Benchrest Central Forums - Blogs http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php This is a discussion forum powered by vBulletin. To find out about vBulletin, go to http://www.vbulletin.com/ . Mon, 15 Mar 2010 06:12:47 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.benchrest.com/forums/images/professional/misc/rss.jpg Benchrest Central Forums - Blogs http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php <![CDATA[Some Methodology & Statistical Data for the “Hopewell” Blog Entry]]> http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=78 Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:49:19 GMT For those of you who might have some curiosity about the methodology involved and the data generated during a typical testing session, this will be my attempt to explain it more fully and offer a few thoughts. It might be beneficial to read the “Hopewell Method (Re Entry)”:... For those of you who might have some curiosity about the methodology involved and the data generated during a typical testing session, this will be my attempt to explain it more fully and offer a few thoughts.

It might be beneficial to read the “Hopewell Method (Re Entry)”: http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?bt=135 and “Analysis & Characteristics of Groups”: http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=5 because there may or may not be some details I don’t include here that are pertinent.

I was going to outline the entire procedure for measuring, compiling the shots, transferring data between 3 different software platforms, and creating my spreadsheets but decided against it for these reasons. First, there’s already a partial explanation on the “Analysis of Groups” entry. Second, I ran into a limit on the size allowed me by the blog software and couldn’t even get half way through a comprehensive detailing of the processes involved. Third and most importantly, no one of sound mind and body will probably ever try to duplicate this anyway!
If you’re familiar with Excel and have two good friends (GAP & On Target creators) who have provided both modified versions of their software and some specialized tools....it’s not all that difficult. But, if you don’t....then it’s one hell of a lot of work!
Of the dozen or so individuals who contacted me and wanted to replicate what I’m doing....there’s only one left who is actively pursuing this and I’m doubtful he’ll continue.
Why am “I” doing this? OCD maybe.....but I wanted a way to reliably visualize my testing results, have the tools necessary for a confident analysis of those results, and I wanted full control over at least one variable (measurement precision). Managing the variables both known and unknown is a constant battle when testing and it’s a battle not easily won.

I also wanted to include the comments posted by “chisqr” from the previous entry into the main body of this article, but because of the above mentioned limitations on size and the number of images I’m allowed.....those comments will have to remain where they are.

I want to mention one more thing and then we’ll get down to business. I feel compelled to urge you once again to visit the “GAP” website http://www.bmotsoft.com/sitemap.html#sitemap_top.
I could type until my fingertips are bloody and I’d still be unable to explain some of the underlying principles we’re dealing with half as well as its explained there. And, this is not some underhanded attempt to peddle software....I’m only requesting that you take the time to read!



The actual target which generated all of the Hopewell data and it contains 110 shots total. It’s a target I use frequently because it allows as many as 142 Xhairs & 80 dots to aim at and depending on the distance and/or accuracy of the rifle I’m testing, I can fire 200 or more shots on a single sheet. I print my targets on 110# to 150# card stock that measures the standard 8.5” x 11” and they’re taped tightly to smooth cardboard backers. This produces nearly perfect holes with grease rings to match (very important) and allows measurement accuracy repeatable to a few thousandths of an inch.





This is a screen shot taken from “On Target” showing the 1st 5 shots used to foul the bore and the scattershot chart produced by my Excel spreadsheet.
Notice the 1st shot from a clean cold barrel is a flyer but the other 4 shots group into 0.184” and are within the boundaries of the entire 50 shots. The 1st 5 shots are not included in the test even though the 2nd thru 5th shot could be.....just an extra measure of safety to eliminate an unwanted variable.





The 50 shots which comprised the Hopewell test, the scattershot chart including the group size statistics, and a screen shot of just one set of statistics generated by “GAP”. The statistics aren’t really relevant in this case since the variable of moving the tuner has to be factored into the results but since they’re automatically generated, I decided to include them.








After taking a short break, I fired these 5 shots to warm the bore before shooting the 2nd portion of the test. I’ve found with my rifles and my cleaning methods that I never have more than 2 shots fly out of the group with a cold clean barrel and sometimes none. But with a fouled cold barrel....I’ve seen it vary considerably. Normally, it’s 5 shots or less but YMMV. In this specific case, it took 4 shots and as before....these 5 shots weren’t included in the testing.






I can only show the statistics for the 0 to 100 progression because I’ve reached the limit of images I’m allowed, but the other numbers are in the comments section of the “Hopewell Method” entry.





Trend Chart for X & Y axis
I produce a variety of trend charts during a testing session. The reasons are varied and I’m not going to take the time to explain all of them, but in this case it gives a nice visual representation of how the tuner bends the barrel in the vertical axis as the test progresses and they often show if my POI is wandering during a long string of shots.
I should also note that trend lines are notorious for showing false information if they aren’t handled properly. They can be just like two politicians using “cherry picked” statistics and formulas that prove they’re both right or in most cases....wrong!



