EXPERIMENTING IS EASY

  • 425 Views
  • Last Post 03 September 2018
joeb33050 posted this 01 September 2018

 

You're making it harder than it is. You're talking rather than shooting. Experimenting is easy, making up rules for experiments is simple when the BS is removed.

You don't need a wicked accurate gun, nor wicked precision equipment. You need a reasonably accurate setup, = average <2" 5-shot 100-yard groups.

Here's why. Group size and variation in group size are independent. A rifle shooting 0" average groups has the same variation as a rifle shooting 5" groups. It's like frosting on a cake, a 1 layer cake has 1/4" of frosting; a 5 layer cake has 1/4" of frosting. 

You don't need a wicked accurate rifle or equipment to experiment. You DO need a lotta shots/groups to get reasonable estimates of any variable.

Anyone with a reasonable rifle can perform a meaningful experiment easily. But, you've gotta stop talking and start shooting.

 

 

 

 

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Larry Gibson posted this 01 September 2018

Agree with joe.

 

A "wickedly accurate" gun is not needed.  You just need to understand the basis of comparative analysis.  His example is valid.

Having multiple barrels of the same make to test one variable is also meaningless. Multiple barrels or guns of different makes for a valid reliable test if you understand comparative analysis.  Otherwise the implication is what works is only valid in the test guns, ergo no need to do as the winners do because we don't have their rifles.......

Blind testing is also simply not needed.  We just need to accurately report the factual results.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
frnkeore posted this 01 September 2018

If you can't control the variables, you can't test accurately.

Blind testing is one of the most important testing tools that we have. If you go into a test and have a bios, w/o blind testing, that bios will show, whether you believe it, or not and if that bios is presented enough times, people will start to take it as fact. Not good!

Don't poo poo, scientific testing. If you do your testing by scientific standards, you'll find that the results will be much more believable and many more people will support it. Naysayers, will not be able to defend themselves and people that oppose the results, will be forced to prove themselves right by the same standards, not just TALK.

JoeB, are you saying that if testing is done scientifically, that it won't be as reliable, or as good, as if you take a factory rifle, with unproven specifications and shoot the same amount of shoots?

How can you prove out case volume effects, with a factory rifle or even throat configurations and barrel harmonics?

These are things that are long over do and if CBA can prove out things, regarding CB accuracy, we can be at the forefront in this sport and maybe show competitive shooters, new ways to gain accuracy. 

Maybe this is the path to those reliable, under 1/2" 5 shot groups!

Frank

 

 

 

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 01 September 2018

I don't think joe meant experimenting/testing wasn't to be conducted "scientifically"....... I know I never meant it wasn't.  Neither of us "poo-pooed" scientific testing.  All my testing is conducted with scientific methods as close as I can. 

There are many variables in shooting, some we can control and some we can not control.....even in a "lab".  Brian Litz refers to these as "Deterministic Variables" and "Non-deterministic Variables".  The existence of the latter does not negate any serious scientific experiment/testing.   The non-deterministic variables can easily be understood and accounted for.  Testing to "scientific standards" also is not hard to accomplish. 

As to blind testing, it is your assumption that we go into test with bias, which may be your experience.  However, some of us, while conducting a test scientifically, view the objective of the test is to learn without bias.  We conduct the testing evenly throughout letting the test results speak for themselves.   I have, on three occasions during the last 10+ years, had several individuals with excellent shooting skills conduct a blind test as you, and others have suggested.  Their results mirrored the results I obtained.  No, conducting a blind test is not "one of the most important testing tools we have."  In my opinion it is mostly used as a reason not to accept the validity of someone else's testing.  Of all the "suggestions" you make and opinions you've offered how many have you validated with a blind test or with multiple barrels of the same make?  None is how many, you've conducted test and come up with results.......the same as the rest of us. 

"How can you prove out case volume effects, with a factory rifle or even throat configurations and barrel harmonics?"

Those can be some non-derministic variables that can just be accepted.  If not accepted then how about giving us a step by step "scientific" process to "prove them out" ?  You might tell us exactly what you mean by "prove out" too.

LMG

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 01 September 2018

I love this thread ..... THANKS, GUYS !!

because before we start donating and buying equipment, AND SPEND TIME JUST LOOKING AT TOYS ::

we need to

DEFINE OUR GOAL(S) .

