longshooter
New member
Hydroscopy and constituents
In the wikipedia article, hydroscopy is mentioned.
Hygroscopy is the ability of a substance to attract water molecules from the surrounding environment through either absorption or adsorption.
Perhaps the constituents of the residue produced from the burning of the gunpowder might have a high affinity to attract moisture. As the barrel vents, the incoming replacement air would be heating, not cooling, therefore, I do not think condensation would be occuring. However, the byproduct constituents (solids and gas) might be attracting moisture. Solids remain. If gaseous, perhaps once it attracts moisture (which might be instantaneous), it might become heavier than air, and fall out on the surface.
I will be the first to say, this is pure conjecture on my part. I think it would take a scientist, or chemist, or some other person in the know, to present the actual scenerio.
It is interesting to ponder on tho'.
In the wikipedia article, hydroscopy is mentioned.
Hygroscopy is the ability of a substance to attract water molecules from the surrounding environment through either absorption or adsorption.
Perhaps the constituents of the residue produced from the burning of the gunpowder might have a high affinity to attract moisture. As the barrel vents, the incoming replacement air would be heating, not cooling, therefore, I do not think condensation would be occuring. However, the byproduct constituents (solids and gas) might be attracting moisture. Solids remain. If gaseous, perhaps once it attracts moisture (which might be instantaneous), it might become heavier than air, and fall out on the surface.
I will be the first to say, this is pure conjecture on my part. I think it would take a scientist, or chemist, or some other person in the know, to present the actual scenerio.
It is interesting to ponder on tho'.
David Valdina
Member
Water in the bore, on purpose...
I seem to remember the old black powder precision shooters would have a tube to blow into the bore between shots to keep the "gunk" a bit moist and it improved accuracy and allowed more shots between cleanings. I guess this doesn't really relate, but thought I would mention it. Also, it seems to me that having a hidden squirt gun on the line might be fun, at least once.
I seem to remember the old black powder precision shooters would have a tube to blow into the bore between shots to keep the "gunk" a bit moist and it improved accuracy and allowed more shots between cleanings. I guess this doesn't really relate, but thought I would mention it. Also, it seems to me that having a hidden squirt gun on the line might be fun, at least once.
D
Doug
Guest
Lynn,
I have stayed away from this thread till I saw your numbers.
90 % of chronograph data I see posted is worthless but yours is an exception.
Besides the consistency - One of the things that grabbed My attention was your 1st and 2nd shot then ever 3rd shot. (The % are just my way of looking)
Was this shot with a tuner?
If not will you try it with a tuner?
_ 1st 2nd
1. 3080 3080 - - - 0.00%
2. 3078 3078 - - - 0.00%
3. 3086 3084 - - - 0.06%
4. 3078 3071 - - - 0.23%
5. 3079 3082 - - - 0.10%
6. 3048 3048 - - - 0.00%
I have stayed away from this thread till I saw your numbers.
90 % of chronograph data I see posted is worthless but yours is an exception.
Besides the consistency - One of the things that grabbed My attention was your 1st and 2nd shot then ever 3rd shot. (The % are just my way of looking)
Was this shot with a tuner?
If not will you try it with a tuner?
_ 1st 2nd
1. 3080 3080 - - - 0.00%
2. 3078 3078 - - - 0.00%
3. 3086 3084 - - - 0.06%
4. 3078 3071 - - - 0.23%
5. 3079 3082 - - - 0.10%
6. 3048 3048 - - - 0.00%
Last edited by a moderator:
Lynn....
I may be misreading you but I think what you are saying is you simply ignore the error, or variation, that exists in the chrono readings and assume that the reading you get represents true velocity of the ammo. What can I say? Except.... maybe ignorance IS bliss, have fun!
I may be misreading you but I think what you are saying is you simply ignore the error, or variation, that exists in the chrono readings and assume that the reading you get represents true velocity of the ammo. What can I say? Except.... maybe ignorance IS bliss, have fun!
Lynn, try and understand, Cecil's primary objective here is pretty much to disagree with most of what's said on this forum.
