"Squid Boy posted this 2 days ago
Larry, do you operate a ballistic lab? Thanks, Squid Boy"
Not sure what your definition of a "lab" is but mine follows the standard definition.
Merriam-Webster’s definition of “laboratory”;
“a place equipped to study in science or for testing and analysis….
II a research laboratory
Broadly: a place
Providing opportunity for experimentation, observation or a practice in a field of study”
So yes, squid boy, I do "operate a ballistics laboratory”. You along with others seem to think all “scientific” testing and development must be done in some sterile building with beakers, Bunsen burners and scientists in white coats. That is an unfortunate assumption because it just isn’t so.
Do you think rocket engines as mentioned in a previous post are tested or launched in such a “lab”…no, they are manufactured in machine shops and tested at sites or ranges.
Do you think all ballistics are tested in a “lab”…..no Hornady uses indoor and out door ranges as does Sierra, Nosler, Remington, Federal, Winchester, etc. and others do.
Do you think Lyman loads and tests in such a “lab”…..no it’s a site with reloading gear just like you and I use. They use an indoor range to pressure/velocity test. Older manuals “accuracy loads” were tested on a 50 yard outdoor range just like many on this forum use.
Do you think Rick Jamison developed the Winchester short magnums in such a “lab”….no he developed them at home with his own reloading equipment, pressure tested with the Oehler M43 and test fired them at 100 yards out of his office window (his test sit/place).
I do very similar testing with loads developed using the same loading tools in my loading room as used by “the big boys” at their test site/place or what you call a “lab”. All pertinent data is entered into the ballistics computer software just as the “big boys” do. I test those loads with pressure and velocity data collected at a test site that is suitable for the discharge of firearms. I use SAAMI test methods to set up the equipment and during testing.
Not counting reloading and bullet casting I have $6,000+ invested in the Oehler M43, its accouterments and computer/printers. I can pressure test 30+ cartridges in numerous test guns all of which are expensive. I have conducted 3400+ pressure tests which involves at least 30,000+ cartridges tested over 14+ years.
I have done and been paid for pressure and/or load development for several smaller ammunition manufacturers, two different cast bullet makers and three different powder suppliers. I have been paid by several individuals for load development and testing. I have tested numerous loads “pro-bono” for numerous individuals.
I have my test results published here, the Fouling Shot and on the Cast Boolit Forum.
So, yes, I do have a “lab”.
As previously mentioned, the cause of SEE is known, it has been produced in such “labs”, it has been documented. Just because you and others still believe it doesn’t exist is probably because you don’t want to believe what is presented or because you just haven’t seen it. In any event simply because you doubt it doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
Do you really think bigfoot, if discovered, is going to be found in a “lab”? Do you think the proof the world is round was found in a “lab”? Or perhaps you think it’s flat so will that be proven in a “lab”?
So, frankly, I think all this hokey pokey about a “lab” is just an argumentative red herring. Is it simply because you don’t really want to find out an answer whether SEE can be replicated or not? It can be, send me a 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser and I will show you an SEE event to conclusion including all the test data of pressure and velocity leading up to the event. My offer is open to you or anyone else who disbelieves.
I suppose when I post the Handloader article of the test that was done in a "lab" by an ammunition maker you'll disbelieve it also. You, and others, have come up with the negative so now it's incumbent on you to prove that negative. My offer to you will prove the positive existence of SEE through the destruction by such of the 6.5x55 you send me. You really don't expect me to destroy my own rifle just to prove a proven point to you, do you?
Concealment is not cover.........