*********

i must comment that in my wasted life as a toy car racer  ..... 

we tried hopping up slow engines .... not as good as building faster engines.

tried hopping up slow cars .... not as good as building faster cars.

************

?  could it be that we have tried everything for production factory rifles .... there is no hopping up left within the rules ?? ... 100,000 casters have tried for 100  years ...  so far, buying a lucky rifle is the best approach ....

{ to myself::  yes but have we really nailed down everything ::  is there actually any improvement from breech seating in production rifles ?? ... could the CBA team develop a breech seater that is fun to use in a bolt rifle ???  } 

****************

how about a  multiple choice of possible goals ?

1)   getting any rifle to shoot cast as well as it does jacketed.

2)   getting any rifle to shoot cast 1.5 times as well as it does jacketed.

3)   getting any rifle to shoot 300 rounds without experiencing any genuine fliers.

4)   getting an excellent rifle to shoot ( 1/2 moa ? ) a lot .

4)   this is fun, please add more.

ken

 

 

Attached Files

Ross Smith posted this 01 September 2018

These are all things each of us can do. A well defined course of action is all that is needed.

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 01 September 2018

To begin with LG, you tried to prove your "threshold" thing after concluding that it was a fact, in your past  experience.

You then took 3 completely different rifles, with different twists, barrels and chambers, loaded your own ammo and knew exactly what rifle and twist that you were shooting. You then concluded that you were right!

Through your testing and avocation of you being "right", I was posting that in CBA match results prove that you were in error. You proposed that CBA members weren't posting truthful equipment data.

Latter you "upped" your threshold figures, apparently w/o other testing. At least I'm not aware of that later testing, if it exists, please point us to it.

Now keep in mind, that a threshold is the beginning of something, in your case, the beginning of inferior accuracy yet, in CBA matches, people were getting superior accuracy in the area that it should have degraded, by your "scientific testing". I can suggest that the reason may be, because you had bios and unequal equipment in your testing.

"How can you prove out case volume effects, with a factory rifle or even throat configurations and barrel harmonics?"

Those can be some non-derministic variables that can just be accepted.  If not accepted then how about giving us a step by step "scientific" process to "prove them out" ?  You might tell us exactly what you mean by "prove out" too.

LMG

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just excepted? Why would anyone with a curious or scientific mind want that? If true, we have a chance to prove it, if faults, we can prove that, too.

Pick it apart, please but, this is how I would do it:

1. Start with the 30 Blackout (1.4 case, 30 cal).

Brake the barrel in with it, using a .309 x .12 freebore and a 3 deg lead. After beak in start the test, and then re-throat to 1 deg lead.

Test with 3 or 4 different bullets of varying design, at least one being a bore rider, such as the 311299 and or, the MX 30 ARD.

Next, re-chamber to 30 PPC, both leads.

Set the barrel back, 2 turns and re-chamber 30 BR, and both leads.

Then 308 Win x 1.75 long, both leads

Standard 308 Win, with same freebore and leads.

Last, 30-06, same freebore and leads.

All testing done blind by two different shooters.

Two test in one.

Frank

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 01 September 2018

If you can't control the variables, you can't test accurately.

Blind testing is one of the most important testing tools that we have. If you go into a test and have a bios,(BIAS) w/o blind testing, that bios, (BIAS) will show, whether you believe it, or not and if that bios,(BIAS) is presented enough times, people will start to take it as fact. Not good!

Don't poo poo, scientific testing. If you do your testing by scientific standards, you'll find that the results will be much more believable and many more people will support it.(THEM) Naysayers, will not be able to defend themselves and people that oppose the results, will be forced to prove themselves right by the same standards, not just TALK.

JoeB, are you saying that if testing is done scientifically, that it won't be as reliable, or as good, as if you take a factory rifle, with unproven specifications and shoot the same amount of shoots?(SHOTS)

How can you prove out case volume effects, with a factory rifle or even throat configurations and barrel harmonics(HARMONICS,WHAT ARE THEY)?

These are things that are long over do, (OVERDUE) and if CBA can prove out things, regarding CB accuracy, we can be at the forefront in this sport and maybe show competitive shooters, new ways to gain accuracy. 