That being said what practical reason is there in debating WHY moisture develops in a bore, the reality is that it does and it may for more than one reason. There is also the fact that over the span of a minute or more, after a series of shots, you're dealing with a bore full of lube that has changed it's viscosity and requires the restablishment of the prior stage and frankly all of these conditions are probably impacted more or less with a variety of barrel configurations quite probably.
That being said what practical reason is there in debating WHY moisture develops in a bore, the reality is that it does and it may for more than one reason. There is also the fact that over the span of a minute or more, after a series of shots, you're dealing with a bore full of lube that has changed it's viscosity and requires the restablishment of the prior stage and frankly all of these conditions are probably impacted more or less with a variety of barrel configurations quite probably.
Lynn...
The "accuracy spec" of 1% given for a chrono does not mean it reads 1% above or below another chrono, or that it ALWAYS reads 1% high or low. It means that each reading you get may be inaccurate by as much as 1%. For example if you fire a round and the true velocity is 3080 fps then the chrono may read as high as 3110 or as low as 3049. You don't know what the true velocity is, if you read 3080, you can only say it is between 3110 and 3049.
I'm sure the limit on accuracy given by most chrono manufacturers is the maximum and is dependent on temperature, voltage, and other variables so that in most cases you don't get readings spread to the maximum. You probably get only half or a quarter of the maximum. So maybe you only have a 15 fps error instead of 30 fps. What this means however is you can't draw any conclisions as to what caused a 15 fps difference in velocity readings. You can't say something like "water" caused it, when it may in truth be just a variation in the chrono readings
In your testing you had a spread of 48 fps. Was this caused by water, or by powder variations, or bullet variations, or lube variations.......or was it caused by chrono variations?
I'm not trying to disagree, or find fault with anything or anybody. I'm just stating some facts about test measurements. You and Tim can keep on making whatever assumptions you want - keep on kidding yourselves - and in the case of Tim , keep on reading what you want to read from the forum postings.
The "accuracy spec" of 1% given for a chrono does not mean it reads 1% above or below another chrono, or that it ALWAYS reads 1% high or low. It means that each reading you get may be inaccurate by as much as 1%. For example if you fire a round and the true velocity is 3080 fps then the chrono may read as high as 3110 or as low as 3049. You don't know what the true velocity is, if you read 3080, you can only say it is between 3110 and 3049.
I'm sure the limit on accuracy given by most chrono manufacturers is the maximum and is dependent on temperature, voltage, and other variables so that in most cases you don't get readings spread to the maximum. You probably get only half or a quarter of the maximum. So maybe you only have a 15 fps error instead of 30 fps. What this means however is you can't draw any conclisions as to what caused a 15 fps difference in velocity readings. You can't say something like "water" caused it, when it may in truth be just a variation in the chrono readings
In your testing you had a spread of 48 fps. Was this caused by water, or by powder variations, or bullet variations, or lube variations.......or was it caused by chrono variations?
I'm not trying to disagree, or find fault with anything or anybody. I'm just stating some facts about test measurements. You and Tim can keep on making whatever assumptions you want - keep on kidding yourselves - and in the case of Tim , keep on reading what you want to read from the forum postings.
Cec, ole buddy, what your "scientific rationalization" seemed to have missed is that with more than one test and a substantial varience that's repeatable consistantly after the delay, then the sum total of your never ending list of BS reasons seems to be "none of the above". Something else is going on. Even a dumb guy like me can figure that out.
Tim..
Cec, ole buddy, what your "scientific rationalization" seemed to have missed is that with more than one test and a substantial varience that's repeatable consistantly after the delay, then the sum total of your never ending list of BS reasons seems to be "none of the above". Something else is going on. Even a dumb guy like me can figure that out.
I think you are right. The two tests are consistent enough to probably mean the chrono is extremely accurate, much less than 1%, and the readings can be taken to indicate that something really is causing velocity to drop after the delay. Water might be the cause
Cec, ole buddy, what your "scientific rationalization" seemed to have missed is that with more than one test and a substantial varience that's repeatable consistantly after the delay, then the sum total of your never ending list of BS reasons seems to be "none of the above". Something else is going on. Even a dumb guy like me can figure that out.
