OK, I'm going to find out if you're really INTERESTED in facts? Or just like to compare opinions. Harold Vaughn wrote his book in the interest of separating FACT from OPINION. As an engineer he places the "why" before the 'what".....Bill Calfee also wrote a book in which he expounded on lots of stuff that WORKS. But he's not so good at the "why." I'm not taking from either book, it's just that the "why" is where the real juice is.
I don't have a personal dislike of the guy....I don't know him from Adam's off ox. I DO have a personal dislike of folks playing fast and loose with "facts." He has a legitimate product. No magic, no gain even IMO, but "Snake Oil?" no, not quite.....just far from innovative. (That said, I DO, REALLY, dislike the name Mausingfield.....but I'm a word guy. I'm picky about presentation. I also think that Carlocks LRKM acronym is silly) There are lots of products out there. Some of them exhibit superior function, some superior accuracy, some look good. ALL LEGITIMATE PRODUCTS, so "no, not Snake Oil" just not really innovative.
I can't make any connection here between your first sentence and the last but here goes..... #1-No, I don't "claim" it, it just DOES. That's a fact, due to design. It completely eliminates the entire problem by isolating the bolthead from the bind. The FACT is that it completely addresses the "problem" outlined by Mausingfield, BETTER than the Mausingfield.....it's just that the bolt head is only a small part of the total accuracy equation. #2-Again, no. Accuracy is defined by results. Period. And by measurements. I don't really enjoy shooting rifles which leave air in my groups at 100yds....I build and use 1/10-1/4moa rifles. I have lots of rifles which WILL shoot into the same hole "all day long"......you could do it, my neighbor kid who's never fired a rifle could do it. I could set the rifle up and tie the cat to it and could put 5 bullets into one raggedy hole at 100yds. But if I'm going out to shoot a deer in the woods I'll carry my vintage 1954 M70 cuz I like it and it'll hit a deer 100% of the time and If'n I was looking down the ivories at M'Bogo who's looking back like I owe him money......I ain't CARING about accuracy, I be want me some controlled feed....
I have no idea what it is you're implying here. "All that, and a lot more" absolutely DO HAPPEN when the trigger is pulled, it's just that his "solution" is flawed. Kinda' like the problem "
we're gonna' run out of oil" and the solution "
so we'll fix it with solar".....the SOLUTION is flawed. Solar power is a stupid "solution" and the only reason it's even a topic of discussion is because unscrupulous people define a "problem" and offer a "solution" that makes them rich. The Mausingfield guy ain't even gonna' get rich, and he ain't ripping people off, but that doesn't mean it's "better." His is a "Ford VS Chevy" argument. Also, you make the statement "the proof lies in the fact that you don't use a floating bolthead"......
We define "proof" differently, you and I
This isn't a "proof" of anything except that changing this interface isn't the whole answer to the problem.....may even point out that it's only a TINY part of the problem.....
Do you have an explanation for WHY the Savage floating bolthead "marginally improves accuracy" in your opinion? I'm disappointed in your use of the term "sloppy machine work" as the actual FACT is that the Savage is held to significantly closer tolerances than a classic "good" rifle like the old pre-64 70....but that aside, if you're impressed with ARC's presentation then that's enough!
As Dr Hook sez...."some folks likes pork chops and some folks likes ham hocks"
I've seen a lot of presentations.... in some cases I'm impressed with the presentation, in some cases with the information. And in most cases I'm just not impressed a'Tall......
F'rinstance, on the subject of testing and "thinking outside the box" I enjoy 'Mythbusters' style shows. Some better than others.I like Dustin's presentations on 'Smarter Every Day' more than Adam and Jamie because he's SMARTER, better educated......he asks better question and structures better testing regimens. But in both of their cases I really enjoy that BOTH OF THEM are more interested in facts than in their collective egos. Both of them have re-done shows because a reader has emailed or written in showing a flawed premise.
I like this.
This is how real progress is made. You cain't learn to play the song without you play it over and over a thousand times......
So, if you want to point out HOW and WHY the Mausingfield is superior to a Win70 controlled feed, I'm lissening. I heard his spiel.....wasn't impressed two yrs ago, ain't now.
al