I’m relieved there are limits on the amount of material I can post and I’m sure you are too. LOL

Landy ]]> HuskerP7M8 http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=78 My Blog, Blogs in General and Moderators http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=75 Sun, 21 Feb 2010 23:49:28 GMT I’ve only shown a small glimpse of what I’m involved in and it has been pointed out more than once that many of the things I’m doing are totally impractical for the masses. Well it may surprise you to know that I tend to agree and with perfect 20/20 hindsight, I may not have allowed myself to... I’ve only shown a small glimpse of what I’m involved in and it has been pointed out more than once that many of the things I’m doing are totally impractical for the masses.
Well it may surprise you to know that I tend to agree and with perfect 20/20 hindsight, I may not have allowed myself to progress to the point I’m at. I’ve been obsessed with this for nearly three years now and if I had known how many hours, how much work, and how much correspondence was involved....I’d have probably done something else with the little spare time I have.

I’ve gotten literally hundreds of emails but very few, if any, direct comments to my blogs. Maybe I scare everybody away because I moderate the comments, or I’ve emphasized too often that I’ll be unable to participate if I’m too busy, or I’m too hard to understand, or the average member of this forum isn’t interested in the extra work involved in some of the more sophisticated methods of testing and analysis.

If it happens to be the first reason, let me explain why I choose to moderate comments. If the same questions are asked repeatedly, the same criticism is repeated, or the same praise is duplicated (Not likely).....I can summarize all of the above (I promise I will....warts and all!).
This is all in an effort to keep the thread more streamlined and avoid it being hi-jacked to oblivion or turned into gorilla warfare. With the blog features Wilbur has provided us with, we have the powers of a God and I intend to take full advantage of them.

I’m amazed that none of you take advantage of these blog features to support serious discussions without the turmoil so prevalent on the main forum. Over the years I’ve seen some very worthwhile discussions and fascinating data either vanish or degenerate into pissing matches that preclude participation. The long term effect has been a continual decline in participation by some of the brightest minds and most accomplished shooters active today.
The blog features are relatively simple. If you set them up properly, choose a topic that has enough interest, and moderate them correctly. You essentially have your own forum and if done properly, you might find it productive. You may also find out how difficult a job the moderators have.

Moderators! What a thankless job and a no-win situation. Other than a clearly black & white issue like deleting a spammer’s posts, they have no middle-ground and every action they take may have an equal number of forum members on each side of the fence. One side criticizing them for too much tolerance and the other side crying censorship. Walk a mile in their shoes before you get to upset.
That being said, I would like to see more moderation but I also don’t plan on bitching about what they feel is the best job they or Wilbur can do.

Landy ]]> HuskerP7M8 http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=75 The Hopewell Method (Re Entry) http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=74 Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:13:18 GMT This is a re-submission because the original vanished into cyberspace for unknown reasons.....Maybe everyone’s prayers were answered? :eek::D

ADJUSTING YOUR TUNER:

1. Set your tuner to "0" and fire two shots.
Turn tuner one complete revolution (25 clicks) and fire two shots, continue this until you reach "100". You now have a 10 shot group, all shot at the same POA.
2. Repeat step one from "100" to "200"
3. Repeat Step one from "200" to "300".
4. Repeat Step one from "300" to "400"
5. Repeat Step one from "400" to "500".
You now have five 10-shot groups. One of the 10-shot groups will show the smallest vertical stringing. You should have used only 50 rounds so far.


The above is the first 5 steps of the Hopewell method and I’m curious as to whether or not anyone has tried to verify the validity of this method as I’ve tried to do in the following example.

I’m going to try presenting the data for just one specific rifle showing the problems I encounter. I would then like any test data you may have accumulated which might show results that differ from mine. Specifically, I would like to see data (other than anecdotal) which proves the Hopewell method is repeatable before it progresses to Step 6.

This particular rifle is a bone-stock unbedded Anschutz 2013 BR with the four action bolts torqued to 40 in/lbs and the factory barrel is 0.900” X 23.5” with the common Annie bulge at the muzzle for sight attachment. A Harrel tuner weighing 8.62 oz was mounted with an auxiliary 7.62 oz weight.

There were 50 shots fired using the first 5 steps in the Hopewell method and the screenshot of one of my customized Excel spreadsheets is displayed below.

This test was done quite some time ago and in much more wind than I care to test in, but as happens frequently…..my machine shed was full to capacity and it’s a half day job to move everything out for indoor shooting. I’m just too damn busy and lazy to do it more than a couple of times a year.
I do have the benefit of wide open spaces though and can mitigate the wind’s effects by always shooting in a 6:00 or 12:00 wind and my Pejsa ballistic software tells me that the max vertical deflection for this testing session would be 0.02” if I missed a dead calm condition and the max wind gusts of 9.8mph….which never occurred and thus is a negligible variable. The max switch in wind direction I may have missed in a testing session of this length could be a factor but it’s the best I could do and I’m confident I managed the wind variable well enough for reliable results.

