TEST PROPOSAL-GARY'S BORE POLISHING METHOD
- 2.7K Views
- Last Post 01 November 2014
Joe, I will do that for you but require one control that I use, recommend and list for my method when shooting my polished bores. Obtain a new clean .30 caliber Hoppe's BoreSnake and once after every 5 rounds fired pull the BoreSnake through and continue once before firing every volley of 5 rounds throughout your testing.
This keeps the bore in a relatively constant condition for testing and bench shooting and I wouldn't do the polishing for you unless you are willing to comply completely with that single control and use no other bore maintenance during the complete testing. Let me know if you will comply with that and I will PM you my shipping address.
If you are up to that challenge and maintain duplicating the loads you previously tested and your shooting skill remains at relatively the same level, I predict ~2% or better reduction in your group sizes. A small but significant result. I use digital scanning “ON TARGET” software for measuring group size and hope your original group measuring software has at least that standard of accuracy measuring group size as hand measuring has more error than 2%. Please discuss your group measuring procedure.
Gary
Attached Files
This sounds interesting. Is there a special bullet lube required?
Attached Files
Joe, I will do that for you but require one control that I use, recommend and list for my method when shooting my polished bores. Obtain a new clean .30 caliber Hoppe's BoreSnake and once after every 5 rounds fired pull the BoreSnake through and continue once before firing every volley of 5 rounds throughout your testing.
This keeps the bore in a relatively constant condition for testing and bench shooting and I wouldn't do the polishing for you unless you are willing to comply completely with that single control and use no other bore maintenance during the complete testing. Let me know if you will comply with that and I will PM you my shipping address.
If you are up to that challenge and maintain duplicating the loads you previously tested and your shooting skill remains at relatively the same level, I predict ~2% or better reduction in your group sizes. A small but significant result. I use digital scanning “ON TARGET” software for measuring group size and hope your original group measuring software has at least that standard of accuracy measuring group size as hand measuring has more error than 2%. Please discuss your group measuring procedure.
Gary
Attached Files
Joe speaks the truth about measuring groups with a plastic ruler, whether everybody is interested in it or not.
I think there is a slightly better way to read the plastic ruler if you can find one marked in tenths instead of eighths. (Try a bookstore near an engineering college.) If you can see the edge of the bullet hole clearly is is fairly easy to judge where that edge is to 1/100 of an inch most of the time. As Joe points out that is more than close enough for any practical reason and pretending you are measuring ragged edge holes in paper to the nearest .001” is kidding yourself anyway. Before about 1970 engineers used a slide rule for almost all their calculations and that required estimating the tenth of a divisions on a ruler even for divisions smaller than a tenth of an inch. It wasn't that hard to learn. Of course it wasn't always right 100% of the time but that wasn't important for reasons similar to the ones Joe points out. The calculations that ensure that the Empire State Building, the Golden Gate bridge, the 707, and about everything else built before electronic calculators was done with slide rules and estimating divisions on them to the tenth. None one of those things ever fell down because the calculations weren't precise enough. A plastic ruler will do the job for almost all group measuring -- to a practical level.
John
Attached Files
Joe says that it would take a heck of a lot of groups to detect a 2% difference between two loads and that it is impractical and pretty close to impossible.
To get a sense of why that is true, look the results of testing rifles in he Dope Bag section of the American Rifleman. They use five 5-shot groups and show the average, the best, and the worst group. Notice how much bigger the worst group is than the smallest. It is surprising that with the same ammunition the worst group will usually be nearly twice as big as the smallest - and sometimes more than twice as big. It doesn't make any difference whether they are testing a rifle that averages 1MOA or one that averages 3MOA. People who make their living with statistics say that over the long run this ratio of biggest group divided by smallest group in string of five 5-shot groups is about 1.9. The ratio for five 10 - shot groups is only a little less at about 1.6. With this type of variation from group to group of identical loads under identical conditions it is easy to see why it would take the long run averages of a very large number of groups before you would get close to true average that could detect a 2% difference. John
Attached Files
Gentlemen: I respect your experience and expertise, and the effort involved in delineating this exercise. However, for me, going into this rabbit hole for every range trip or match would chase me away from this sport in short order. I shoot for the camaraderie and personal challenge. When people start to throw down over measuring groups I'm outa there. This is NOT a criticism; we all derive our enjoyment in diverse ways, this is not one of mine.
Attached Files
Pentz, You are absolutely right it takes shooters with all kinds of interests to make the CBA, TFS, and this forum successful. There aren't enough casual shooters, competitors, milsurp shooters, tin can shooters, pistol shooters, experimenters who want to improve accuracy, or any other stripe of CB shooter to make things work by themselves. All together we can.