Maybe this is the path to those reliable, under 1/2" 5 shot groups!

Frank

 

 

 

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 01 September 2018

OH, OH. The spelling police have got me!!!

Do I get bail or can I just go free like the illegals do?

JoeB, are you saying that you don't know what barrel harmonic are and what they can do?

If not, in short it's the barrels vibrations. Thin barrels vibrate more than thick barrels and long barrels vibrate more than short barrels.

Frank

Attached Files

David Reiss posted this 01 September 2018

Gentlemen,

Don't let this turn into another pissing match. I've had too many complaints on previous ones, John, Jeff and I have will have a light triggers from now on. 

David Reiss - NRA Life Member & PSC Range Member Retired Police Firearms Instructor/Armorer
-Services: Wars Fought, Uprisings Quelled, Bars Emptied, Revolutions Started, Tigers Tamed, Assassinations Plotted, Women Seduced, Governments Run, Gun Appraisals, Lost Treasure Found.
- Also deal in: Land, Banjos, Nails, Firearms, Manure, Fly Swatters, Used Cars, Whisky, Racing Forms, Rare Antiquities, Lead, Used Keyboard Keys, Good Dogs, Pith Helmets & Zulu Headdresses. .

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 01 September 2018

So now on top of reams of data we need to show perfect spelling and grammar before someone can be considered a "serious" cast bullet experimenter? No thanks I'll continue to leave the pencil and paper at home and do like I've always done, try things I know have the most chance of success and mess around with it until something works.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 01 September 2018

Frank

"knew exactly what rifle and twist that you were shooting. You then concluded that you were right!"

The conclusion was based on the results of thousands of cast bullets tested at various velocities in 4 different rifles. The on target results don't lie, the pressure measurements don't lie and neither do the chronograph measurements lie.  The "conclusion was based on the results.  That there is an RPM Threshold was/has also been tested and proven correct by not only me but a multitude of others in different rifles with like or different cartridges and twists of various calibers.  The original RPM values are for traditional cast bullets of ternary alloy.  I have ALWAYS said the RPM Threshold could be pushed up with different techniques and bullets of proper design.  I have proven the validity of the RPM Threshold and also that it can be pushed up.  You have not disproven either.  That's all beside the point here.  No need to keep beating that horse. 

But I have to ask, if using 3 different rifles chambered in the same cartridge but with different twists isn't valid in my testing then how would any testing done in a single rifle by a "blind" shooter be valid in any other rifle?   

Another question; do you understand what comparative analysis is and how it applies? 

Frank, I do like the idea of your test but aren't you using different chambers?  And in setting the barrel back aren't you adding other variables? If I compare the accuracy of my 30-06 and .308W with 10" twisty barrels of the same make (actually bought at the same time) is it not a valid test sing the chambers are different?   Oh well......

Actually I think Ken is onto it.  Have to set some goals.  I would only add that a specified number of shots per group and a specified numbers of groups be shot at a specified range.

LMG

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 02 September 2018

Bullet lube? Is there a standard

All bullets must be swaged to get best result. An oversized bore rider squeezed down to fit and make more round. Other wise just ho hum results as usual 😴

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 02 September 2018

It's simple LG, you can not come to a conclusion and then run a test, with out it being a blind test, to prove it. Ask any scientific experimenter, it's just not done, with any expectations of it being accurate.

I won't argue with you anymore about methods. I'm just looking for accuracy in testing. You can for sure say that a blind test will be accurate one though.

Regarding setting a barrel back 2 threads (1/8") it will effect the test as much as pulling a barrel and re-installing it.

Frank

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 02 September 2018

I've always liked the movie "Streets of Fire". In the movie, the soldier, Mc Coy, (Amy Madigan), asks what I consider to be one of the most important life questions: "Are we going to talk about it, or do it?"

Attached Files

Shopdog posted this 02 September 2018

Joe,some folks have been "doing it" for years.I have a 1/2 dz CB varmint rigs that will embarrass a lot of serious JB shooters. And pretty much get me a hefty speeding ticket when they blow through any posted "limits".

