RPM ACCURACY THRESHOLD

  • 14K Views
  • Last Post 16 January 2016
CB posted this 25 November 2007

I'm reading references to an “rpm threshold” beyond which accuracy diminishes. Can't find anything on the search places. Can somebody tell me what it's all about or direct me to a source? Has top do with twist and mv etc.

Thanks;

joe b. 

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
RicinYakima posted this 25 November 2007

Never heard of such a limit, so when you get any information post it here. Ric

Attached Files

shooter93 posted this 25 November 2007

I've been looking for the stuff and formula myself....I'm curious because it may very well have some merit...a point where rpm alone is just to great for the bullet to hang together. I've seen it with j-bullets. I built a fast twist gain twist swift Ackely to shoot 75, 80 gr. bullets. On a whim I laoded 50's as fast as I could. I had some cross the screens WELL over 4,000 fps but they never made the 100 yd. target...they just came apart.

Attached Files

shooter93 posted this 25 November 2007

There also seems to be a correlation between the two...both with cast and J-bullets if you study match results.....we know the velocity they are shooting...bullet weight and the twist rate....the twist rates vary which I'm assuming at this point is a rpm based decsision.

Attached Files

Idaho Sharpshooter posted this 25 November 2007

And the answer is...variable.

Draw a circle. Put crosshairs on the first one. That junction represents the geometric center of the projectile. Now, figure in production tolerances of .002” variation in jacket thickness. Make the bullet. Now put a dot as close as you can to the crosshair junction without touching it. With an imperfect jacketed bullet, or a cast one with a microscopic void, the dot represents the center of weight. See where this is heading...? Inside the barrel that bullet is spinning perfectly round. Once it leaves, those two different centers force the bullet to rotate slightly out of exact crosshair center trying to do a balancing act between those two bullet centers, which, if driven fast enough; will rupture the jacketed bullet, and cause the cast bullet to veer off course at some point. The faster you spin the bullet with velocity or twist, the tougher that bullet jacket or casting has to be. Finding the RPM is fairly straightforward. Take the twist rate and divide by twelve. Twelve inches in a foot translates into 1 revolution. Take a 1:12” twist in a 24” barrelled 308W with a velocity of 3000fps. Per revolution inside the barrel is 3,000RPS. Times 60 seconds per minute (60x3000) the RPM is a heady 180,000RPM. Shoot that bullet at 1600fps and the RPM is 96,000. Guess which is easier on the bullet? Guess which is (generally) more accurate a load? Matching a bullet length (actually bearing surface is a more accurate method, but we have trouble getting an accurate reading) and using the Greenhill Formula is still the best place to start. I have a friend at Picatinny Arsenal who does projectile calculations for the DoD. He wrote most of the stuff Sierra uses these days. He just says that minimum RPM is best, as long as it stabilizes the projectile by about 35 feet from muzzle. There's more to it than that, but it's too late on a Sunday night to get into Transonic Instability and Laminar Flow Boundaries.

Rich

Attached Files

shooter93 posted this 26 November 2007

I think that's correct Idaho shooter. There has to be a point where rpm's would alter the shape and flight of any projectile...the more variables involved...and you'd have the most with cast bullets...the greater or sooner the effect. I think this is what many people refer to as.."over Stablized"...a term which makes no sense. It is either stable or not, it's then a matter of the drgree of not being stabilized. Back many years ago Ed Shilen was working with the 222...222 mag and then the 222-1/2. He was looking nit just for load densities but also 100% load density at a specific velocity range. Then he started on different twist rates...often non typical ones for caliber which you see more of now adays. Now this was j-bullets but everything that applies to them also applies to cast bullets but in greater terms. If suoer hard lube are lost unevenly once a bullet exits the barrel...and they can and do....and this effects stability and accuracy then ANY inaccuracy in the bullet will do the same to one extent or another. Using your example of a small air pocket at some rpm the bullet would become wildly unstable. And it does seem the 100,000 rpm range give or take seems to be the threshold for maximun accuracy with cast bullets most are used to using.