I think you are right. The two tests are consistent enough to probably mean the chrono is extremely accurate, much less than 1%, and the readings can be taken to indicate that something really is causing velocity to drop after the delay. Water might be the cause
Vibe
22 Epperson Cricket
Fowlers, as in a fowling shot - one not on target but used to prep the bore for consistency. I thought the context of the statement would have indicated that. Since both of your "after the wait" shots had the same velocity, making ALL of your shots fit the same "after the wait" conditions to try and further improve the ES.
He was using humour to point out that you misspelled foulers.
Vibe
22 Epperson Cricket
Ahhh.
If he gets to where he's one of the "funny people", Bill won't talk to him anymore. My spellcheck didn't catch it either.
D
Douglas
Guest
I have been out of town since the match, so I have not been able to do any further testing. I did not mention the particular barrel because I didn't want this thread to go off on a tangent other than the issue at hand; since that has already happened I may as well say it, the barrel is a Benchmark reverse taper 2 groove 17-1/2" twist. As you may remember, a lot of folks thought very highly of this barrel a couple years ago, but it has since fallen out of favor, so much so that I prolly couldn't get five cents for it now. That's the reason I did this test, to try justifying (in my mind) to not spending the money to re-barrel. It's funny about how barrels come in and out of fashion, last year it was Lilja, this year it is Shilen. A friend of mine says he's going to get a Adams & Bennet, carbon steel, put flat black spray paint on it, good for a laugh I guess.
All the scientific thoughts that have been expressed here is way beyond my mental capacity to comprehend, it gives me a headache. It's all good stuff, don't get me wrong, but just not my thing. All I wanted to do was follow the procedure, not draw any conclusions about theory.
Thanks, Douglas
J
J Pappas
Guest
Benchmark Barrel ??????????
Douglas, a two groove, 17 1/2 twist, benchmark won the ARA Nationals Sunday in St. Louis. It was built by Gene Davis. Just thought you might want to know.
Douglas, a two groove, 17 1/2 twist, benchmark won the ARA Nationals Sunday in St. Louis. It was built by Gene Davis. Just thought you might want to know.
D
Douglas
Guest
Wow! that's good news James, maybe there's hope after all. I have to get to the range to finish my testing; my plan is to shoot three IR50/50 cards, clean the barrel between each, and see if my cleaning theory is correct. my platter is full the rest of this week, I'll get it done next week. Thanks, Douglas
D
Douglas
Guest
The muzzle is stopped! As stated earlier, I wanted to run one more test, to clean the barrel after each card. It was a nice sunny day at the range, mid-70's, wind switchy about 5-10mph, I was shooting with my good friend Steve, who was giving me some valuable lessons about reading the wind. The three IR50/50 cards scored as follows:
247-9X
248-14X
248-8X
I cleaned the barrel after each relay, this test confirmed my suspicions. I called each of the seven misses as soon as I pulled the trigger, in other words I knew it would be a miss when I fired the shot. I got ants in my pants to pull the trigger even though I knew the wind was not favorable. There was no pressure because it wasn't match conditions, but I was a little nervous just the same.
There's no doubt in my mind this procedure for tuning a barrel works, Adams & Bennet ain't gonna get my $79.95.
Thanks, Douglas
247-9X
248-14X
248-8X
I cleaned the barrel after each relay, this test confirmed my suspicions. I called each of the seven misses as soon as I pulled the trigger, in other words I knew it would be a miss when I fired the shot. I got ants in my pants to pull the trigger even though I knew the wind was not favorable. There was no pressure because it wasn't match conditions, but I was a little nervous just the same.
There's no doubt in my mind this procedure for tuning a barrel works, Adams & Bennet ain't gonna get my $79.95.
Thanks, Douglas
D
Douglas
Guest
more match results
Results from yesterday's match, first relay I shot a 248-14X (great for me) I was taking my time, watching the flags, etc. Second relay I shot a 243-13X, but I had a 7 on #2 and a 6 on #20, I didn't know what to make of that, it had to be ammo related because everything else was equal. Third relay the wind started getting tricky and I didn't do good, no excuses, 243-7X.