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 02 September 2018

Joe,some folks have been "doing it" for years.I have a 1/2 dz CB varmint rigs that will embarrass a lot of serious JB shooters. And pretty much get me a hefty speeding ticket when they blow through any posted "limits".
About your donation of time and materials. I'd like to have a piece of steel that would accept a 22 lr ctg up to the rim, and that allowed drilling a variable depth hole in the bullet. This tool would allow experiments re unbalanced/variable weight bullets. We could mail the tool around for experiments by multiple people.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 02 September 2018

Frank

 

Could be....so how about a blind test then.  I'll cost a blind test using 3 Identical rifles, including identical scopes, with the same make barrels chambered in 308W (same reamer, same gunsmith) but with 10, 12 and 14" twists.  When the rifles are finished we'll (or you can cast the bullets) cast up some bullets of your own design (NOE 311-165-FN) of any alloy you decide, size to fit the throats and lube with whatever lube you choose.  After whatever barrel break in you prescribe we'll load your bullets with loads that gives 3 velocity levels; 1900 fps, 2200 fps and 2500 fps.  I'll travel to what ever range you want and you can select the "blind shooters".  They'll fire 100 rounds (I suggest 10 ten shot groups?) at 100, 200 and 300 yards not knowing which twist barrel or which load is used.  We won't know either as each load batch will be coded by a third party.   The "code" will be in a sealed envelope only to be opened after the shooting is done to identify which rifle, shooter, load was used on each target. 

Obviously that is a lot of shooting/testing to get done under "identical" conditions unless, of course, you have a 300 yard climatically controlled indoor range available?  If not as I certainly don't have one I suggest we shoot each load on separate days.  That's 3 days of shooting so each blind shooter will need to be able to shoot 1,000 accurate shots per day to try to keep the "conditions" the same for all3 blind shooters. 

We''ll track the groups by shooter and by code with each target being marked.  We'll also chronograph every shot fired and track the MV, SD and ES of each group/target.  We'll need 2700 rounds of each velocity load to satisfy joe's necessity of 100 shots needed for "data" validity for a total of 8,100 rounds plus any sighter/foulers that may be needed.  Lets call it an even 9,000 rounds. I suggest cleaning the barrels between test groups or at least between ranges with each blind shooter?  When the shooting is done we can have one or more third parties measure the groups size.

Then we can correlate the date per shooter per target per range per rifle.  The accuracy with each load from each rifle at each range will then be self apparent based on no preconceived "bias".

So, I'll cost all that out and PM you the estimate.  When I receive the funds from you for the rifles/scopes I'll get started on my end.  You can cast the bullets and line up every thing to load the ammo on your end .....and line up the "blind" shooters, range etc.

The above is somewhat ridiculous but it points out just how out of reach "blind testing" can be, especially when it meets the "requirements" many here are dreaming up to "prove" something.  The cost factor alone makes such testing almost prohibitive.  I know Frank would simply respond with something like "it's your theory you have to prove it" as he has responded so in the past. 

Let me ask several questions;

How many test results posted in the Fouling shot that have been validated by a "blind test"?

How many of the test results printed in the Fouling Shot have been questioned and discounted, even by Frank, because there wasn't a "blind test" conducted?  

How many times have such test results posted in the Fouling Shot been referenced as factual results on this forum?

How many times have the record groups and scores shot in CBA matches been used as "proof" on this forum?  Have any of those ever been validated by a "blind test"? 

I think I'm in agreement with pat i, I'll just keep testing in the manner I have been to find what works.....

LMG

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 02 September 2018

what we really need is a good war where we can only shoot cast bullets ... then we could get a grant sufficient to research to the nth ... or n^nth ... practicickle of cast possibilities.

speaking of which ... anybody read Stephen Hunter's * Master Sniper *  ??   my review gives it a 6.5 ...  cast bullet go to war ...


*********

meanwhile, keep those cards and letters coming in ... maybe we could organize further study on:

breech seater for bolt rifles

cheep design and technique for ?bumping? castings.

ok, what is the best throat taper ??  ken thinks 1/4 degree, winners are using 3 degree ...  hmmm ...

or for production rifles, which is the most likely to succeed  with cast ... and why ?    or is that secret divulged in the national records ??   

***********

probably should pick one pretty soon and get started .  i really think we don't need a huge budget.

ken

 

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 02 September 2018

LG,

Please cost it out for us and we'll submit it to CBA. We won't need 3 scopes and actions though, just the same mount and 3 barrels, by the same smith.