Attached Files

CB posted this 27 November 2007

There are a lot more posts on this topic on CAST BOOLITS, where the CBA shooters, twists and RPMs are mentioned.

I went through the CBA 2006 National Match results, made a spreadsheet showing the TWIST, MV and RPM of the entrant's guns.

            Taking out those with gain twist, then the SS Breech Seaters, the RPM varied from 158,400 down to 96075, with an average of 125578.

            The workbook is attached.

 

There's a lot on the 30BR and short bullets and slow twists at http://www.6mmbr.com/30BR.html

 

I suspect that short light bullets are easier to shoot accurately, hence the references to 100-125 grain .30 caliber bullets.

 

Greenhill says that in 30 caliber, a 10” twist will stabilize a bullet 1.42” long, which would weigh ~250 grains. It says that a 15” twist, for examploe, will stabilize a bullet .95” long weighing ~166 grains. All Cast bullets.

I think it's clear that 30 caliber twists are generally “faster than needed", that slower twists with shorter lighter bullets are easier to shoot and torque on the bags less.

My impression is that gain twist and slow twist barrels are “easier on the bullet” as the bullet accelerates in rotation.

joe b. 

Attached Files

CB posted this 29 November 2007

Here's a summary of the 2006, 2007 CBA NM RPMs, and the workbook.

2006 CBA NM

RPM

Average            125,578

>150,000                     1

140,000-150,000            6

130,000-140,000            3

120,000-130,000            10

110,000-120,000            9

100,000-110,000            4

<100,000                     1         

 

2007 CBA NM

RPM

Average            132,246

>150,000                     2

140,000-150,000            6

130,000-140,000            12

120,000-130,000            6

110,000-120,000            7

100,000-110,000            9

<100,000                     2                     

           

Eliminated = unknown and PBB.

joe b.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 30 November 2007

I'd venture a guess and say it's not RPMs that causes a breakdown in accuracy but gas cutting on the sides of the bullets. As RPMs increase, so should chamber pressure. At a point the pressure is to high for the alloy.

I'm making my judgement based off the table in Lee's latest reloading book that relates how hard of an alloy is needed for levels of chamber pressure.

Just a thought and I think this is why Joe thought he had to eliminate PBB from the table as they are susceptible to gas cutting at a very eary pressure level.

Joe, I'm not criticizing here.  Just trying to offer my opinion that this may be being looked at from the wrong angle.

Attached Files

CB posted this 30 November 2007

billwnr wrote: I'm making my judgement based off the table in Lee's latest reloading book that relates how hard of an alloy is needed for levels of chamber pressure.

The notion that pressure and bullet hardness and accuracy are related through some formula is nonsense and has been shown to be so.

Nonsense.

joe b. 

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 30 November 2007

Thank you for your humble opinion.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 30 November 2007

Mr Humble One, one more thing I would propose as a candidate for considering is some of the rifles have shallow angles on the throats and some of the Production class rifles have the factory throat angles. This may affect the “max RPM” thought you are fixated upon.

The “skid start” of the factory throats cause problems.

Attached Files

CB posted this 30 November 2007

Joe Brennan wrote: The notion that pressure and bullet hardness and accuracy are related through some formula is nonsense and has been shown to be so.

Nonsense.

joe b. 

The notion that bullet rpm (a calculation almost 600 times actual flight-time) as relevance to accuracy is nonsense and established twist rate formulas show so.

Nonsense.

Dan W.

Attached Files

Idaho Sharpshooter posted this 30 November 2007

The beauty of this forum is that you can say anything you want to, and never be called to task for it. You can, however, show yourself to be a fool rather easily. Joe, I think you are on the threshold....

Rich

Attached Files

CB posted this 30 November 2007

Idaho Sharpshooter wrote: The beauty of this forum is that you can say anything you want to, and never be called to task for it. Rich Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your view point) this isn't the only forum that suffers this disease. I think it's a pandemic.

