Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To enter, all you need to do is add an image of yourself at the range below! Subscribers get more entries, check out the plans below for a better chance of winning!
Join the contest SubscribeCame across a fella at the range
Happened today....guy would adjust his scope to try (TRY) to get hits on paper, then when he's close he kept finger fucking the windage turret. ... Dude's scope cost more than my entire suppressed rifle setup.
Honestly, the German popped into my head. I thought, I'll go be poor over here and hit what I'm shooting at.That sounds about right.
Happened today....guy would adjust his scope to try (TRY) to get hits on paper, then when he's close he kept finger fucking the windage turret. I asked him what he was doing, he told me re-zeroing the turrets. He was putting them back to zero and didn't understand why he was no longer hitting anything. Got him back in the game and I saw him reach for the turrets. I said what are you doing, he said I'm going to re-zero them. I told him it doesn't work that way, stop fucking with them and shoot. Dude's scope cost more than my entire suppressed rifle setup.
This is precisely what his does. You have to remove the knob and set it to zero. He was just turning them back. Hell, I've even got a couple of Nikons that after you zero the scope, you pull them up to disengage them and turn them to zero, then let them back down.Had a scope many years ago that allowed the turrets to be "re-zeroed." You didn't actually move them. but loosened setscrews and moved the "sleeves" to zero. May have been a Zeiss.
This is precisely what his does. You have to remove the knob and set it to zero. He was just turning them back. Hell, I've even got a couple of Nikons that after you zero the scope, you pull them up to disengage them and turn them to zero, then let them back down.
Only one? Thats a daily argument where I work. The tards say that 260 is fine but 6.5 isn't, 243 works but 6mm is for varmints only etc.I have had one spirited debate on weather a 6.5 creedmoor has the energy required to hunt deer.
I have had one spirited debate on weather a 6.5 creedmoor has the energy required to hunt deer.
Also if you clean your barrel it will never shoot straight again.
I myself am a big fan of the .243. Also the 223 is a great deer round. But keep that between you and me because that might cause some heads to explode.hmm 6.5x55 and 260 is Commonly used in Norway for moose.
let alone the amount of deer I know dropped in Minnesota from 243’s by family members.
Engineer in me is crying blood with continuation of this conversation.So, you're telling me a solid beam can handle as much as an I-beam? Because the cross section is bigger? Guess we'll have to tell engineers, they don't know what they are doing.
First, my response was a year and half ago. That section of this thread was about fluted barrel strength versus solid barrel strength. In which the original posted that fluted wasn't as strong as solid. If you look up a few posts of mine you'll see I used the i-beam analogy to show that "reduced material" structural members can be every bit as strong, or stronger, depending on needs than solid ones.Engineer in me is crying blood with continuation of this conversation.
Stiffness of any structural member is defined by second moment of inertia which is related to third power of height in direction of bending. Weight of said member is related only to the area of crossection. THEREFORE when you take set weight of material, lets use 1 kg of steel formed into a barrel with lenght of 500 mm, solid rod would have smallest second moment of inertia and therefore smallest relative stiffness. If you just bore a hole through the rod, it will become lighter and have slighly smaller stiffness.
Now if you keep the mass at 1 kg but form a tube, the material is distributed further away from central axis and it will be stiffer but still the same weight. Now when you flute the barrel, the material is removed and the barrel becomes lighter again AND stiffness decreases. However, because of the nature of stiffness, the barrel will loose more stiffness than weight.
Now why I beam has higher load capacity than solid rectangular section of same outer dimensions is because steel is pretty heavy. The beam has to carry its self weight and whatever is left over of its capacity can be used to support structure attached to it. Bending capacity for solid rectangular section is higher than for I beam of same height and width but it is wasted to support the beam itself.
Back to barrels. Rifle barrel is relatively short considering statics, it has initial deflection which is pretty much irrelevant for the accuracy. The problem of accuracy comes mainly from vibration. Sound, aka mechanical pressure wave travels 5960 m/s in steel. Basically by the time bullet exits the barrel, initial shock of the powder deflagrating in case has travelled six times to barrel end and back and the barrel is experiencing some kind of vibration.