This can be a opportunity to produce a book like Cast Bullets, by Col. E. H. Harrison.

Our target records and match results, at the moment, are the only real results that we have to learn from.

Other than the above, we don't have anyway to test out accuracy improvements. Comparing different variables, is the only way to do that.

Frank

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 02 September 2018

Frank

Do you really think having 3 shooters shooting 900+ shots apiece out of one rifle in one day for three days straight is going to work? 

Let's really consider what is involved, not counting the cost, using three rifles.  Do you really believe each of the three shooters is going to shoot 900 rounds per day?  If we consider at 1 shot per minute that requires 15 hours of shooting per day w/o breaks, barrel cooling, etc. for each shooter.  If we use one rifle that triples the time required.   Apparently you fail to consider the absurdity of either.  If we realistically stretch the test using three rifles out to shooting 10 shots every 20 minutes that takes 900 twenty minute strings or 300 hours of shooting or 100 hours per shooter.  If we shoot 8 hours per day (actual shooting time) that amounts to 12.5 days of shooting for this test. 

If you do it with one rifle switching barrels you triple the time required to 37.5 days of shooting........unless you have that climate controlled indoor range available how can you, I or anyone believe the "variables" of conditions will remain constant?  That's not even considering the ability of the blind shooters to remain constant. 

Surely even you, Frank, must be beginning to see the absurdity of what you are suggesting must be done........?

Frankly, I don't see a need for such a test. Have you any concept of what the cost would be for this type of "research"?  The cost would be prohibitive not only for me but you and even CBA.  So let's simplify things, we see you are interested in a "throating test" and have given some details on it. 

So why don't you gear up for that test and conduct it including a "blind test"?  Kind of like to show us how a scientific test is done. Be nice to see actual test results you've completed. 

You are also telling us that you using all the match results (groups) are alright for you to compare w/o a blind test?  But haven't they all been shot with different rifles, different barrels, different chambers, different loads, different bullets, different shooters, different times, different ranges under different conditions, etc.......you tell us this is okay because you're "comparing different variables" so you can come to a conclusion based on the group sizes......and that is valid?  But when I use 3 different rifles shooting the same load, same bullet, same cartridge with the same shooter under the same range conditions on the same day to test a specific variable (rate of twist) and reach a conclusion based on the size of the of the individual rifles groups compared only to the other groups that rifle has shot that day you tell us that is not valid because there wasn't a blind test ....... whatever....... 

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 03 September 2018

Lg,

You offered, I merely took you up on it. Apparently, you weren't sincere.

1. I don't really think that anyone cares about your RPM test, although it is something that, at a later date could be done, scientifically.

2. Don't try to put words in my mouth! What I was indicating, is that match results and records are the ONLY available info that we have to work with, it's not scientific info but, things that have worked for people and the rifles, they have used. I said NOTHING about it being comparable to blind testing! It can give a direction, to start to work with though, especially when people use similar equipment to produce they're results.

But, with the help of CBA, we have a chance to produce scientific evidence to help shooters in ALL classes and maybe fine new things to enhance accuracy, even further, in one or more classes.

3. I'll ask a question that you'll probably ignore:

Would you be willing to believe a test that I did, after I said that a .309 freebore will be more accurate than a .310 freebore, If I did the testing w/o it being a blind test or having someone else, do the testing?

The CBA, willing, very good things can come of this and a book could be written by CBA, that would be the standard that ALL CB shooters could refer to, to better their CB experience.

I can't see it being anything but, a win-win for CBA. ISSA and ASSRA may contribute to it also, when it involves the PB testing. I would certainly advertise it in those groups.

Frank

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 03 September 2018

Frank

"3. I'll ask a question that you'll probably ignore:

Would you be willing to believe a test that I did, after I said that a .309 freebore will be more accurate than a .310 freebore, If I did the testing w/o it being a blind test or having someone else, do the testing?"

No, I won't ignore your questions like you've ignored mine.  Yes, I would believe a test like that whether you did it or anyone else as long as you presented/posted how you conducted the test and the actual on target or measured results.  If a test, even a simple one, is conducted properly to evaluate one variable the results can be accurate w/o a blind test.  As long as you, I or anyone else conducts a test properly, even the simple tests, then a blind test really proves nothing. 