Attached Files

CB posted this 01 December 2007

Idaho Sharpshooter wrote: The beauty of this forum is that you can say anything you want to, and never be called to task for it. You can, however, show yourself to be a fool rather easily. Joe, I think you are on the threshold....

Rich

Rich;

Probably you are right, I am a fool.  

The matter of applying formulas to bullet hardness, arriving at pressure numbers and somehow equating that with accuracy can be understood best by looking at these:

1984 “Jacketed Performance With Cast Bullets"  by Veral Smith

TFS 81 Sep-Oct 1989  “Match Wheelgun And Load Preparation" 

TFS 86-3, July-August 1990

1991 “Bullet Making Annual” article, Pg 17

TFS 96 Mar-Apr 1992 “Technical Dialogue"

TFS 102- 4 Mar-Apr 1993 Interpolating Pressure for Correct BHN

TCB 116 Jul-Aug 1995  “More on Chamber Pressure and BHN"

TFS 131-10 Jan-Feb 1998 “Still More On Chamber Pressure And BHN"

Handloader 226 December 2003 , starting on pg.6, 

2003 Modern Reloading, Second Edition, Richard Lee

For a comprehensive treatment of the topic, see “Cast Bullets For Beginner And Expert", Second Edition, 3.3 Cast Bullet Hardness Requirements.

As far as I can determine this notion was first presented by C. E. Harris, who has written about it on this forum in the recent past. Everything written on the subject since seems to be based on the original article. Ed has also written about “The Load", in the past and here on this forum.

I have pointed out, here, on this forum, in great detail, that the pressure/hardness/accuracy rule propounded is wildly inconsistent with pressures, accuracy and bullet hardness of “The Load".

Now a fool such as myself would think that this inconsistency calls into question the validity of both propositions, that the hardness business and the “The Load” business should be at least examined in detail.

This particularly because  "Cast Bullets For Beginner And Expert", Second Edition, 3.3 Cast Bullet Hardness Requirements provides substantial evidence that the  hardness notion is nonsense.

But I am a fool, and you are a genius. You're not alone here.

Best of luck;

joe b.

 

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 01 December 2007

Joe, I won't pussyfoot around this morning. I really don't care what you know or think you know...but the way you express yourself you are a #$^*( pain in the butt. I'm surprised people continue to associate with you. One thing that gets me is how you come up with some wingding idea, propose it..someone else improves it..and then you claim it as your own.

Attached Files

Idaho Sharpshooter posted this 02 December 2007

Whatever...

Rich

Attached Files

CB posted this 02 December 2007

billwnr wrote: Joe, I won't pussyfoot around this morning. I really don't care what you know or think you know...but the way you express yourself you are a #$^( pain in the butt. I'm surprised people continue to associate with you. One thing that gets me is how you come up with some wingding idea, propose it..someone else improves it..and then you claim it as your own. "Joe, I won't pussyfoot around this morning. I really don't care what you know or think you know...but the way you express yourself you are a #$^( pain in the butt."

Thanks for writing in, I was beginning to think it wasn't working!

"I'm surprised people continue to associate with you."

I think some can't help themselves, they're so mad!!

"One thing that gets me is how you come up with some wingding idea, propose it..someone else improves it..and then you claim it as your own."

I like to claim all the credit for all ideas and innovations, regardless of who actually came up with the idea. Why share the credit with others?

joe b.

Inventor of the inclined plane, wheels on luggage, the internal combustion engine, trigonometry, short pants and the Baldwin apple.

Attached Files

Idaho Sharpshooter posted this 02 December 2007

Joe makes the distinction between symbiotic and parasitic relationships...

I can understand why some knowledgeable/experienced shooters choose not to share information here now.

Perhaps the answer if for the CBA to copyright the forum, threads and responses, leaving commercial usage to only the poster or the CBA.

