Stopping the muzzle, Calfee

From all of the information presented on this forum over the past few weeks (and prior to), it sure is looking like there are two distinctly different paths that can be followed, and that they both will likely prove to be valid and useful.

There are a number of guys who have been using light-ish tuners, and have evidence that they work. It sounds like they will allow a shooter to make adjustments based on past results and be confident that the rifle will stay in the groove all day. I've had a few barrels that I could be positively sure that I was making the correct changes at the appropriate time. I'd be happy if I could add a set-up like Gene Beggs has developed to a couple of my existing (even if yet unchambered) barrels...which are of conventional weight and taper...and have the ability to keep the gun at the "oh, yeah!" level all of the time.

It is also sounding like there are already a few who have tried what Bill Calfee is saying to do and found that at least the premises are sound......Lynn, two different loads, 8 grains apart, and they shoot in a hole?......I CAN'T WAIT for decent weather...... this has got my attention for sure. I've had one barrel that would shoot just about anything I fed it....and I could shoot 2 different loads; one hot, one mild, and they both went in the same hole. That barrel practically ignored the wind, too. If I could put a heavy tuner on a slim contour barrel and duplicate the characteristics of that true "Hummer" barrel, well........

I for one am thinking more and more about how short-sighted it is to poo-poo a guy who has proven his abilities to the degree Bill Calfee has. In most other businesses or aspects of life, when someone has such proven abilities in one arena, they usually prove out to be able to apply those talents and abilities in just about any way they choose......

Of all of the negative comments about what Calfee is saying, I haven't heard anyone claim they have done anything that proves him wrong. What i have heard is that the one single guy who has tried using the heavy tuner ("stopped muzzle") and setting it up the way Bill said to has made observations that correlate to Bill's...........even when applied to a rifle that is on the opposite end of the spectrum compared to Bill's rimfires. I have a 6MM barrel blank that just about fits the weight requirements perfectly sitting right here.......I might just fit that sporter tube to a light gun and make up a big ol'tuner.......yep, I just might.........the only problem is it is a 12 twist. I don't want to skew the results by using a barrel that is too fast. But, considering that Jackie feels like the PPC is just a little on the big side, I could just make up some heavier bullets.....72-75 grain, maybe..........Hmmm........

-Dave-:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lynn said:
When Bill Calfee says the muzzle is stopped it is in his terms.
Lynn
Click to expand...
Lynn. Therein lies the bulk of the "problem" if you want to call it that. There are well established terms for much of what Bill says, yet he still feels he must either redefine them in some way, or just use accepted terms incorrectly. Like you I can decipher what he means from the context of what he's saying. But if the "terms" are taken as having their long accepted meanings instead of what he means - then what he is saying is wrong. It's only when one accepts his redefinitions that it makes sense. It's not so much what he's saying that is incorrect as it is the terms he is using to do so. I've basically just quit trying to convince him to attempt to use proper terminology. So long as I have learned that when he says "dog" he really means "cat" I can follow what he's doing.
 
Lynn

I think I need to let you in on the game. I dearly love to "stir the pot" - flip/flopping like a fish at the slightest weakness in wording. Most others know that and ignore me when they can.
 
Vibe said:
Lynn. Therein lies the bulk of the "problem" if you want to call it that. There are well established terms for much of what Bill says, yet he still feels he must either redefine them in some way, or just use accepted terms incorrectly. Like you I can decipher what he means from the context of what he's saying. But if the "terms" are taken as having their long accepted meanings instead of what he means - then what he is saying is wrong. It's only when one accepts his redefinitions that it makes sense. It's not so much what he's saying that is incorrect as it is the terms he is using to do so. I've basically just quit trying to convince him to attempt to use proper terminology. So long as I have learned that when he says "dog" he really means "cat" I can follow what he's doing.
Click to expand...

Psychics do the same thing.
 
Or, a more valid question...

Boyd Allen said:
Has anyone ever made a Calfee design tuner/barrel combo work on a 10 1/2# 6PPC?
Click to expand...

Has anyone ever designed a good, solid experiment based on his model and proven that it doesn't work?

-Dave-:eek::)
 
I believe that Dick Wright did. Of course it can always be argued that anyone that tries and fails didn't do it right. It seems to me that there is only one person whose work would be free of that conjecture.
 