I show the 5 shot group averages for all 10 groups only to point out this is a decent shooting factory gun at 50yds in this much wind and because everyone is more familiar with 5 shot groups rather than the more accurate size determinations generated by the GAP software.
The pink charts are Step 1 thru Step 5.The mathematical vertical center of the POI as calculated by the GAP software and vertical spread for each step is listed with the charts.
The yellow chart is a trend line for all 50 shots showing the POI falling as the moment of mass on this cantilevered beam we call a barrel is increased by screwing the tuner out 25 clicks for each 2 shots. This is exactly what we should see. You should also note that the yellow charted average trend line in the second image shows no vertical deflection; which we would expect with the minimal movement of the tuner.
With the uncertainties involved in a procedure of this type….a duplication of the test would show a shallower or steeper angle but still a downward progression as the tuner is moved out.

I’m hoping most everything is self-explanatory but I’m using this on a continual basis and have become quite familiar with it. Please comment if you need help with any details.





It’s obvious from the first 5 steps of the Hopewell method that the 10-shot group with the tuner moved thru the 400-500 range has the least vertical.
Now let’s try to duplicate that 5th step by firing another 5 groups with the same parameters as that 400 to 500 progression and shoot it immediately after finishing the first 5 steps.
I hope you can see the problem that develops. The large variation in group sizes, and in this case the vertical range, shows that a single 10-shot group simply doesn’t provide enough data for this method of tuning to work for “me”. The 10-shot group we picked to begin step 6 of the Hopewell method shows no less vertical than any of the other 9 groups when we fire additional shots to increase the confidence level.




There exists the possibility that this rifles simply isn’t accurate enough to use this method or that it might work if you fired 10 times as many shots, but everyone else (at least according to forum posts) automatically assumes if they follow the directions provided (even with less accurate rifles than I’m using for this specific data set) that they arrive at the end of the yellow brick road with their goal achieved. That’s one of the reasons I used a factory rifle instead of one of my bench guns for this example.

At the present time, none of my testing indicates the Hopewell method works….so my challenge/request for help is to find “someone” who believes they have a rifle capable of match winning accuracy and the curiosity to explore this issue.

Surely there is “someone” who is curious enough to devote a little time and a hundred shots to determine if I’m all wet?
I would also be very interested in hearing about alternative methods that might work with a tuner “if” they’re repeatable.

Please comment if you see where my testing methodology is flawed or I’ve made any errors in the numbers calculated above. I could care less if I’m proven wrong or have made any errors. I’m only interested in the pursuit of accuracy and would welcome constructive criticism.
Be advised that prompt responses from me on this blog will not be forthcoming….you’ll have to be patient.


An after thought: Because I have struggled with the Hopewell method doesn’t mean I don’t believe hanging weights on the muzzle won’t affect accuracy. I have a few hundred rds of data with seven other bench rifles that suggests more weight = smaller groups, but much more testing is needed to draw definitive conclusions. The only exceptions thus far are my barrel blocked Swindlehurst and my Beggs/Meyers Ultralight….both with unconventional bedding/stocking methods and much heavier barrel profiles.

Landy

Link for a continuation of this entry:http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=78 ]]> HuskerP7M8 http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=74 Chrono Calibration for the Tunnel (Part 2) http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=71 Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:02:39 GMT I did my best to duplicate the testing at airgun velocities conducted in Part 1 when I finally got the chance to shoot a rimfire in the “Cave”. Rather than repeating that testing methodology here....please read the previously posted blog. I was delighted to find that all my predictions based on... I did my best to duplicate the testing at airgun velocities conducted in Part 1 when I finally got the chance to shoot a rimfire in the “Cave”. Rather than repeating that testing methodology here....please read the previously posted blog.

I was delighted to find that all my predictions based on the airgun testing were confirmed by the results obtained at rimfire velocities and the small differences were within the range of uncertainties.
Since there was nothing new to report, I decided to post the chrono numbers along with the accuracy data for the firearm that was used in this testing. I figured I might as well kill two birds with one stone by shooting groups while I was testing the chrono.

I decided to use one of my 10/22’s and non match quality ammo for two reasons. One, it was only about 20 deg’s and I wanted a semi-auto to finish quickly before I died from exposure. Two, I was hoping crappy ammo would give me a wider velocity variation so the differences were easier to see.

This 10/22 was customized several years ago with a Volquertsen carbon fiber barrel, 6 oz Kidd trigger, and an aftermarket Bell & Carlson rubberized stock with no bedding work. This was my bang-around rifle for pest control on the farm and it’s a pretty decent shooter. With most cheap bulk ammo it usually groups about 0.5” to 0.7” at 50 yds.
I think I could have done better in warmer temps and with more than a 3x-9x scope, but considering the conditions....not too bad.

