- Status
K
Keith23
Guest
Kathy (Bill)
Is this what you mean when you say Stopped?? Please answer, it is killing me!
"When Bill Calfee says his muzzle is stopped he means if you put a indicator on it the muzzle shows no up and down motion.The pivot point in a Teeter Totter with your finger resting on it shows the same thing even though it actually moves."
Is this what you mean when you say Stopped?? Please answer, it is killing me!
"When Bill Calfee says his muzzle is stopped he means if you put a indicator on it the muzzle shows no up and down motion.The pivot point in a Teeter Totter with your finger resting on it shows the same thing even though it actually moves."
J
Jeffrey
Guest
If you throw a ball straight up, and at the point it stops going up and starts to come down, have the bullet leave the muzzle.
Jeff
Jeff
To Don...
When I wrote that I knew somebody would not understand. I decided I'd just write it that way and see if any body really reads all this stuff! As I read the various posts I've decided some don't. Believe me I'm not directing any thing derogatory at you.
Lets say a moving body changes velocity from 5 ft/sec up to 15 ft/sec in one second. It's acceleration then, is 10 ft/sec/sec. Then, say the body accelerates from 20 ft/sec up to 30 ft/sec in one second. It's acceleration is still 10 ft/sec/sec. I think you know acceleration is not related to velocity - it's related only to CHANGE in velocity.
When I wrote that I knew somebody would not understand. I decided I'd just write it that way and see if any body really reads all this stuff! As I read the various posts I've decided some don't. Believe me I'm not directing any thing derogatory at you.
Lets say a moving body changes velocity from 5 ft/sec up to 15 ft/sec in one second. It's acceleration then, is 10 ft/sec/sec. Then, say the body accelerates from 20 ft/sec up to 30 ft/sec in one second. It's acceleration is still 10 ft/sec/sec. I think you know acceleration is not related to velocity - it's related only to CHANGE in velocity.
T
The Machine
Guest
I recently became interested in rimfire rifles and have visited this site frequently for the past 3-4 months to learn as much as I can in order to improve my accuracy. Not knowing who Bill Calfee was prior to this and after reading many threads on various topics, I think most will agree, he is a first rate gunsmith. I also get the impression that most people on this forum believe that tuners work.
With that said, I find the point of contention is Bill Calfee's firm insistance that the one reason, and only reason that tuners work, is that it moves the "parallel node" to the crown, but gives no solid, scientific proof to back-up this statement, only his theory. It would be fine if he presented his theory as just that, a theory, but he doesn't, he presents it as fact. That's where I believe the arrogance surfaces that I read on one of the previous posts.
I think I can speak for Vibe, Jetmugg, and a few others, when I say we refuse to check our reasoning at the door when we enter this, or any other forum. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Calfee, but I need a more thorough explanation before I accept his theory. That would require precision instruments (think very expensive) capable of recording the minute vibrations in the barrel, along with a reasonable understanding of physics and mathematics probably wouldn't hurt either. I have none of those requirements, does Mr. Calfee?
This reminds me of Uri Geller (the illusionist who bends spoons). It would be fine if he presented his act as simply a trick or slight of hand, but he doesn't, for the past 40 years he's told everyone he has supernatural powers. Should we believe him because he says so, or should we believe other magicians who do the same "trick" and, on occasion, show how it's done? It doesn't prove that Mr. Geller doesn't have supernatural powers, but it sure brings up some questions that need to be answered, don't ya think?
I for one, refuse to drink the grape Kool-aid!
TM
With that said, I find the point of contention is Bill Calfee's firm insistance that the one reason, and only reason that tuners work, is that it moves the "parallel node" to the crown, but gives no solid, scientific proof to back-up this statement, only his theory. It would be fine if he presented his theory as just that, a theory, but he doesn't, he presents it as fact. That's where I believe the arrogance surfaces that I read on one of the previous posts.
I think I can speak for Vibe, Jetmugg, and a few others, when I say we refuse to check our reasoning at the door when we enter this, or any other forum. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Calfee, but I need a more thorough explanation before I accept his theory. That would require precision instruments (think very expensive) capable of recording the minute vibrations in the barrel, along with a reasonable understanding of physics and mathematics probably wouldn't hurt either. I have none of those requirements, does Mr. Calfee?