We all have things we are and aren't interested. I read almost everything in TFS or the CBA forum but some of it is just scanned and some read twice. If we all try try to respect the other guy's interests instead of making denigrating remarks about posts or articles that don't interest us we will be OK. If there is a shortage of the kind of content we like; we, and like minded members, should consider submitting topics and articles to remedy the situation.
I apologize to readers if my post above sounding like I was “throwing down about measuring groups” My intention was to tell readers of a quick and easy way to accurately measure groups with a minimum of equipment and one that requires a minimum of time.
I come from a profession where speaking your mind, even if it is to disagree, is not only OK but desirable as long as everybody keeps their cool and stays civil. It is a way to learn things. Others see a vigorous argument as unpleasant and something to be avoided. Again we aren't all alike. John
Attached Files
Joe,
I will polish a barrel of yours at any time for your personal use as I very much respect and enjoy the discourse we have here on the forum but cannot accept your measuring method for an article as a fair comparison. My polishing method would not show significant difference in group size measurement with the error of hand measuring group size.
My Bore Polishing Method results in a group size reduction in my testing by ~2% or better in my personal testing. A result from your test comparison would not result in a viable positive with hand measuring of shot groups and would be discouraging to shooters considering my Bore Polishing Method. Sadly, I feel that is your intent. You have repeatedly criticized my Bore Polishing Method and began so when I first contributed the method to the forum members with a scorching tirade of historical references that are not relevant to the Hoppe's BoreSnake and Turtle Wax Chrome Polish and Rust Remover used to polish a bore.
The 2% decrease in group size is a very small amount and most important to only the top competitive marksmen shooting on a level where skill is a given constant in their own minds and on paper. Your measurement is too informal to show a small difference of ~2% or better.
I will not agree to polishing a barrel for your testing method but will polish one for your personal use at no cost. I do not offer a polishing service for sale and do not offer for sale the supplies needed for the service. The method is, however, very simple and uses readily available supplies that you or anyone could easily obtain. My posting of my polishing method was a contribution to the forum in hopes that others would benefit as I have.
A link to my polishing method for any readers that are now interested in the method. Joe's tirade is still there too, it is the 28th comment in 88 comments of 5 pages of discussion. Link:
Gary
Attached Files
Joe,
I will polish a barrel of yours at any time for your personal use as I very much respect and enjoy the discourse we have here on the forum but cannot accept your measuring method for an article as a fair comparison. My polishing method would not show significant difference in group size measurement with the error of hand measuring group size.
My Bore Polishing Method results in a group size reduction in my testing by ~2% or better in my personal testing. A result from your test comparison would not result in a viable positive with hand measuring of shot groups and would be discouraging to shooters considering my Bore Polishing Method. Sadly, I feel that is your intent. You have repeatedly criticized my Bore Polishing Method and began so when I first contributed the method to the forum members with a scorching tirade of historical references that are not relevant to the Hoppe's BoreSnake and Turtle Wax Chrome Polish and Rust Remover used to polish a bore.
The 2% decrease in group size is a very small amount and most important to only the top competitive marksmen shooting on a level where skill is a given constant in their own minds and on paper. Your measurement is too informal to show a small difference of ~2% or better.
I will not agree to polishing a barrel for your testing method but will polish one for your personal use at no cost. I do not offer a polishing service for sale and do not offer for sale the supplies needed for the service. The method is, however, very simple and uses readily available supplies that you or anyone could easily obtain. My posting of my polishing method was a contribution to the forum in hopes that others would benefit as I have.
A link to my polishing method for any readers that are now interested in the method. Joe's tirade is still there too, it is the 28th comment in 88 comments of 5 pages of discussion. Link:
Gary
Attached Files
Categories
- All Categories
- General Polls
- Contact Us w/ Forum Issues
- Welcome to The Cast Bullet Association Forum
- General
- Bullet Casting
-
Guns and Shooting
- AR Platform
- TC Contenders & Other Single Shot Handguns
- Shotguns
- Informal Matches & Other Shooting Events
- Gunsmithing Tips
- Gun Cleaning & Maintenance
- Optics
- Benchrest Cast Bullet Shooting
- Military Bench Rest Cast Bullet Shooting
- Silhouette Shooting
- Postal Match Cast Bullet Shooting
- Factory Guns
- Black Powder Cartridge
- Hand Guns
- Lever Guns
- Single Shot Rifles
- Bolt Action Rifles
- Military Surplus Rifles
- Plinkers Hollow
- Muzzleloaders
- Hunting
- Reloading
- Buy, Sell or Trade
- Other Information & Reference
Search
This Weeks High Earners
-
John Carlson 22
-
linoww
17
-
Bud Hyett
14
-
drone 9
-
MP1886 7
-
beltfed 6
-
Lucky1 6
-
RicinYakima
5
-
mashburn 4
-
Aaron
3