The ammo used was the “Eley Sport” manufactured by Aguila in Mexico and other than the Eley priming system, there is no other affiliation with Eley. It is not the green boxed “Eley Sport” that is distributed in Europe nor is it reboxed as “Eley Target” and imported into the U.S. There’s a lot of confusion about this because of two identical names but two different manufacturers.

Chronograph Results for 50 shots:
Average - 1,087
High – 1,132
Low – 1,047
ES – 85
Std Dev – 18

Accuracy Results for 50 shots (10 x 5-shot groups):
Average – 0.519”
Small Grp – 0.388”
Large Grp – 0.795”
Std Dev – 0.136”

Later,
Landy ]]> HuskerP7M8 http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=71 Chrono Calibration for the Tunnel (Part 1) http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=62 Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:01:01 GMT Since the absolutely horrid weather I’m experiencing has curtailed harvest and I’ve become incredibly bored, I decided to install the infrared emitters on my two CED M2 chronographs and conduct some evaluation and calibration testing. Because I was unable to shoot outdoors with a rimfire, I... Since the absolutely horrid weather I’m experiencing has curtailed harvest and I’ve become incredibly bored, I decided to install the infrared emitters on my two CED M2 chronographs and conduct some evaluation and calibration testing.

Because I was unable to shoot outdoors with a rimfire, I decided to use a semi-automatic BB gun and did the testing in my garage with the lights off. This testing will be repeated in the tunnel at rimfire velocities but I wanted to try and satisfy my curiosity about obtaining reliable data with consumer grade chronographs.

I placed the chronos upside down using the emitters as a flat stable base on a 5’ length of plywood with #1 touching #2 and then I numbered the chronos with a magic marker as #1 and #2 based on their orientation from the shooter’s POV.

The CED M2 has a 24” screen spacing and when I measured the distance between the sensor slots....I found that chrono #1 was a full 3/16” longer than chrono #2.
Based on the ratio of 3/16” to 24” (0.0078125), that meant chrono #2 should read 2.15 ft/sec faster at my airgun average velocity of 275 ft/sec.
Amazingly, after firing 25 shots thru a #1-#2 configuration of the chronographs and 25 shots thru a #2-#1 configuration while including my estimate of the BB’s loss of velocity over 4’.....real test data almost exactly matched my prediction and now allows me to apply a calibration factor so that the velocity of both chronos agrees.
BTW I’m not concerned with how closely the two chronos match true/actual velocity (I’m going to assume they’re close based on the manufacturer’s claims). I’m primarily concerned with calibrating them to read the same so as to gather reliable data for velocity loss at various distances.
This calibration factor which results in a 2.15 ft/sec velocity reduction for chrono #1 may seem very small but if you extrapolate to a rimfire velocity of say 1050 ft/sec....it increases to 8.19 ft/sec.

Next, I needed to determine the variance in readings between the two chronographs due to the variables I can’t measure. My testing data showed a standard deviation of 0.376 ft/sec, which means an uncertainty of 0.752 ft/sec either side of the mean for 95% confidence of velocities in the 275 ft/sec range.
Again, this seems small but it increases to 2.870 ft/sec at a velocity of 1050 ft/sec.

Some Conclusions:
1. The 2.870 ft/sec error is proportionately large relative to the velocity loss over 50 yards (50-60 ft/sec), so calculating a Ballistic Coefficient will require it be stated as a range of values and not as a number accurate to three decimal points.
Example: A calculated BC of .140 could range from .136 to .144.
It’s also important to remember that BC’s vary with the velocity a projectile is tested at “and” the extreme changes in drag within the transonic velocity range result in large changes for BC values. All in all though....this ain’t bad and I might be able to get some interesting numbers for comparison.
I do have the option of throwing away the 24” brackets and using longer screen spacings in an attempt to improve accuracy. Maybe I’ll try that, but I’ll have to remember that since the CED M2 has no provisions for screen spacing options, I’ll have to calculate a calibration ratio for true velocity.

2. The 2.87 ft/sec uncertainty should only result in 0.03” movement at 50 yards based on the “ballistics only” and that will allow some very accurate calculations for the majority of testing I have in mind. I verified this with both Professor Art Pejsa's ballistic software and Bryan Litz's "Point Mass Ballistics Solver".

None of the above has been rechecked for accuracy/mistakes or incorrect assumptions regarding the correct procedures needed for this type of testing, but since I plan on redoing it all at a later date with rimfire velocities.....I’m done for now.