This reminds me of Uri Geller (the illusionist who bends spoons). It would be fine if he presented his act as simply a trick or slight of hand, but he doesn't, for the past 40 years he's told everyone he has supernatural powers. Should we believe him because he says so, or should we believe other magicians who do the same "trick" and, on occasion, show how it's done? It doesn't prove that Mr. Geller doesn't have supernatural powers, but it sure brings up some questions that need to be answered, don't ya think?
I for one, refuse to drink the grape Kool-aid!
TM
Mr. Calfee does not build winning rifles because of a tuner. It's simply because of the skill and the amount of work he is willing to put into one. I have one that will generally shoot as well without the tuner as it will with the tuner. However, the tuner does stabilize the rifle and make it easier to shoot.
I have always been a somewhat mildly skeptical of the ability of a tuner to actually make a rifle shoot better due to shifting vibrations. However, I do beleive the weight stabilizes the rifle. I also think that others great successes with tuners may due to the individual rifle. Some rifles may be more "out of tune" than others. But skeptical or not, I have yet to see the shooter who is willing to step to the line without one at least within the circles I shoot.
Is Mr. Calfee a genius? I'm sure he would say no. But regardless of that, he has been able to do some amazing things with rimfire rifles and he seems to be in constant thought about them and about how to improve their accuracy. And most of his ideas seem to have some merit to them. So, he may not be trained as an engineer or a physicist but that does not mean he is wrong. I've seen plenty of engineers with a poor understanding of an individual process that is well within their field although they may have a good view of the overall picture. Most physics is theory. Mr. Calfee has a theory. Many of you have asked him to prove it. I guess if he won't prove it, then it is up to someone to disprove it. When Mr. Calfee reads these posts you have to wonder if he thinks "I'm just a poor old dumb hillbilly (his words). I can't prove that to engineers." or if he thinks "Those poor old engineers. All that education and can't understand a poor old dumb hillbilly."
I have always been a somewhat mildly skeptical of the ability of a tuner to actually make a rifle shoot better due to shifting vibrations. However, I do beleive the weight stabilizes the rifle. I also think that others great successes with tuners may due to the individual rifle. Some rifles may be more "out of tune" than others. But skeptical or not, I have yet to see the shooter who is willing to step to the line without one at least within the circles I shoot.
Is Mr. Calfee a genius? I'm sure he would say no. But regardless of that, he has been able to do some amazing things with rimfire rifles and he seems to be in constant thought about them and about how to improve their accuracy. And most of his ideas seem to have some merit to them. So, he may not be trained as an engineer or a physicist but that does not mean he is wrong. I've seen plenty of engineers with a poor understanding of an individual process that is well within their field although they may have a good view of the overall picture. Most physics is theory. Mr. Calfee has a theory. Many of you have asked him to prove it. I guess if he won't prove it, then it is up to someone to disprove it. When Mr. Calfee reads these posts you have to wonder if he thinks "I'm just a poor old dumb hillbilly (his words). I can't prove that to engineers." or if he thinks "Those poor old engineers. All that education and can't understand a poor old dumb hillbilly."
Vibe
22 Epperson Cricket
Not really much of anything at all wrong with that theory. At least you recognise a pivot "point" and don't expect a 6" section of the middle to remain flat while the rest of the teeter totter continues to move.
I suspect that you will like them better once you get them retuned for 1000 yards.
T
The Machine
Guest
As I stated in my previous post, most people on this forum believe Mr. Calfee to be an excellant gunsmith with the results to prove it, and also most seem to believe that tuners work. But that is not what the bulk of this thread seems to have gravitated to. It would appear that nobody knows why a tuner works exactly except Mr. Calfee himself, which is based on his "theory" and only collaborated with testimonials. This, in any discipline of science, is very weak evidence. And that is all some of us are saying, "It is very weak evidence".
Mr. Calfee has every right to say what he does and I applaud him for exercising that right. I, on the other hand, have the choice to believe him or not. I choose not to accept his explanation until further "proof", that is consistant with my reasoning, becomes available. This, after all, is how we make all decisions, is it not?
