To Vibe

H

Hambone

Guest
Vibe said:
Not impossible. But it would require that someone be of greater than average character. Call me optimistic, but I still think Bill has the devotion to honesty - and accuracy - that will simply have to resort to hard data to prove his theory right. And in doing so will find out why he's not. And honestly think he'll be big enough to admit it.

But then again, it's several years past the time he should have "quit digging"(as the saying goes).
Click to expand...

I'd like to get us back on track and recover a bit of what has gone on before.

1.There is no such thing as a Stopped Muzzle Despite what BC has been spouting for the last 20 years. Basic laws of physics say so.
2. The is no Parallel Node. Despite what BC has been spouting for the last 20 years. Basic laws of physics say so.

Forgive me if I quote from your The Parallel Node explained.thread on RA

3."The node needs to remain at the crown, but the timing may have to be changed to match the acceleration curve of that particular brand or lot due to differences in factors like primer material (quantity, potency, etc.), lube, bullet diameter tolerances, and several others." Despite what BC has been spouting for the last 20 years. Basic laws of physics say so.

I'm starting to get the picture now thanks to you and Marty.

4.BC's claim that his rifles own most of the records in all of rimfire shooting is bulls crap. .As there is no evidence to support such a claim.

Its taken me a while to get here, but thanks to you and the rest of the guys I think I'm finally getting a handle on this Rim Fire accuracy malarkey.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whether it's fact or fiction that rifles he's built dominated - The best rifle usually wins - no matter who built it. Since the widespread use of tuners began, they all eliminated vertical the same way.
Despite what BC has been spouting for the last 20 years. Basic laws of physics say so.
Click to expand...
 
I think we are getting somewhere.......I know I sure am.

Thanks
 
Talk is cheap. The true challenge is to put together a rifle that will beat Calfee rifles in actual competition.
 
I think that has been done quite convincingly these last few years. According to my information he went 0 for 4 in the PSL matches in 2010 and 2012 and is regularly beaten by rifles made by the likes of Gordon Eck, Gene Davis, Bill Myers and Richard Gorham...............

The strategy of building a rifle, giving it a daft name, and then putting it in the hands of a personally select few of the leading shooters, whilst it may appear a fool proof way of dominating the RFBR scene has proven to have problems. As the results have clearly shown.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PSL Website:

Stillers Precision Firearms: 10 of top 20 were calfee rifles
Rock Creek Barrel: 8 of top 20 were calfee rifles (Gorham had 8 also)
Shot Master 10X: 6 of top 20 were calfee rifles
Shilen Challenge: no equipment list

Sure looks like ol Calfee doesn't know what he's doing. Hmmmm

Hovis
 
HovisKM said:
Sure looks like ol Calfee doesn't know what he's doing. Hmmmm

Hovis
Click to expand...
LOL. Don't confuse knowing HOW to do something, with knowing what it is you are accomplishing to do it. Bill certainly knows HOW to build a winning rifle. Many may not like that fact, but few can or will dispute it.
What he cannot do is cause 2 distinctly different harmonics to share a single frequency - which HAS to happen for a "parallel node" to exist. What he CAN do, and actually do it pretty well, is mount a tuner so that it self compensates for the velocity variation. He can claim otherwise all he wants. It just doesn't change the facts.

What I wish he'd do is shoot across a chrony more often so he could see that there is absolutely no reliable correlation between target impact elevation and the standard deviation of the velocity. It's just not proportional at all, much less to the degree that he claims. The statistics just don't support it.
 
Just to be clear, everyone agrees that Bill knows quite a lot about how to build winning rifles (as do others) and chief reason for all of this entertainment is his choice of words to describe how what he does works. Carry on. Where's the popcorn?
 
Boyd Allen said:
Just to be clear, everyone agrees that Bill knows quite a lot about how to build winning rifles (as do others) and chief reason for all of this entertainment is his choice of words to describe how what he does works. Carry on. Where's the popcorn?
Click to expand...
You bring up an interesting observation Boyd. One that gets used a lot. But it usually gets used by people that have completely missed the point.
 
Ooh! It must be a terrible burden to be the keeper of the point;-) You are wrong. I get the point. I was just mocking all the angst and anger. As a matter of fact I do not agree with Bill's choice of words, but what the heck, he does not represent himself as a physicist, or engineer, and so I don't think that his descriptions should be taken as if he had. What he has done, is provoke a lot of thought, and proven beyond a doubt that being controversial can provide a lot of free advertising.
 
Vibe said:
You bring up an interesting observation Boyd. One that gets used a lot. But it usually gets used by people that have completely missed the point.
Click to expand...