Landy

PS I’ve now re-edited this twice and I hope it’s finally correct but I seem to be making a multitude of errors lately and can’t/won’t guarantee I’ve finally got it right. LOL ]]> HuskerP7M8 http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=62 My New Testing Facility http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=57 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:47:40 GMT The steel arrived yesterday: Image: http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff145/HuskerP7M8/BRcom%20Blog/Steel-1.jpg The main building and tunnel floors were poured this morning: Image: http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff145/HuskerP7M8/BRcom%20Blog/Cement1.jpg Image:... The steel arrived yesterday:



The main building and tunnel floors were poured this morning:





More to come later.





Exterior nearly complete



Interior with tunnel entrance



The “Chunk”. A 3,969 lbs concrete cube where 2 modified Rail Guns will be mounted.



My “Man Cave”.




Landy ]]> HuskerP7M8 http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=57 More 52 pics and targets http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=54 Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:12:39 GMT I do have to get some lead out of the leade area, there are 2 riflings that has a stuck piece of lead just at the start of the rifling. I have been working on that with a bronze brush and some kroil, no luck yet. i cleaned the back of the sight and it is indeed stamped Merit. The bbl dia is... I do have to get some lead out of the leade area, there are 2 riflings that has a stuck piece of lead just at the start of the rifling. I have been working on that with a bronze brush and some kroil, no luck yet.

i cleaned the back of the sight and it is indeed stamped Merit. The bbl dia is close to .880.



Would this case be period correct? he wasn't 100% certian this was the correct case but the rifle fits the folds perfect, maybe it is.. i sure like it anyway, lol! he didn't have the rest of the sling, said a ring went around your arm.





Well i had to see how she shoots. I got a little lead i can't get out in the leade area but doesn't seem to be hurting it too much -i'll work on that in a few days.

I don't use peep site much, actually after shooting today i realized why, i'm just too dang lazy to concentrate, lol. I did like having to hold the rifle and get a little cheek weld. I have a homemade experimental bench rimfire with a 36x and a 2oz trigger -shooting free recoil ain't much like shooting a real gun but i do have fun with it.

The 52C trigger took a couple of rounds to get use to the #2 pull. The Micro Groove trigger is more than just hype, it is a really nice trigger! I gotta say i really like it. Something strange about the let off for me that i think is just super. Shooting the peeps for me -the site picture i'm looking for comes into view just in an instance and before it's gone somehow the Winchester goes off without any indication your about to fire.. best way i can describe it "it just happens"!! Super Super Super. I'm leaning to what Big larry just said, the M-52C (since i know own one) is the best Winchester ever, except the target is before the sporter,lol!

Here are a couple of targets from this morning. After about 10 warm up shots, i shot the 5 round 25 yard target first from the bench. Then went and hung one up at 50 yards, next 5 shots was still a respectable 5 shot group for me with peeps. 10 shots in a row 25 then at 50, i didn't readjust the site -wanted to get an idea of what it was doing.

I like the peeps but i don't like having to concentrate so much (i guess i'm just lazy) or the scope has spoiled me, lol. I think i can do a lot better at 50 yards but i was happy.

I tried a 16x Tasco @ 50 just to try a scope, nice for a bone stock factory rimfire! I sure like my Winchester!! joe :)









You know i'll be 61 in a few days, i hate to admitt it but my 52C is like being a kid again. People that don't understand guns just don't understand guns, especially the old ones. They are more than just a gun, they are a "time machine". They are a way of repairing time when you were a kid and didn't have anything. ]]> jGEE http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=54 Pics my home built Turbo stock http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=37 Wed, 27 May 2009 23:40:10 GMT I just couldn't wait any longer, Gene Beggs sorta opened the door so i thought i would try something i had laying around for a stock. I have fingered my new Turbo Action till it is about wore out, i was about to 'esplode to shoot it.

Bedding a rifle seems like a black art, since i got a lot to learn i sorta bypassed the bedding issue with this attempt. I dug ou the trigger opening with my drill press and a die grinder, sure be nice to have a mill one day.

The Kimber tennon and the Turbo are the same, just had to cut .200 off the Shilen i got from Mr. Fred and rechamber. It was fun to try anyway! I was suprised how it shot. I have my T-36 on it now, the target was with a 36x BSA. This is the first target i shot late yesterday evening. I really like the Turbo Action, it gets a little smoother each time i shoot it!!

I added my weaver today and shot a few more groups, about the same as these. I think i'm going to polish the chamber today and she how she shoots. I guess this is about a simple a stcik as one can get.......

I 'shore hope you guys don't throw me off the team for abusing a nice Turbo Action, it's all in the name of science!! I'm going to work with this for a few weeks and then put it in a benchrest stock before too long, right now everything i do is a learning experience... and my shooting skills ain't that great. These are my excuses and i'm sticking too em!!

AND -Hey it is fun too shoot, gotta different feeel to it that i'm likeing!!