Rich

Attached Files

CB posted this 02 December 2007

Okay gents, this seems to be going to a place I don't want it to go..

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and views. I think that perhaps this has gone far enough.

I acknowledge everyone's viewpoint, but this has turned into a spittin match, and I don't allow no spittin here.

Attached Files

Chargar posted this 26 August 2011

There is no need to copyright anything anymore. All Intellectual Property is automatically copywrited. Of course the problem is proving that you thunk it up first.

I doubt if loading data falls under the copyright laws anyway. But I could be wrong.

Perhaps there is some commercial use for some of the stuff we bat around on these boards, but my personal feeling is folks won't share stuff for one of three reasons;

  1. It doesn't work. There is a fair amount of nonsense on these boards.
  2. They are afraid somebody will use it and get hurt and they might be liable.
  3. Knowledge they say is power and keeping it to themselves makes them feel more powerful.

Attached Files

.22-10-45 posted this 10 May 2012

Hello, Joe. I believe Tom Grey did a couple of write-ups in the Fouling Shot in the mid-to late 90's. He termed it “twist Limited” when describing the velocity ceiling due to the barrel's twist rate.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 11 May 2012

Here's where I am on this. A rifled barrel causes a bullet to rotate; RPM is determined by MV. RPM diminishes slightly/slowly over flight time/distance. Bullets don't become unstable at medium/longer ranges where V has fallen. Thus, neither V nor MV has a lot to do with stability or twist required. Twist required is mainly determined by diameter and length of the bullet, at some ??~~1400??BP?? fps MV; and only slightly by delta MV or temp or pressure or specific gravity or moon phase. There is some agreement that minimum twist = min RPM = better accuracy. Therefore, there is some rpm accuracy threshold, fairly wide and not very steep. Which doesn't matter, because it's all about twist. Least fast twist for stability is best. joe b.

Attached Files

Pigslayer posted this 11 May 2012

Jeff Bowles wrote: Okay gents, this seems to be going to a place I don't want it to go..

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and views. I think that perhaps this has gone far enough.

I acknowledge everyone's viewpoint, but this has turned into a spittin match, and I don't allow no spittin here. I concur!!! Stop spittin! For me this has been the friendliest forum I've ever been on. Let's get along.

Pat Reynolds

If someone else had of done to me what I did to myself . . . I'd have killed him. Humility is an asset. Heh - heh.

Attached Files

codarnall posted this 12 May 2012

SOURCE:

BALLISTICS- THEORY AND DESIGN OF GUNS AND AMMUNITION, CARLUCCI,JACOBSON ISBN 13:978-1-4200-6618-0 hard cover

Attached Files

codarnall posted this 12 May 2012

In very simple terms , the rotational resistance of torque on the bullet cannot exceed the shear strength of bearing surface, copper or lead etc. Lead about 12000psi. This has nothing to do with the dynamic or static stability of the bullet itself. Those are separate subjects. Charlie

Attached Files

Chargar posted this 21 October 2012

codarnall wrote: In very simple terms , the rotational resistance of torque on the bullet cannot exceed the shear strength of bearing surface, copper or lead etc. Lead about 12000psi. This has nothing to do with the dynamic or static stability of the bullet itself. Those are separate subjects. Charlie

I know this is an old thread and the subject has been beaten around for years on several boards and most often has produced more heat than light. I AM NOT a science type nor have I played one on TV, but here is what I feel strongly on the subject as one who has shot these cast bullets for some time now.

  1. The twist of a barrel will put limits on how fast a bullet can be driven with accuracy due to the increase in RPM, all things being equal.