I don't know Mr. Calfee personally, but from reading this forum, he seems to be an affable man. His approach to solving problems appears to be similar to that of Thomas Edison, who, by his own admission, was not the most intelligent man on the planet. He would relentlessly pursue an idea doggedly performing experiment after experiment, with each failed effort providing a push in the direction of his ultimate goal. Trial and error. He might not have understood the scientific reason why some of his ideas worked, all he knew is that they did. The big difference between Mr. Calfee and Mr. Edison, at least in my view, is that Mr. Edison never purported to know.
TM
Mr. Calfee has every right to say what he does and I applaud him for exercising that right. I, on the other hand, have the choice to believe him or not. I choose not to accept his explanation until further "proof", that is consistant with my reasoning, becomes available. This, after all, is how we make all decisions, is it not?
I don't know Mr. Calfee personally, but from reading this forum, he seems to be an affable man. His approach to solving problems appears to be similar to that of Thomas Edison, who, by his own admission, was not the most intelligent man on the planet. He would relentlessly pursue an idea doggedly performing experiment after experiment, with each failed effort providing a push in the direction of his ultimate goal. Trial and error. He might not have understood the scientific reason why some of his ideas worked, all he knew is that they did. The big difference between Mr. Calfee and Mr. Edison, at least in my view, is that Mr. Edison never purported to know.
TM
Vibe
22 Epperson Cricket
I think that to be an accurate statement.
Unfortunately, this too is, I think, accurate.
Again we are in agreement.
Edison realized one thing that Bill seems to have not yet overcome. In order to learn from your mistakes, you must first recognize that one was made.
But logic and verbiage does not affect the path of a bullet in the least bit, and that is what seems to drive Bill in his pursuit of accuracy - the path and final landing point of that bullet. However it is the theory which does drive the design process, and a faulty premise will not yield the optimum design. One might get close, perhaps even "close enough", particularly if the theory does not concern the most major factor, as is probably the case here. Much of what barrel harmonics causes would be considered as well beyond the point of diminishing returns for most shooters - well except for the anal type purists that one finds in competition.
What makes the debate exciting is that that is exactly the type of people that congregate here.Interesting anecdote on Edison. He invented the Vacuum Tube (which turned out to be the forerunner of the transistor) - his comment in the margins of the Patent application for this failed attempt at a light bulb (Yes he even patented his "failures") was that it "Exhibited an interesting phenomenon which served no useful purpose". Our entire electronic age can be traced back to be based upon one of Edisons "failures".
Last edited:
Vibe
22 Epperson Cricket
Go for it.
Looking forward to hearing your results.you are going to be shooting Moly coated bullets in that test aren't you.
(Sorry.
Had to poke at you just a bit in memory of Dan)Not true Lynn, and you know it. Several of us have attempted to explain exactly why it is that they do work. Quite a few of "us" (I include my self only loosely in that group, and only because I'm the one typing this) are far from "Stumped", and understand quite well that they work and why. It's just that what we know to be happening differs quite a bit from Bills explanation.
Last edited:
D
Dan
Guest
I am not a world class benchrest shooter like everyone else here. I just have many decades messing around with rimfires and like to think I know what works when I see it. I also don't know any of the rest of you. There are times when I wish I did, and times when I'm glad I do not. This is one of the latter.
There are certainly shooters here with a lot of technical training and expertise that are very capable of describing various phenomena that relate to rimfire rifles. And then there are those here that have a mechanical aptitude that could reasonably be described as "genious". I have rarely seen both abilities in a single individual. I have tried to the best of ny ability to understand why tuners work. I have agreed with various explanations as they evolve. I have posted my layman's explanation as to how they work, and been ignored. That's ok, as I am not one of the "group".
But it seems very ignorant for such intellectual folks to be blind to facts. Tuners work. It is certainly a valid crusade to be able to figure out why and explain it. But what I see most is a group that wants to prove someone wrong because that persons ability to describe what is going on is not up to their technical standards. That is very shortsided.
When I first encountered the term "node", as used by a person on this forum, I was also confused as to its use. My background is in electrical theory, and nodal analysis and the use of that term means something else. But I tried instead to figure out the use of the term node in the context offered up by that person.