Lynn said:
Wilbur there is a rumor floating around that pacecil is a MIT graduate and as such he should know that All Motion HAS NEVER BEEN STOPPED ON ANYTHING EVER ON THIS PLANET.Scientiost have come close but NOBODY HAS EVER STOPPED ALL MOTION.
The word stopped is used in many ways and most shooters can comprehend what Mr Calfee is talking about.
Humidity has never been PROVEN to cause any problems at all.It has been speculated to be a problem but that has now been updated/superceded to include density altitude.
If you look at this forum or the rimfire forums posts you can clearly see Mr Calfee is a definite draw to the board.Why everyone is bashing his ideas I don't know for sure but jealousy sure seems to be involved.I guess it is hard to admit an outsider can actualy have a valid point for some shooters.
I will post on the 1,000 yard forum were I belong and let this group continue to thwart progess.
Lynn
Click to expand...

Lynn:

You need to step back from this as you are taking this as personal attack and it is not. (Edit: I just re-read pacecil's post and do consider it a personal attack, but that's is own personal problem.) No one is talking about achieving absolute zero. No one is disputing that tuners work. As I see it, the question at issue is how do they work?

Theoretically, there are two points in a barrel's verticle vibration where its acceleration reaches zero. It hasn't "stopped" vibrating, but its acceleration has momentarily reached zero.

Browning's BOSS patent describes this as follows:

"A best match of ammunition will result in the exiting of a bullet from the barrel muzzle at or as near as possible to a anti-node (i.e., peaks and valleys that correspond to minimum barrel velocity) of the vibration curve representative of transverse barrel vibrations induced by the firing of the rifle. When the exit of the bullet is at a peak node of the vibration curve as plotted against time, minimal bullet path deflection occurs (see FIG. 8).

Weights have been heretofore attached to the muzzle ends of rifle barrels as a means of dampening barrel vibrations set in motion by discharge of the firearm. U.S. Pat. No. 4,726,280, for example, discloses mounting a muzzle member, which serves as a counterweight on the muzzle end of a gun barrel. Although not stated in U.S. Pat. No. 4,726,280, it is generally understood that such a muzzle member may serve as a counterweight. The muzzle member is threaded onto the barrel, and is locked in place. Anschutz and Co. G.M.B., through the 1989 catalog of its distributor, Precision sales International, Inc of Westfield, Mass., discloses, at pages 11 and 16, barrel extensions for rifles that include removable weights. Interchanging these weights enables a marksman to vary selectively the amount of weight used for dampening purposes. Although not stated in the 1989 catalog of Anschutz and Co. G.M.B., it is understood that interchanging such weights may enable a marksman to vary selectively the amount of weight used for damping purposes."

. . .

"The ballistic optimizing system (BOS) of the present invention is for the purpose of increasing the shooting accuracy achievable with rifles. The invention provides an adjustable structural means to dampen barrel vibrations. . . .

The system of the invention adds a weight element to the muzzle end of a rifle barrel. The effective center of gravity vibrational characteristics of the barrel can be adjustably changed by positioning the weight element axially along the barrel, either toward or away from its muzzle end. By this means, it becomes possible to "match" the rifle to a particular ammunition. That is, the slug of a bullet for which the weight element is properly positioned will repeatedly exit the muzzle at the optimum time to experience minimum barrel travel deflection (see FIG. 8). Thus, it is unnecessary to select a cartridge based upon the inherent responses of a particular rifle. Accordingly, factory loaded ammunition can be shot with accuracies heretofore unobtainable, Moreover, different factory loaded cartridges can be fired accurately from the same rifle by merely making appropriate system adjustments.

