Hulk
Howdy Hulk,
Please understand that I don't know Bob Taylor personally. I only exchanged some posts with him on Mike's forum regarding his test, and his broken bones. I sincerely hope he gets well.
You may be surprised to find that we actually have some areas of agreement here. I think I posted about his condition, at least as far as I know, after you wrote your "example". I thought it was more parody, but I will go with example. (The quotation marks around the word example are not intended in any way to be sarcastic.) So there was no way that you intended that to be offensive or disrespectful to his condition.
You said there needs to be more to this story. I agree 100%. He did say, and I posted it here also:
"After going to considerable trouble and expense, I would like to have this written up by a technical writer. I may try to get that done. Anyway, I'll be out of pocket for the next two-three weeks."
I would like to see it written up, obviously you would as well. It might not be that I agree with it all. It might not be that you agree with it all. But it does need to get written up.
Most importantly, I hope the guy recovers, for him and his family. Somewhere down the road I hope he does the write up of the test.
The thing that struck me about the test is the details that he mentioned. He seemed to haver tried really, really hard to make it as valid as he knew how. And he went to the trouble of having a physics professor and a statistician help him design a test that was as free of bias as possible. And he admitted that he was biased FOR indexing. Hulk, I just thought this was a very detailed, legitimate attempt to do the job right.
I was surprised, very surprised, to see that only two people attempted to rebutt what he said. And he did say that he needed to get it written up, and that he had not retrieved the targets from the stats guy.
But the thing is, Mike and Jeff BOTH accepted the test and gave it credibility. They both wanted to see the hard evidence, certainly. But they both accepted the test and gave it credibility. That would have to be out of respect to Bob Taylor. I have been told that he is a noted cardiologist who is known for being obsessive in his research. That is accurate as far as I know.
So, if he lives, presumably there will be targets, data and pictures.
Ironically enough, I have read where folks have called for statistical analysis to prove Bill Calfee is right, yet I have not read of statistical analysis being applied to Mike, or Jeff's testing. Jeff did say that he shot over 20,000 rounds developing his tuner stock, and he was convinced. But even Bob said at times he thought indexing appeared to be working, and at times he thought it might not be, during his test. When the info went to the statistician, was when it got down to the answer of "No measurable variation".
Mike and Jeff, as far as I know, have not had thier results checked by a statistician.
Mike's answer to Bob includes that at the bottom of his reply that I am posting here.
It may be that when the details of the test come out, that there will be something that can be noticed in the test that would have had an unexpected impact on the it. And it is only through closely examining the data that we can find out. I suspect the test will be published someday.
Hulk, I don't know what to say to your charge of :
"If someone were to be fair, which is a foreign concept to you,"
I use complete quotations so that the context can be preserved. It is more difficult to mix up a quote from someone if the entire quote is right there where it can be seen. I try to include both sides of the story. On the big indexing thread on rimfireaccuracy, Samiam got after me for being "main stream media in thier approach to reporting politics" when I posted Bob Taylor's test. So I posted Mike Ross and Jeff Madison's comments to Bob also. Samiam then told me "Nice work, you could probably get a job on one of those fair and balanced networks". Now those quotes are from my memory, I should probably go back and get them verbatim, but that was the general idea. So, at least at that point, Samiam thought I was being being fair. He and I had a disagreement at the end of that thread that I didn't get to answer.
But I try to be fair. I am going to guess that as folks thoughts solidify on whichever position that they agree with, I will be viewed as fair or unfair based more on the position that they agree with than what I have actually said, or how I have said it. Sadly, such is human nature.
Hulk, I didn't mean for this to be this lengthy, but I am going to close with Mike Ross' response to Bob Taylor and his test. Note what I said earlier. Mike accepted Bob's test and gave it credibility. Again, I suppose this is based upon the credibility that he assigned to Bob Taylor. It was Mike's acceptance of this test that led me to post it, yes, several times. I could not understand why it could be accepted and given credibility, and then not be discussed again. I still don't.
Hulk, we may just have to agree to disagree. I certainly don't wish you any ill, or have any animosity toward you.
There is a lot in Mike's response. I don't think his explanation of a BR rifle being indifferent to indexing works.
Take care,
Greg
"Now that I'm back from my brief vacation, wherin I intentionally avoided all exposure to "web forums", I think I now have the energy to once again tackle the "great indexing mystery". Consequently I have read and studied your post with great interest, and not a little admiration for your grit and determination. Not to mention the 10k investment you made.
I have no way of refuting the outcome of the extensive tests that you ran, or the application of "statistical analysis" to the performance results. All I can safely say is that your statisticians conclusions are very different from my own, and that there has to be a reason for that difference.
My best guess is that the cause of that difference, has everything to do with the disparity of the testing process each of us has used to draw our respective conclusions. But that presumes that I have a full understanding of how your tests were conducted, so allow me to first state that, and then you can correct me if necessary.