You folks certainly won't care what my opinion is, but I do know this...the man knows why guns work and why they don't. And even more important, he can build guns that work. If I were in his position, I would be much more content knowing I can make a thing work than just being able to explain it.
I write this as an offer of support. It would have been in an e-mail, or a private message, but not everyone on this forums accepts those.
regards,
Dan
There are certainly shooters here with a lot of technical training and expertise that are very capable of describing various phenomena that relate to rimfire rifles. And then there are those here that have a mechanical aptitude that could reasonably be described as "genious". I have rarely seen both abilities in a single individual. I have tried to the best of ny ability to understand why tuners work. I have agreed with various explanations as they evolve. I have posted my layman's explanation as to how they work, and been ignored. That's ok, as I am not one of the "group".
But it seems very ignorant for such intellectual folks to be blind to facts. Tuners work. It is certainly a valid crusade to be able to figure out why and explain it. But what I see most is a group that wants to prove someone wrong because that persons ability to describe what is going on is not up to their technical standards. That is very shortsided.
When I first encountered the term "node", as used by a person on this forum, I was also confused as to its use. My background is in electrical theory, and nodal analysis and the use of that term means something else. But I tried instead to figure out the use of the term node in the context offered up by that person.
You folks certainly won't care what my opinion is, but I do know this...the man knows why guns work and why they don't. And even more important, he can build guns that work. If I were in his position, I would be much more content knowing I can make a thing work than just being able to explain it.
I write this as an offer of support. It would have been in an e-mail, or a private message, but not everyone on this forums accepts those.
regards,
Dan
Vibe
22 Epperson Cricket
I'm not a world class anything. Even when I'm a jerk and a pompous...well any way - even then I'm not "world class" at it. Many here can approach those levels - in either or both departments (Very few in the latter though).
S'ok - I've been ignored by the one person I wanted to get through to. Not part of his group either I guess.
Quite the contrary. I think it's of paramount importance that the one person with the drive and means to accomplish the goal he's set for himself to be able to make major progress toward that goal. Something that he cannot help but fail in so long as his premise remains flawed. I would much rather he succeed. I do not have the means nor the resources, and if truth be told, nowhere near the skill at what he does to come close to the progress he should be able to make in this area. BUT - to do this he really needs to build his model on the most accurate data possible. To date he has not done this. I would hardly think that to be shortsighted at all.
A noble endeavor. It still does not change the fact that what he is attempting to describe simply is not happening that way, and cannot happen that way without additional forces being applied to the barrel. Even if it could and did, it would not then affect accuracy in the way he describes, in fact by his very description it should increase vertical as a direct result of velocity variations instead of reducing that effect.
Which is exactly why it's important that he be the one that learns the actual reasons behind why the tuner works - because he is the one with the skill base needed as a foundation to build the advances upon.
Everything I have posted was with the intention to support the efforts toward a better, more accurate tuning system.
Last edited:
T
The Machine
Guest
Again, it is not Bill Calfee's knowledge of rifles that is in question, it is his insistance that the only way a tuner can work is the way "he" describes it without giving adequate proof of its viability. That is all. We are expected to believe it simply because he says so. This is unacceptable. It is by no means an effort to disparage him as a gunsmith, I would like to know the definitive answer to the tuner question just like everyone else, but it makes no sense to throw up a theory and expect everyone to embrace it without the ability to answer some basic questions.
I feel Mr. Calfee's frustration in trying to convey an idea, many teachers suffer this same problem. I wish him well in his endeavor, the results can only benefit us all.
TM
I feel Mr. Calfee's frustration in trying to convey an idea, many teachers suffer this same problem. I wish him well in his endeavor, the results can only benefit us all.
TM
Vibe
22 Epperson Cricket
As do a great many of the member of this board - evidenced by the fact that this thread has "only" 62 replies and almost 2700 views.
J
J. Pendergraft
Guest
The thought just occurred to me, this topic and surrounding controversy of the science has created an enormous interest in the subject of tuning our barrels for greater accuracy. Mr Calfee is not the dumb country boy he describes himself as. Could the controversy surrounding this subject be promoting the tuner theory more so than if the controversy did not exist. After all don't we all just love a good debate? I have no doubt that Mr. Calfee wishes for everyone to benefit from what he exposes. What's in it for him, he already has a legacy of being one of the best if not the best rimfire builder's of modern time.