According to the present invention, the weight element is repositioned selectively forwardly toward or rearwardly away from the muzzle end of a rifle barrel. The mass of the weight element thus becomes a critical controlling mass. An appropriate mechanism, such as a lock nut, is used to retain the weight element in selected position and contributes some mass to the weight element. For purposes of this disclosure, the locking mechanism is regarded as a portion of the weight element, and its mass is a part of the critical controlling adjustable mass. The rifle is matched to a particular ammunition by positioning of the weight element to an empirically determined location, referred to as the "sweet spot." The "sweet spot" is that location of the weight element along the axis of a rifle barrel at which the trajectories of a series of substantially similar ballistic slugs / bullets discharged from the muzzle of the rifle held in a stationary position exhibit a minimum deviation (see FIG. 8). The weight element may need to be repositioned to find the "sweet spot" of the rifle for a different cartridge. It has been found that in some instances even very small movements of the critical controlling adjustable mass will effect a significant change in the accuracy of a rifle filled with the present ballistic optimizing system. . .."

Here is the link to the BOSS patent. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...=browning.ASNM.&OS=AN/browning&RS=AN/browning

Please note that the patent acknowledges that the weight it critical. "The mass of the weight element thus becomes a critical controlling mass."

So, I think you'll find that everyone (maybe?) -- except Bill (I think?) -- agrees with the statements above. But, Bill says no. He says that the bullet is not existing at the anti-node, but the node (the portion of the acceleration curve where the barrel is experiencing its highest angular acceleration which is where the barrel spends its least amount of time and is thus the most difficult spot to hit consistently). If you ever want to stir up a bunch of scientists or engineers, step into their playground and tell them they don't know what the hell they are talking about, and then refuse to tell them why they are wrong. The result -- this thread. While you may be able to convice them you are right with facts and scientifically accepted arguments, rhretoric will not get the job done.

Again, don't take any of this as a personal attack on Bill (an certainly not upon youorself). I don't think anyone, and certainly not me, disputes Bill's accomplishments, but we do differ on our belief (I think?) as to how a tuner works. Good luck on your match next month.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pacecil said:
Now that both TomD and Varmint Al have presented some basic facts about guns and bullets, Lynn and Sharrett will have to prove both of them wrong. Wait a minute, maybe Calfee will come to the rescue with some of his super killer scientific stuff....never mind!
Click to expand...

Was this necessary? Did you have to make this personal?
 
WOW ! Terrific job, Mike !

Like I said in a previous post, I would want an attorney as skilled as Mike Marcelli.

Later,

Gene Beggs
 
I have an observation that I think might apply in this thread. Look up a picture of the Abrams heavy tank. The one that shoots the depleted plutonium (sp) dart. The barrel is a smooth bore and the dart has a sabot arount it. Velocity is in the 10,000 fps range. Now look at the bulge near the center of the barrel length. I can't think of any other reason for it to be there other than being some kind of vibration damper or "tuner" if you will. i would expect there is one hell of a powder charge to get that heavy dart up to 10,000 fps. Should be lots of viberation there....Donald
 
Donald said:
I have an observation that I think might apply in this thread. Look up a picture of the Abrams heavy tank. The one that shoots the depleted plutonium (sp) dart. The barrel is a smooth bore and the dart has a sabot arount it. Velocity is in the 10,000 fps range. Now look at the bulge near the center of the barrel length. I can't think of any other reason for it to be there other than being some kind of vibration damper or "tuner" if you will. i would expect there is one hell of a powder charge to get that heavy dart up to 10,000 fps. Should be lots of viberation there....Donald
Click to expand...

That "Bulge" is the bore evacuator......it removes the propellant gasses from the bore before the next round is fired.

If you look closely, you will see that there is a composite shroud over most of the tube. It is there to prevent tube "Droop" from the sun heating and therefore lengthening the top portion of the tube.

-Dave-:)
 
Tuner misc. comments

Boyd Allen said:
Has anyone ever made a Calfee design tuner/barrel combo work on a 10 1/2# 6PPC?
Click to expand...
I have straight turned several barrels and added a medium-heavy tuner. The tuner was a Fudd (Scott Hamilton-Mountain Specialties).

Scott ask me to design a tuner for centerfire back in January 2005 I believe. I didn't submit design details just conceptual features. The main feature being that the assembly be made so it would lock down solid. The final design detail was Scotts. Scott provided me two tuners that clamp on the barrel with the adjustable rings made so they could jam together like locknuts. These outer rings were from stainless steel and heavy enough so the entire assembly weighed 11 ounces.

This barrel modification worked and worked very well. I used this design through the entire 2005 NBRSA season. It did not fit within the temporary rule at that time for IBS.