  2. With cast bullets the number, width and depth of the lands and grooves is also a factor.

  3. I strongly suspect the above quoted answer is closer to the truth that any thing else I have heard advanced. It has always been my theory, but my lack of science and math know how limits my ability to get this accross.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 22 October 2012

I spent a lot of time on this and was never able to find a mathematical relationship between twist, rpm and accuracy. Lilja, Berger and others opine that least twist with stability is most accurate. 7.9 in the book. Several twist formulas got examined, explained and graphed. In the book. Re 1 below, the arithmetic etc about bullet bulge or blow up vs rpm is examined and is in the book. Re 2 below, seems to be true, I have no data.Many of us have seen very damaged barrels shoot very well. I did learn that 314299, 308 Win with charges down to 6/IMR4227 did NOT keyhole or elongate at 100 yards, in a 12” twist Striker. <1000fps. Stability may NOT be strongly connected to MV or rpm. joe b.

Chargar wrote:

I know this is an old thread and the subject has been beaten around for years on several boards and most often has produced more heat than light. I AM NOT a science type nor have I played one on TV, but here is what I feel strongly on the subject as one who has shot these cast bullets for some time now.

  1. The twist of a barrel will put limits on how fast a bullet can be driven with accuracy due to the increase in RPM, all things being equal.

  2. With cast bullets the number, width and depth of the lands and grooves is also a factor.

  3. I strongly suspect the above quoted answer is closer to the truth that any thing else I have heard advanced. It has always been my theory, but my lack of science and math know how limits my ability to get this accross.

Attached Files

Chargar posted this 22 October 2012

Joe... I hate, loath, dispise and abominate math so I can't comment on anything math related. All I do is shoot targets and look at them when done.

Attached Files

Ed Harris posted this 22 October 2012

Dr. Robert L. McCoy was director of the Ballistic Research Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground and also an ardent highpower match shooter and hunter.  It was my pleasure to work with Dr. McCoy and his mentor William C. Davis, Dr. on several projects when I was with NRA.  His book may be found in college engineering libraries.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/modern-exterior-ballistics-robert-l-mccoy/1112312137>http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/modern-exterior-ballistics-robert-l-mccoy/1112312137

Overview

Modern Exterior Ballistics is a comprehensive text covering the basic free flight dynamics of symmetric projectiles. The book provides a historical perspective of early developments in the 19th century, the technology leading to World War I and that through World War II into the modern post-war era. Historical topics include the first ballistic firing tables, early wind tunnel experiments, the development of free flight spark ranges and the first supercomputer, ENIAC, which was designed to compute artillery trajectories for the U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory. The level of the text requires an undergraduate education in mathematics, physics, and mechanical or aerospace engineering. The basic principles of ballistic science are developed from a comprehensive definition of the aerodynamic forces that control the flight dynamics of symmetric projectiles. The author carefully starts with the basic vacuum point mass trajectory, adds the effects of drag, discusses the action of winds, simple flat fire approximations, Coriolis effects and concludes with the classic modified point mass trajectories. Included in the discussion are analytical methods, change of variables from time to distance, numerical solutions and a chapter on the Siacci Method. The Siacci Method provides a historical perspective for computing flat fire trajectories by simple quadrature and is used in the sporting arms industy. The final six chapters of the book present an extensive physical and mathematical analysis of the motion of symmetric projectiles. The linearized equations of angular and swerving motion are derived in detail. The effects of mass asymmetry, in-bore yaw, cross wind and launch in a slipstream arediscussed. Special consideration is given to the derivation and explanation of aerodynamic jump. These subjects are then expanded to include a complete chapter on nonlinear aerodynamic forces and moments. The final chapter in the book presents an overview of experimental methods for measuring the flight dynamics of projectiles. The great forte of Modern Exterior Ballistics is the author's effort to provide many fine specific examples of projectile motion illustrating key flight behaviors. The extensive collection of data on projectiles from small arms to artillery used to substantiate calculations and examples is alone a valuable reference. The ultimate joy of the book is the incomparable comprehensive set of flow field shadow graphs illustrating the entire spectrum of projectile flight from subsonic, through transonic and supersonic. The volume is a necessary addition to any undergraduate or graduate course in flight dynamics.