Interesting point here: if you put a weight at the end of the barrel, you create a node which transforms the waveform of the vibration. That's why especially on thin barrels it's common to have POI shift with suppressor or heavy muzzle brake. Accuracy-vise solution is easy, add mass to barrel and reduce length until the vibration becomes so minimal it doesn't affect accuracy, then you have only the bullet behaviour and shooter error to fight with. Also why some disciplines of shooting have restriction for barrel weight.
Fluting is solution to problem where stiff accurate barrel needs to be transported longer distances than from car to bench at range. Distribute same mass outward from central axis and you get stiffer profile for same weight OR almost as stiff barrel for somewhat lower weight. Now if you just hammer out a barrel it has bunch of internal stresses in it. Then you go ahead and cut grooves and start to heat up the profile the shit gets weird.
Or actually not weird, just highly unpredictable. That can be done away with using high quality steel, experimenting to find good profile, then developing a production method that can produce repeatable dimensions and material properties with good reliability. That is why rifles with fluted barrels AND accuracy guarantees from factory cost what they cost.
Also if someone quotes me as their contribution to this thread they can go fuck themselves.
Did you go fuck yourself before you quoted him? It was a prerequisite.First, my response was a year and half ago. That section of this thread was about fluted barrel strength versus solid barrel strangth. In which the original posted that fluted wasn't as strong as solid. If you look up a few posts of mine you'll see I used the i-beam analogy to show that "reduced material" structural members can be every bit as strong, or stronger, depending on needs than solid ones.
If you want to go into the minutia details you can try to prove it whichever way you want. But, past a certain point "solid" isn't as good as it looks on paper.
Other than tearing up my "analogy" I have no reason as to why you went back a year and a half to take something out of context?
God....now I gotta produce pics to prove that too probably??Did you go fuck yourself before you quoted him? It was a prerequisite.
Well I just found this thread and after two pages of back and forth misunderstanding I couldn’t help myself. Then I was past halfway of the essay when I realized the issue might not be relevant anymore.First, my response was a year and half ago. That section of this thread was about fluted barrel strength versus solid barrel strength. In which the original posted that fluted wasn't as strong as solid. If you look up a few posts of mine you'll see I used the i-beam analogy to show that "reduced material" structural members can be every bit as strong, or stronger, depending on needs than solid ones.
If you want to go into the minutia details you can try to prove it whichever way you want. But, past a certain point "solid" isn't as good as it looks on paper.
Other than tearing up my "analogy" I have no reason as to why you went back a year and a half to take something out of context?
Somewhere translation gets lost. I wasn't saying it got stronger. Due to the retained metal in the areas that are left, it retains it's strength.Well I just found this thread and after two pages of back and forth misunderstanding I couldn’t help myself. Then I was past halfway of the essay when I realized the issue might not be relevant anymore.
apparently the response was in need because FLUTING A BARREL DOES NOT MAKE IT STRONGER YOU DENSE MF.
The irony of this showing up in my inbox immediately after reading your post.Any question about nitriding/QPQ/melonite/ferritic nitrocarburizing/etc
That any of the above processes is a coating or a finish
That any of the above processes are meant for turning stainless steel black
The irony of this showing up in my inbox immediately after reading your post.
View attachment 7183947
The frustrating thing about this is the guy describes radical destabilization. Meaning the bullet will never restabilize from the symptoms he described. Then they'll go on to say to shoots lights out at 1k or 1k+
Never heard that one! Guess I'll have something to try next time I head to the rangeBy curling your toes while I’m ur shooting stance you will greatly increase your accuracy!
I gotta ask, is it a stupid statement or is the guy hearing it stupid for giving it ANY credibility? There are a number of jackasses in the shooting community who love to pull pranks like that and fuck people up. I've never understood it, but they do.By curling your toes while I’m ur shooting stance you will greatly increase your accuracy!
OUCH! ... ok a true jackass!My buddy and I are both NRA pistol instructors we were both laughing at him trying not to embarrass him in front of his students
Did he tell in which gun the pressure spike would occur?Was talking to a guy about barrel length for a weird caliber for bolt action. He told me that simply taking the round from one gun and shooting it from another would make the chamber pressure spike to 127,000PSI. Nothing would be changed except the barrel length and action type. The factory ammo would stay the same.
Did he tell in which gun the pressure spike would occur?