As an aside, Bill Calfee has made several barrels with a reverse taper. I have not tried that design but I have shot 2 of these Calfee rimfires. They work well enough that a used Calfee rifle will resell for over $4,000 when the new cost is considerable less. Show me another benchrest rifle that will resell used for a 25% premium over the new price.

As to Dick Wrights tuners, he used a Dwight Scott offset tuner much like the K C Young which weighs about 3-4 ounces. Dick has also mounted a Hoehn/Harrell rimfire tuner to a centerfire barrel. I hope he will chime in and give details of this effort.

The photo shows a Fudd solid-lock centerfire tuner in the foreground and a K C Young rimfire tuner on a Bill Myers built rimfire. The K C Young tuner is functionally like the Dwight Scott tuner that Dick Wright used.

2hf2vtf.jpg
 
Last edited:
What the reason for the stepped barrels on the military Mausers?

Was that not the reason the Germans a hundred years ago went to a stepped barrel, but to help solve the barrel (or whip) vibration problems?:confused:
 
Jerry,
Nice picture, and the information is welcome. Would you say that this was a stationary crown, set it once and leave it alone Calfee setup, or one that is a heavier version of what Jackie has done, with the barrel lightened to compensate? Is the node at the crown? Do you think that the barrel's agging ability was enhanced, or was the advantage primarily in being able to more easily make tuning adjustments, or both? How much better do you think that you did over what the barrel would have done with standard profile and no tuner? In short, what did you gain by the modification? Do you remember the combined weight of the barrel and tuner? Yes, I know....a lot of questions.
Boyd
 
Boyd Allen said:
Jerry,
Nice picture, and the information is welcome. Would you say that this was a stationary crown, set it once and leave it alone Calfee setup, or one that is a heavier version of what Jackie has done, with the barrel lightened to compensate? Is the node at the crown? Do you think that the barrel's agging ability was enhanced, or was the advantage primarily in being able to more easily make tuning adjustments, or both? How much better do you think that you did over what the barrel would have done with standard profile and no tuner? In short, what did you gain by the modification? Do you remember the combined weight of the barrel and tuner? Yes, I know....a lot of questions.
Boyd
Click to expand...
Yes, the picture is too large though. This is a new camera and I have scaled it down to 4Mp and it is still too large for this forum. My other digitals when I get down to 4Mp they make a smaller image.

On the tuner, I didn't really do a lot of serious research when I used them in the 2006 season. But, I could take a favorite load, just add the tuner and it would improve the group size. Or, I could take about any load and get the vertical out with the tuner. That is why I feel the tuner, depending on barrel shape and tuner weight can be used for several methods of improvement over any barrel without a tuner. But, keep in mind I am only about a 0.3"-0.4" shooter. The tuner did keep me shooting about 0.05"-0.08" better than my norm.
 
If you make a copy pf the picture on your image hosting site (tinypic.com), sized to about 650 pixels wide and link to that, you should be ok. What is the combined weight of the tuner and barrel?
Boyd
 
Last edited:
JerrySharrett said:
Dave, were you a tanker too?
Click to expand...

Yes, I was. I was on ones that had only turret stabilization (M60A1) up to the awesome M1A1. They are incredible pieces of equipment.......but they also can injure, wound, or kill from the "Good" end. I have the back & knees (or lack thereof) to prove it.
 
Boyd Allen said:
If you make a copy pf the picture on your image hosting site (tinypic.com), sized to about 650 pixels wide and link to that, you should be ok. What is the combined weight of the tuner and barrel?
Boyd
Click to expand...
I've been lazy, just reading off the memory card instead of reprocessing them smaller.

Most of the straight turned barrels weigh 4# 15oz with the 11 oz tuner. Some of the step turned barrels are as light as 3# 5oz. I never turned a barrel that shot worse after turning or that lead slugging showed the bore opened up.

The step turning was to try out Peter Paul Mausers theory. Couldn't tell it really helped but it didn't appear to hurt either. I guess the step turning might have been more beneficial on lighter barrels. eg instead of a buggy whip taper, make it a step turn...same weight more stable.


Dave Short, I was on the older M48A1, A2 & A3's. Good for score shooting!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top