*UPDATE*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene Beggs View Post
jGEE, the Ultralite aluminum stocks for the Turbo are ready. Give me a call tomorrow at 432-631-5124.

Gene Beggs
Mr. Gene i'll be calling in the morning, thanks!

Ok, i'm sure it's against the 'law but i "float pinned" my stock to keep the rifle straight up. I pinned it about 3/4 inch past the balance point towards the rear to keep it sorta "loaded".
Drilled a 1/2 hole in the stock and used the front stop. Mr Pappas sent me this several months back, i think he said it was the one of first one he made and was just sitting -told me to put it to good use... Well mr james it's going into service, thank you.

Now it sets dead steady like this, a bit springy if you thump it. maybe you can tune the entire rifle, not just the bbl???

Tomorrow i'll try it without the rear bag. There is not a lot of recoil with rimfire -and my rifle weights about 11 1/2 pounds.... to stiffen the "tune up" would only require going up on the stud that holds the stop to the rest.

Ok, here is my thinking - i didn't figure i'd ever get to 60 but i did, be 61 in sept... so now i'm thinking what the hell maybe 75 is doo-able, lol. That leaves me 15 years to learn about accuracy, so i'll be running some 'speriments as long as when i get up and look in the mirror and i'm still in there, lol!!

Mr Bill says a firing pin at 6'oclock would be best. Anybody hang their rimfire upside down and test that theory?? Lots of stuff to try in the next 15 years and it's gonna be fun!! joe :)



*UPDATE*
If your wondering what the heck i'm up to, me to! I'm using what i have in front of me to work with for now. I would like to learn what makes a barrel and action accurate. Yea i know it's the attention to small details -but which ones?

I modified my rest a little more today, making it more solid. I must say switching to Pappas front rest has helped, just the rest alone. i'll swith back to a rear bag and 3" fore arm here in a few weeks.

I am surprised how the 1 1/2" alum rod flexes. i can take my finger nail at the back of the stock and give it a lite flick and the stock seems to turn to rubber. it almost looks like the action is bending to! i don't see how it could be but just a nice little flick, not a hard one either -seems to bend everything up and down several times -i'm guessing total movement at least an 1/8" or more at the back of the stock.

I'm not really trying to build for a class right now just trying to figure what makes one shoot. I got a lot of catching up to do with you guys.

I shot this about 8pm, getting a little dark. The gun was vibrating pretty good after the shot. Didn't seem to effect the point of impact from what i had been shooting -maybe just a bit better? It did shoot he best group of Eley Club by about 1/2". Club does not shot better than about 3/4 to 1" for me at fifty. maybe the temp was good for Club today.

this blue team shoots pretty darn good for me... about every 10th shot it spits out somewhere, the rest of the time it is better than the 10x i have. The 10x today was 1068 speed, a little wores than the 10x 1067 i have. The blue team @ 1065 speed is working the best until it spits one.


This thread may seem like rubbish to some of you guys but for me i would like to read more threads from some of you guys experimenting with rimfire. I think if a guy pays attention, it don't matter what or how your shooting -there is probably always something that can be learned. I'm gonna make more mistakes than successes. If i can just get all the mistakes out of the way in the next couple of years, might be enough successes laying around for a few "X's"! joe:)



]]> jGEE http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=37 More learning 5-14-09 http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=29 Thu, 14 May 2009 22:57:37 GMT Here is an interesting observation: Today i'm testing the new barrel, after cleaning and shooting several times -i put about 30 rounds thru it, gonna run a patch thru it again, i stopped and decide to just look with the bore scope. Normally i would run a clean patch so as not to get the bore scope dirty but i decide i wanted to see exactly what was left over.

Probably about 10 min after the last round when i took these pics, guess what that's water your looking at! The temp is 82 degrees, humidity is 65%. I remember reading Calfees thread about water forming in the barrel. Actually there was a lot of water in there!! Just thought it was interesting.. joe :)

(the pics are with my camera thru the bore scope, not that great..)





]]> jGEE http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=29 More learning part 2 ..5-14-09 http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=28 Thu, 14 May 2009 19:29:59 GMT Next step is threading, kinda fun but you gotta be ready for a "train wreck". Firt thread i cut a few months back i went a little too far and caught the barrel edge, sorta messed things up. This one went perfect! With the cross feed set at a 29 degree angle for threading, a depth of .045 makes a nice thread. it is not a true .045 depth because your turning in at a 29 degree angle.

[CENTER][/CENTER

I made a simple stop to help with threading. Each time you make a pass on threading you back out with the cross slide and return to start another cut. Even with the cross slide set to "o", i would get lost how far i needed to go back in. With the stop it worked nice on each return.

The stop is a bit crude for some of the expert machinest on here but it was simple and works. I drilled a couple holes thru a boring bar holder i had used an old allen for the adjustment -works perfect! You will need a carbide bit to drill the holder.