What I "think" you did, was to (in effect) test multiple rifles in a benchrest configuration, sampling the performance of each indexing position of the barrels, but firing these rifles as "complete rifles". Additionally, each index of each barrel was fired separately at individual targets, such that no "bore-curve dispersion pattern" could be observed, merely the "size" of each group as a function of barrel index position. Consequently, you likely were not aware of the "actual" orientation of the barrel's bore curve with respect to gravity.
When the groups fired showed no "statistical" change in size, you had every right to conclude that a benchrested rifle would NOT benefit from any particular bore-curve orientation. And the last thing I will do here, is to ask you to accept that your observations were incorrect. You saw what you saw, and your statistician confirmed what you saw, so I am the one obliged to accept that outcome, and left to speculate over the "why" of it.
Obviously, I didn't think that would happen. But in accepting that it did, it forces me to conclude that maybe Bill Calfee has been right all along. That by virtue of any rifle being fired in a benchrest configuration, it will remain "indifferent" to any particular bore-curve orientation. And that the reason for this, is most likely due to the complete rifle becoming "self-correcting" by virtue of its "free-recoil" pattern of motion. In other words, there can be no such thing as an "incorrect index", when the entire rifle is allowed the freedom to move as it chooses, with each individual shot fired.
This would then mean that barrel-indexing, as it might apply to rimfire benchrest shooting, has been nothing more than a "tempest in a teapot". And that ANY improvement derived for that sport, would remain purely "coincidental". Or perhaps "accidental".
Well alright then. The test you conducted has fairly well convinced me that the "phenomenon" of bore-curves, and the particular orientation of them, will demonstrate group improvement only when barrels remain "fixed". Which of course is the only way I have ever tested them for that effect. And that the mistake I have made, is that I never carried such testing forward into a "practical application", the way you did.
HOWEVER, the reality of bore-curves remains, and their ability to alter the performance of any barrel, has not been disproven or dispelled. Nor has our ability to determine such bore-curves been altered, through the performance of a barrel-indexing test.
We merely have the choice of ignoring the curve orientation, or setting it to a position that "might" prove an advantage in perhaps unforseen ways. Wider ammo options, or an easier "tuning" process. Or the "qualification" of a barrel's potential, on the basis of the degree of bore-curve present.
In the end, I will again refer to one of Jeff Madisons statements: "The bore curve is there, now what are you going to do with it?"
Personally, I'm still convinced that simply ignoring bore curve orientation is NOT an acceptable option. And here are the reasons I would say that:
1) There is evidence to suggest that barrels with no discernable bore-curve, will out perform barrels that have obvious curves, made self-evident through the act of indexing.
2) Index-firing a barrel with any bore-curve present, will (at 50 yards) demonstrate an unequal trapezoidal pattern, and that a vertical orientation of the curve will unfailingly show the barrel's preference for that orientation. With any ammo fired. And as long as the barrel remains "fixed", AS it is fired. There must be a reason for this, even if none of us knows for sure what it is.
3) Barrels move. They will oscillate more or less "unpredicably", while the bullet is still inside the bore, affecting the "shape" of the bullet while it traverses the bore. A predominate vertical motion of the barrel (thereby working with gravity) "seems" the least harmful to the bullet's original shape. Or the degree of "offset" manner in which it will exit the muzzle. In other words, it appears to "stabilize" sooner.
4) The commensurate "vertical stringing" of bullets landing at 50 yards, with vertical bore-curve orientation, are far easier to "tune out".
5) Benchrested rifles, capable of some sort of "self-correcting" oscillatory "fix", is all well and good. BUT, but that is not the ONLY way that smallbore rifles are fired. Sometimes, they are rigidly held by the shooter, such that the "self-correction" factor is not as readily available.
6) There are principles of physics relating to bore-curve orientation, that are still mysterious. But any attempt to deny that a barrel will alter the way it vibrates, predicated on that curve-direction, is equivilent to saying that rifle bullets (or barrels) are indifferent to gravity.
In the end, it would appear that both you and Bill Calfee have reached near identical conclusions. That any rifle shot in a benchrest configuration, will not statistically benefit from a vertical bore-curve orientation. At least not "directly", as a function of obviously reduced group sizes. I can live with that.
BUT, how might you explain the dozens of results I have pictured here on this Forum. The trapezoid dispersion shape is self-evident. The barrel's obvious "favoritism" for a vertical bore-curve orientation is self-evident.
There must be reasons for that, even if there remains no proof that there is any way to translate this "phenomenon" into a "practical" application. But then, what would constitute adequate proof, over an "inference" of possible improvement?
I cannot challenge your rersults, merely await your challenge of my own, based on what I have shown you within this Forum. Surely you will not say that they are not real, even if I haven't any statistics to back them up."