K
Kathy
Guest
Friend Dan, post #60
Friend Dan: Post #60
Just came in from the shop, turned on my machine and read the posts, including yours.....
Thank you.
Your friend, Bill Calfee
Friend Dan: Post #60
Just came in from the shop, turned on my machine and read the posts, including yours.....
Thank you.
Your friend, Bill Calfee
D
Dan
Guest
Bill:
Please understand that I was not trying to kiss butt or get your attention. I was going to send you an e-mail just trying to describe what appears to happen here, but noticed you don't accept e-mail or personal messages. I appreciate the opinions that you as well as your detractors have. Those opinions are developed with more skill and experience than I have. I've never even laid eyes on one of your guns, but they must work. I have the utmost respect for your skill.
For others:
My original post was not intended to poke a stick at anyone in particular, but just an observation of the group dynamic. If you check my post count and when I joined this sight you may, I hope, understand when I also state I wasn't looking for attention. And understand that while I have never competed in a sanctioned match that I know of, I have the utmost respect for those that participate in this sport.
regards,
Dan
Please understand that I was not trying to kiss butt or get your attention. I was going to send you an e-mail just trying to describe what appears to happen here, but noticed you don't accept e-mail or personal messages. I appreciate the opinions that you as well as your detractors have. Those opinions are developed with more skill and experience than I have. I've never even laid eyes on one of your guns, but they must work. I have the utmost respect for your skill.
For others:
My original post was not intended to poke a stick at anyone in particular, but just an observation of the group dynamic. If you check my post count and when I joined this sight you may, I hope, understand when I also state I wasn't looking for attention. And understand that while I have never competed in a sanctioned match that I know of, I have the utmost respect for those that participate in this sport.
regards,
Dan
D
Dan
Guest
Lynn:
Absolutely right. My understanding of what some of you state the node to be is spot on. I am in the bulk power field, but you are right just the same.
I really believe that if everyone understands the math aspects of the description, you would all be in agreement. Sometimes we develop explanations outside the conventional dialogue. This makes it difficult to get our point across.
Where I saw Mr. Calfee's explanation best illustrated, at least in a way that it jived with what I believed was happening, was in Precision Shooting about 3-4 years ago. He had some simple illustrations for various forms of mechanical vibrations. A few were examples of how he viewed barrels NOT to vibrate. One was his example of how he felt they DID vibrate. It was this example from which I tried to explain to guys I shoot with why a tuner works. I posted some time ago how a fishing pole visibly oscillates, and how if another person holds the end when it is shaken, the pole still oscillates right up to the end, but the tip is now stationary. It is my layman's belief that the proper weight, along with the additional stiffness provided by the tuner at the muzzle end, stops the oscillations and keeps the muzzle not only motionless, but the last length of the bore inline at that point, rather than exhibiting a curve.
I've now talked way to much.
K
Kathy
Guest
Friend Dan:
Friend Dan:
I quote from you......first, if you think you can deal with it? Because you are absolutely correct.....Your quote is absolutely correct as to why a muzzle device increases accuracy.....
Your quote: "but the last length of the bore inline at that point, rather than exhibiting a curve."
My friend Dan: You have stated, correctly, much better than I ever have, why a muzzle device increases accuracy.
Dan, I want to quote again from you, because it is so very important:
"but the last length of the bore inline at that point, rather than exhibiting a curve"
Dan, the above quote of your's is the "Rosetta Stone" of muzzle device knowledge.
Friend Dan: Thank you
Your friend Bill Calfee
Friend Dan:
I quote from you......first, if you think you can deal with it? Because you are absolutely correct.....Your quote is absolutely correct as to why a muzzle device increases accuracy.....
Your quote: "but the last length of the bore inline at that point, rather than exhibiting a curve."
My friend Dan: You have stated, correctly, much better than I ever have, why a muzzle device increases accuracy.
Dan, I want to quote again from you, because it is so very important:
"but the last length of the bore inline at that point, rather than exhibiting a curve"
Dan, the above quote of your's is the "Rosetta Stone" of muzzle device knowledge.
Friend Dan: Thank you
Your friend Bill Calfee
Last edited:
- Status