I'm still learning chambering, may not be the correct method but seemed to work. With the reamer being threaded i used a live center to piolt the back end. I have been using about 200 rpms for chambering but this time i used my slowest speed 72 rpms. A rimfire chamber your not removing a lot of metal, i used plenty cutting oil cleaned my reamer abotu 4 times and went slow.

[CENTER][/CENTER

From what i hear mr calfee doesn't tell how to use his reamers and hobbs. I was gonna ask mr.beau to ask for me but i didn't figure that would go anywhere. There is a BC member that was kind enough to help me out in this area. For my first chamber i went all the way with the reamer, it engaged the frist driving band on a 10x. I then used the Hobb by hand and tried to "iron out" some of the machine marks on the leades.

The Hobb seems to be a match of the reamer but "slick", no cutting edges.


I'm taking a pic thru the bore scope with my camera. i'll have to practice some to get some better pics. the first pic is after reaming. The second pic is after hand turning the hobb for about 10 min. It looks like the hobb sorta "laid down" the leade a bit. Hey Mr beau some "instruction" here sure would be nice!

[CENTER][/CENTER


I haven't cut any extractor slots but i did do a little testing this morning, not a world beater by any means -just ok. i have a lot to learn to say the least. I think next i will shorten the chamber about .020 and run the hobb in again... i got about 24 inches of bbl left to xperment with.

I'm under the impression any good 'square edge is good enough for a crown. I'm sure thats wrong, everythign i think is always wrong, lol!!


It supose to be about having fun but sometimes i wonder, maybe i just like "pain"!! I have a new Turbo Action comeing from Mr Dan - gonna need some help with that project in a few days. thanks joe :) ]]> jGEE http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=28 More learning 2 parts..... 5-14-05 http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=27 Thu, 14 May 2009 19:27:56 GMT My Kimber 82G rebarreling adventures continue. I wanted a "fat barrel" so i order up a Lilja 4 groove tight bore. Took 2 months but when it came in it was a 6 groove. I didn't want to send it back and start the waiting game over so i decided it would be perfect, lol!

PTG was the next call, i wanted to see what a Hobb looked like so i asked Mr Kiff to make me up a Calfee Hobb with matching reamer. Turned out to be a #2 Calfee Hobb and a #2 Calfee finishing reamer. I ordered the pioloted reamer and hobb with extra piolots.

Every thing showed up about the same time so i was "retty to go"!




Does anyone know why they come threaded??




I'm not perfect at "centering" just yet but getting better at each attempt. I used my dial indicator to get close enough so i could cut off the end about an inch. The guys told me the 4 jaw chuck was be a lot eaiser when i got use to it and they are rite!


Faced off the chamber end -notice the copper sleive for clamping and not maring the barrel, something else the guys said to do, copper coupler straight from Lowes fit the 1.125 bbl perfect.


You can't center off the outside of the bbl, the rifleing is not always dead center, this Lilja was "dead center"! I tried this "gadget" i've had in my tool box for years, never knew what it did.


This little gadget made by Starret allows for running the idicator from inside the bore. Now i can center the barrel off the rifling. It seems to be an ok method, but a disclaimer -i'm still learning. Now i understand why for perfect alignment you must use a "range rod" and 2 indicators. Indicating from just one point will only center that point the indicator is running on.


This is my first cut, the tennon threads on a Kimber 82G is 3/4x16. It takes a .745 dia for the threads.


THIS THREAD CONTINUED NEXT POST... ]]> jGEE http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=27 Tuesday. http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=22 Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:18:13 GMT Answered the call again this morning - made it to the 5 a.m. spinning class - 40 minutes long. I'm getting stronger in the spinning classes, pretty much able to keep up with the instructor's routine.

Then went to the muscle toning class - I was the only guy in there. Most of those women are very tough. The crunches and ab-exercises were so intense that my muscles pretty much locked up at the end of the class.

Sitting at my desk, I can definitely tell that I did some "work" this morning.

Shooting related - I am going to epoxy/glass bed my CZ 452 Varmint and sand out the barrell channel to eliminate all contact between the stock and barrell. The Timney trigger is better than the stock one, but still has a small but perceptible amount of creep. I need to adjust it carefully in order to avoid the "fires on bolt closing", or "fires when taking off the safety" that some of the Timney CZ 452 triggers are known for. I'd like to shoot this rifle in some of the upcoming vintage SB benchrest matches.