See also: http://www.nennstiel-ruprecht.de/bullfly/index.htm>http://www.nennstiel-ruprecht.de/bullfly/index.htm

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011ballistics/11894.pdf>http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011ballistics/11894.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniiisiewert.pdf>http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniiisiewert.pdf

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 22 October 2012

Ed,

Herr Nennstiel's paper is the best for we layman, but sometimes it is better for us to just say “It's magic” and let it go at that. The why's can get very messy with my old brain.

Ric

Attached Files

Ed Harris posted this 22 October 2012

Ric, I agree with you. The accredited and authoritative references were listed for the benefit of readers who are not satisfied with anything simple.

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

Chargar posted this 22 October 2012

I went to a Pentacostal church one time and heard folks speak in tongues, but Dr. Mcoy can write in tongues.

I like simple!

Attached Files

madsenshooter posted this 05 November 2012

What seems to have been determined on cb was that the term “RPM Threshold” was just that. Not a ceiling which one could not go above, but a matter of semantics, someone's terminology for the point where everything went to h### with a given alloy/load. In some instances, the RPM of the bullet may have been the factor that got the load to that point, then again, maybe not. Pressure seemed to be my biggest nemesis when I was working with 6mm 5R rifled Obermeyer barrel. Bullet fit was also a factor. I have to get back to that experiment, got a new mold to try out that'll fit the bore better.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=121224&highlight=6x45

Attached Files

EDG posted this 21 December 2012

It seems there would be a good answer for this tempest. Simply take a sample of identical barrels with varying twists and chamber for the 38-55.

The fast twist can be 1-10 and the slow can be 1-20. There are also 1-12, 1-16 and 1-18 twist barrels.

Just pick a half dozen reasonable loads and try them in all the twists and see what the results are.

Attached Files

runfiverun posted this 21 December 2012

it was allready done with a 308... that testing was done in conjunction with a pressure graph test,and a lineal dispersion test. all that was proved was that certain boolit molds didn't take the higher velocity's better. and the “threshhold” was just a jumping off place to needing a better boolit/case fit,better alloy,and specialized loading techniques. the “threshold” is the lower limit when all of the above are applied. better results and higher velocity's are achievable with a slower twist rate without employing them.

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 21 December 2012

I have 30 caliber barrels in 10,11,13,14, and 17 twist chambered in either 30 BR or 30 PPC and no one will ever convince me that barrels don't have a twist limit/RPM threshold. People who actually tried different twists and don't claim to shoot 1/2 inch groups with everything they put on the bench don't say that they go from one inch groups to 5 inches once the twist limit is reached but accuracy will deteriorate over a certain RPM no matter what they do fit/reloading trick wise. What should be a glaring red flag by people who claim the limit is BS and that guys who can't best it just don't know how to reload or shoot is their reluctance to prove it in public. It's easy for folks to bad rap the CBA match program and claim there's better shooters out there but there's no ignoring 2 shots out of a 5 shot group or shooting at 25 yds and claiming it's 100 when there's other shooters sitting right next to you that you're not related to.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 21 December 2012

Oh No Pat! You touched the sore spot, again. The “keyboard” and “internet” shooters are going to be unhappy. If it doesn't happen under a CBA match program, in front of other shooters, it doesn't exist. As far as accuracy goes, if it doesn't happen at CBA, ASSRA or some other nationally recognized organization, it is BS. They know it and we know it.

Attached Files

linoww posted this 21 December 2012

22 cast bullets seem to respond well(or better) to higher velocity.Why?

george

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 22 December 2012

Don't know why but can only assume that it's because the inclusions and defects are closer to the centerline of the bullet. I found this with my 6.5 PPC which I could run at 1700 fps and 156,000 rpm with the 8 twist barrel. My only conclusion and one I've written in the past is that the smaller the caliber the higher the twist limit is. Remember I said that accuracy wouldn't be AS good after an optimum twist was chosen not that it wouldn't be completely usable for it's intended purpose. Personally I think for 30 caliber about 130,000 rpm or so is at the upper end for best accuracy and I think the CBA match reports and records bear me out. Maybe for 6.5s it's 160,000 and for .22s it's 190,000. I don't know because except for the one example all my cast bullet shooting has centered around the .30 calibers.