But here's the good part; after the match, my good friend Bob and I stuck around to shoot a practice target. For those of you who are unfamilar with Roger's weight system, it's a series of incremental weights that screw into Hoehn's muzzle device so you can add or subtract as required. Roger provides one one/half ounce weight with no female thread that is supposed to be placed on the very end of the stack to give it the "finished" off look. When I did my initial testing I did not include this final weight, so I wanted to try to put it on, give it that finished look. I put it on and started testing on the first row of a IR50/50 target; I was using Eley black box, 1040fps and 1080fps, aimed dead nuts center, didn't even look at the flags, both same hole X. Next bull, same thing, one hole X. I did this all five bulls in the first row, next three were not X's, but still 10's. Then I started shooting the rest of the target, but I started using 1040fps, 1055fps, 1080fps, mixing them up as went along, three rounds each then start over, and so on. My first and only miss was an 8 on #19. I was paying absolutely no attention to the wind, load, aim center, fire, move to the next bull. I could not believe it and neither could Bob, we were chattering back and forth as we shot. So for this one target I shot a total of 30 rounds (ten on the first row) with only one miss. I was figuring I'd have to start turning the tuner in about ten clicks by adding the half ounce, but not the case. Can a rifle shoot through the wind, who the heck knows? Was it just dumb luck, I suppose? With that I packed up and went home. Thanks, Douglas
Results from yesterday's match, first relay I shot a 248-14X (great for me) I was taking my time, watching the flags, etc. Second relay I shot a 243-13X, but I had a 7 on #2 and a 6 on #20, I didn't know what to make of that, it had to be ammo related because everything else was equal. Third relay the wind started getting tricky and I didn't do good, no excuses, 243-7X.
But here's the good part; after the match, my good friend Bob and I stuck around to shoot a practice target. For those of you who are unfamilar with Roger's weight system, it's a series of incremental weights that screw into Hoehn's muzzle device so you can add or subtract as required. Roger provides one one/half ounce weight with no female thread that is supposed to be placed on the very end of the stack to give it the "finished" off look. When I did my initial testing I did not include this final weight, so I wanted to try to put it on, give it that finished look. I put it on and started testing on the first row of a IR50/50 target; I was using Eley black box, 1040fps and 1080fps, aimed dead nuts center, didn't even look at the flags, both same hole X. Next bull, same thing, one hole X. I did this all five bulls in the first row, next three were not X's, but still 10's. Then I started shooting the rest of the target, but I started using 1040fps, 1055fps, 1080fps, mixing them up as went along, three rounds each then start over, and so on. My first and only miss was an 8 on #19. I was paying absolutely no attention to the wind, load, aim center, fire, move to the next bull. I could not believe it and neither could Bob, we were chattering back and forth as we shot. So for this one target I shot a total of 30 rounds (ten on the first row) with only one miss. I was figuring I'd have to start turning the tuner in about ten clicks by adding the half ounce, but not the case. Can a rifle shoot through the wind, who the heck knows? Was it just dumb luck, I suppose? With that I packed up and went home. Thanks, Douglas
P
Paolo
Guest
Douglas
in one of your previous posting you mention that you added an extra 1/2 oz weight but had to remove it then while it worked in the last post.
Don't you think that the weight might be related to weather conditions (temp and humidity but not wind) of different shooting days?
I have yet to start with the weight but am not sure about it since I have sometimes obtained a good series of Xs but they are not constant.
FYI I shoot with a regular Anschutz 1913 SS Heavy Match.
Ever tried with Eley Match EPS to see if there was a difference?
Paolo
in one of your previous posting you mention that you added an extra 1/2 oz weight but had to remove it then while it worked in the last post.
Don't you think that the weight might be related to weather conditions (temp and humidity but not wind) of different shooting days?
I have yet to start with the weight but am not sure about it since I have sometimes obtained a good series of Xs but they are not constant.
FYI I shoot with a regular Anschutz 1913 SS Heavy Match.
Ever tried with Eley Match EPS to see if there was a difference?
Paolo