Headed to St Peter's parish to pick up their used cooking grease (from the fish fries) tonight. ]]> Jetmugg http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=22 Reply to comments http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=21 Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:22:52 GMT I want to thank chisqr, Dan, and Denny for their comments and I hope to expand on this blog and “attempt” to answer your questions as time permits, but your patience will be required because that time is limited. More importantly, I’m uncomfortable posting on forums and struggle with trying to... I want to thank chisqr, Dan, and Denny for their comments and I hope to expand on this blog and “attempt” to answer your questions as time permits, but your patience will be required because that time is limited. More importantly, I’m uncomfortable posting on forums and struggle with trying to present my thoughts in a coherent manner.
My “only” hope or goal is that I may generate some curiosity and others who are much more qualified than me will investigate both the easily available tools for analysis and some of the rather esoteric tools I’m currently using.

The primary reason I started investigating more sophisticated methods of analysis a few years ago is because I felt there was the possibility we were approaching the absolute limits of accuracy in most Benchrest disciplines and that any chance of further progress would require better tools to detect very small changes in building or tuning a firearm with the utilization of controlled environments (Tunnels).

I’m going to take the lazy way out and cut/paste part of a post I made on another forum:
“I do feel it’s important that all shooters be aware of at least “some” of the different statistical methods easily available to them to help ensure their testing has enough validity to make an informed determination relative to the money and effort they expend in their tuning or purchases. I agree that experience is a valuable tool in ammo selection or quantifying performance, but you just have to remember it becomes less valuable depending on the variance in your results, how far the uncertainties overlap, and the nature of what you’re testing.”
At the very least, some of these tools available for analysis will allow us to decide if a very small difference is practical to test for. If you have to quadruple the sample size to half the uncertainties and you’ve already fired 50 shots….it may or may not be practical, but at least you know.

(Another cut/paste):
“Is what I’m doing useful in a practical sense of the word?….maybe, maybe not. I’m at the point where I can do about 6x25 shot tests or 3x50 shot tests in one afternoon “if” everything goes smoothly; with ½ of that time being spent at the computer compiling the data, but you have to remember I’m searching and evaluating for very small differences in my testing. The time could be shortened considerably if you’re satisfied with measurement precision in the .03” or greater range instead of the .006” I’m striving to attain. It certainly wasn’t practical a year ago when I would spend 3 or 4 hrs on a single 25 shot target.”

I’ve grown quite weary of little more than anecdotal evidence causing fellow shooters to act like lemmings and follow the latest craze or the suggestions of some shooting “guru” and, the fact that you win a match doesn’t mean your equipment is superior to the other shooters on the line because the ability to dope the wind or adjust your tune will always be a dominant factor unless we all start shooting matches in tunnels. There exists the possibility I’m wrong about someone’s ability to shoot a few groups and then declare that “x” causes a .0?” improvement, but I for one would be a lot more comfortable if some reliable data was provided with those proclamations. ]]> HuskerP7M8 http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=21 Sunday Silhouette Match. http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=20 Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:24:20 GMT Had a Smallbore Silhouette match on Sunday. It was actually two 40-shot matches. Got there about 8:00 a.m. and the range opened for sighting in shortly thereafter. I was suprised to find that the settings I had previously used with SK Standard Plus ammo had changed, up to 2 moa at 100m. This... Had a Smallbore Silhouette match on Sunday. It was actually two 40-shot matches. Got there about 8:00 a.m. and the range opened for sighting in shortly thereafter. I was suprised to find that the settings I had previously used with SK Standard Plus ammo had changed, up to 2 moa at 100m. This was the last of my SK Std Plus anyway, but I wonder if something has changed in the scope or mounts to account for the difference in sight settings.

Temperature was about 60F at the start of the match, breezy, with colder weather approaching. In the first match, I shot a "B" class score, which was dissappointing, since I am an "AA" shooter. Was having a bit of difficulty finding a steady hold, keeping too much tension in my arms and legs.

The second match was better, shooting an "AA" class score which is in my level. I felt more relaxed in the arms and legs, and could concentrate on the targets more carefully.

This morning, woke up at 4:30, got ready and headed to the Y. Did the 5 a.m. spinning class followed by some core exercises, machine squats, calf raises and some standard upper body work. ]]> Jetmugg http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=20 Friday evening through Saturday http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=19 Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:35:37 GMT After work Friday- went home, got the wife and kids and headed to the K of C hall for a fish fry. I've had better fish frys for sure (chewy cod) and no desserts. On the way home from the 'fry, stopped off at Kaleidoscoops and had some ice cream (whole family).

Got home, let the kids and dogs play in the backyard for a while. It needs to be mowed already. Then got the kids ready for bed (baths, teeth brushed, jammies on). After the kids were tucked in, I headed to the YMCA. Got a pretty intense 45 minute workout in (upper body and some hack squats).

Working for "the man" Saturday morning - need to work for "the woman" Saturday afternoon in the yard. Will go to Mass Saturday evening, and to the Silhouette match on Sunday morning.

No one else may read this blog, but it's serving as a daily training/activity log for myself at this point. Eventually, something interesting may happen.

Steve. ]]> Jetmugg http://www.benchrest.com/forums/blog.php?b=19