We all know you don't like me and I don't like you.  The difference between us is if you present your results of a test I don't question your integrity demanding a blind test. I let the results of your test speak for themselves.  I don't criticize you for not conducting your test "scientifically" because I realize all the financial, logistical and other variable that are required for any shooting test. I do not criticize everything you do because I don't like or because I disagree with something else you've done.  I let the results of your testing speak for itself.

There are many on this forum and on CBF that do care about the RPM tests I conducted.  They care because they now understand why they can't shoot HV jacketed velocities with cast bullets accurately in their 30-06. No, most shooters, like yourself do not care about the RPM testing because they, yourself included, do not shoot cast bullets at HV or high RPM.  You have stated that you don't yourself.  Because others or yourself do not use cast bullets at HV/RPM does not negate the results obtained in my testing or the conclusions. 

The RPM testing did take a long time, several years actually.  It took thousands of rounds fired using different load and different cast bullets out of different rifles,  It required the measuring of thousands of  pressures and velocities and it involved not only myself conducting the testing but several others.  Many of the results were verified through repeat testing. The testing was conducted as scientifically as possible as that of any testing done by you, other CBA members and the firearms industry.  The results of all that testing of cast bullets at HV consistently validates the adverse affect that RPM has on cast bullets in particular [RPM, or the centrifugal force created by it, has an adverse effect on jacketed bullets also].

A question for you if you won't ignore it again;

Have you ever conducted the simple RPM test with your 30-06 and your 311-165-FN cast bullet that I've suggested you do numerous times?

LMG

 

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 03 September 2018

A question for you if you won't ignore it again;

Have you ever conducted the simple RPM test with your 30-06 and your 311-165-FN cast bullet that I've suggested you do numerous times?

LMG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have answered this question, long ago.

I have no interest in your RPM thing, my interest is in accuracy. Your test has no relevancy to match accuracy! If it did, I would have been all over it and would have tested it. Your best HV rifle, doesn't have that kind of accuracy. It seems that your most accurate rifle, is the Russian one that you say that you shoot in matches. Since the CBA club that you shoot with, never post any results on this forum or, the FS we don't even know that.

Regarding you criticizing me, you never miss a opportunity to do so, this subject being just one. It's a opportunity to do something scientific, regarding the accuracy of CB's and your against it, most likely because I suggested it.

There were many faults, in your testing, this is a opportunity to eliminate any of that and do something that may be questioned but, no one can say it wasn't done right.

If you want to continue arguing your point, with me, please continue it in PM's as I'm sure this is getting close to the monitors limit.

Frank

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 03 September 2018

Frank

"I have no interest in your RPM thing, my interest is in accuracy. Your test has no relevancy to match accuracy! If it did, I would have been all over it and would have tested it."

Well that certainly validates your continual criticism of my testing........your lack of interest and your lack of any 1st hand knowledge on the topic.  Since you won't even conduct the simplest of tests to prove it to yourself, one way or the other your continual criticism certainly lacks substance..........

BTW; my M39 I use in competition is indeed a very accurate cast bullet shooter.  However, it will not do what my "best" HV rifle will do.  These have been posted before.  Your apparent lack of knowledge regarding my actual HV shooting goes to your "lack of interest" perhaps.  My M39 will not hold moa to 600 yards with 10 shot groups as does my "best" HV rifle. 

Both of these were shot with the 30x60 XCB rifle using the 30 XCB bullet at 2900+ fps.  First is a BA target shot for score at 200 yards. Second is an 11 shot group shot at 600 yards. 

As to why the Pheonix boys don't post scores on CBA is between them and the powers that be at CBA.  I have nothing to do with that.  I have offered to you to post match results here but that was one of the many unanswered questions by you.  I can still post?

Yes this conversation has run it's course with your admitted lack of interest and obvious lack of knowledge regarding what I shoot and how my tests are conducted.  Perhaps when you're interested and have an open mind we can discuss it again.  Enjoy your shooting

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

harleyrock posted this 03 September 2018

That rifle sure has a pretty stock!  What kind of wood is that?  Ed Harris is that your gun?

Lifetime NRA since 1956, NRA Benefactor, USN Member, CBA Member

Attached Files

Close