neck tension and jam though prolly it will never be a .2moa riffle unless I upgrade the action.
I have spent the winter contemplating were to go next with this rifle, and thought casting might be a good idea.

I contend that cast bullets should be able to shoot as well as jacketed.
In my opinion, no progress is being made on this front because we are a bunch of Fuds that chase off people wanting to make real improvements.

I expect twist rate vs hardness + size is the real issue, and that by solving how to determine bullet size and hardness in a repeatable way will let any shooter with any riffle any place get the most out of their riffle with out having to resort to tugging their ear while standing on 1 foot as they load pull the handle on their Rock Chucker that has be specially tweeked and uses only special dies made by the 7th nephew of the 7th nephew of Elmer Keith Himself.


T1.jpg
T2.jpg



-Josh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.