Attached Files

linoww posted this 22 December 2012

is it just surface area related ?

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 22 December 2012

George I'm a simple guy with a simple mind so the best way for me to explain what I think is going on is to use a washing machine example. The spindle in the middle of the tub is the centerline of the bullet, a single piece of clothes on one side of the tub would be an inclusion. When the tub first starts the spin cycle and is going relatively slow there's not much commotion going on but once the thing really gets up to speed it's banging and hopping around like crazy. You'd have to have an even simpler mind than I have to think for one minute that our cast bullets aren't full of defects and inclusions. The larger the bullet diameter is the farther away from the centerline a problem could exist. Maybe I'm all wet but from my own personal experience I don't think I am.

Attached Files

linoww posted this 22 December 2012

I had thought for a given twist a larger bullet has more surface area to heat up and otherwise get out of shape.I figured by the time a small bullet gets down the bore it as had much less total surface area rubbing the bore.That's it for my theory stuff.

George

Attached Files

runfiverun posted this 10 January 2016

nope it's centerline just like hornady shows in the front of the reloading manual. that's how you get around the rmp thingy.

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 10 January 2016

A topic bought back from the dead.

I want it to be known that this forum is not going to become the new RPM or 6.5 Swede battle ground as long as I'm a moderator. People are allowed to believe whatever they want and as long as the conversation remains civil I say discuss your heads off but if things start going south the thread will be closed. A certain bughole shooter from another forum is already talking about signing up here to get the battle underway but I suggest he thinks twice about it because his stay will be short lived if I have a say in it.

Attached Files

357Maximum posted this 10 January 2016

pat i. wrote: A topic bought back from the dead.

I want it to be known that this forum is not going to become the new RPM or 6.5 Swede battle ground as long as I'm a moderator. People are allowed to believe whatever they want and as long as the conversation remains civil I say discuss your heads off but if things start going south the thread will be closed. A certain bughole shooter from another forum is already talking about signing up here to get the battle underway but I suggest he thinks twice about it because his stay will be short lived if I have a say in it.

Quite the thread necropsy.   I do not post much here, I mostly just read, but I applaud what you wrote there Pat.  Good form.:dude:  The cancer has already ruined one forum for all and I for one am glad you are ready to cut off the infected digits before it spreads here. THANK YOU, Mike

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 10 January 2016

runfiverun wrote: nope it's centerline just like hornady shows in the front of the reloading manual. that's how you get around the rmp thingy. It's Centerline, RPM, less fouling and a 30 pound BR rifle.

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 15 January 2016

pat i. wrote: A topic bought back from the dead. I want it to be known that this forum is not going to become the new RPM or 6.5 Swede battle ground as long as I'm a moderator. People are allowed to believe whatever they want and as long as the conversation remains civil I say discuss your heads off but if things start going south the thread will be closed. A certain bughole shooter from another forum is already talking about signing up here to get the battle underway but I suggest he thinks twice about it because his stay will be short lived if I have a say in it.

Bravo......... those are good intentions, BUT..... it's already going South here:

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/forum/view_topic.php?id=12453&forum_id=63&jump_to=91259#p91259>http://www.castbulletassoc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=12453&forumid=63&jumpto=91259#p91259

Time to do something!

Nice to see you again Pat and Mike.

Attached Files

Hamish posted this 16 January 2016

"I want it to be known that this forum is not going to become the new RPM or 6.5 Swede battle ground as long as I'm a moderator."

Please and thank you.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 16 January 2016

No more posts are being accepted on this thread.

John

Attached Files

Close