I try to ignore posts related to BC. But I looked recently. It is sad that BC is now claiming that compensation for different muzzle exit times (muzzle velocity) is not possible. This statement of his is very clear, and unobscured by psuedo-scientific terms. All it takes is a look at Kolbe's data at http://www.border-barrels.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/tuning_a_barrel.htm for real data proving that compensation works. I'm sure many others have collected similar POI versus muzzle velocity data, though without the muzzle angle measurements to back it up.

It has been observed by some famous person whom I can't remember that "pioneers in science eventually end up obstructing further progress in their own fields." The extent to which this is applicable here is left to your own interpretation.

"BC ignore" back on,
Keith
 
What I love the most about physics and science is that around 50% of the new theories that come out are proving old theories wrong. To many people want to lay their stake at what they think or are taught...which is ok most of the time because it's the best we have. Heck..it wasn't to long ago that most of the brilliant minds in the world said the world was flat. Those who went against the grain were outcasted for the most part, only to become great minds later and people jump on their boat and ignore the fact of how they were treated.

There is really only one sure thing in this world that will constantly change and that is science.

Those who shoot enough centerfire benchrest matches see things that are impossible according to physics. I know of a lot of engineers and such that just scratch their heads after years of trying to figure it out or explain it.

Do I think Bill's definitions are always correct...I don't know because I don't worry about it, I just know he builds one heck of a rifle and most current prominent rimfire gunsmiths use and build upon what he has or is doing...just as he did/does.

But for him to get treated the way he does sometimes (yes, he does invite it a lot) is embarrassing.

Hovis
 
Hambone said:
I think that has been done quite convincingly these last few years. According to my information he went 0 for 4 in the PSL matches in 2010 and 2012 and is regularly beaten by rifles made by the likes of Gordon Eck, Gene Davis, Bill Myers and Richard Gorham...............

The strategy of building a rifle, giving it a daft name, and then putting it in the hands of a personally select few of the leading shooters, whilst it may appear a fool proof way of dominating the RFBR scene has proven to have problems. As the results have clearly shown.
Click to expand...

And why do you think those "leading" shooters choose to participate? I think it's because that's the best rifle they can get in their hands at the time. There's no loyalty in benchrest - none.
 
Wilbur said:
And why do you think those "leading" shooters choose to participate? I think it's because that's the best rifle they can get in their hands at the time. There's no loyalty in benchrest - none.
Click to expand...

Who really knows what motivates people. I'm sure only they and Bill were in the room when the deal was struck.
If I said I wanted a rifle to call Tyre Kicker or Ass Biter do you think he would build it and not charge me a small fortune? :rolleyes:
 
Charles E said:
Grab the link for this thread vanishes. Bearing must have gone out on the hamster's play wheel & he's trying to stir things up...
Click to expand...

Chuckles

Threads get deleted for a variety of reasons. Trolling being a major cause IME.

Wheel bearings are just fine. I've just had some up rated ones installed for the little furry chap.The wooden spoon is defiantly in the kitchen cabinet draw along with the knives and forks.

Keep smiling..........
 
HovisKM said:
But for him to get treated the way he does sometimes (yes, he does invite it a lot) is embarrassing.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think we just disagree on who its embarrassing for.

Still what an embarrassment here and there if its paying the bills?
 
HovisKM said:
Heck..it wasn't to long ago that most of the brilliant minds in the world said the world was flat. Those who went against the grain were outcasted for the most part, only to become great minds later and people jump on their boat and ignore the fact of how they were treated.
Click to expand...
Hovis,

I believe that you'll find that the best scientific minds knew that the earth was round. The flat earth myth is the modern invention.

Are theories being modified or replaced all the time. Sure, that's called science. To dismiss science because science works is, well, disheartening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth is an OK article. I was blessed to have a history of science class in college with a really outstanding teacher. It is something that I'd highly recommend to everyone. Even better would be to combine it with a philosophy of science class. I had one and preferred it even to the logic and critial thinking class that I had earlier.

Greg J.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Charles E said:
Kieth,

sounds like Thomas Kuhn
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. He could be the one. Got me to thinking about how this applies to rifle tuning. His revolutionary science idea describes major changes in theory, like discovering that materials are built of atoms, F = ma and E = mc^2. Big ones. For rifle tuning (I don't want to call it barrel tuning, because I am convinced that the whole system matters.), we are down in the Newtonian physics trenches, with no prospect of anything new being discovered of the level of Kuhn's paradigm shifts. We can wonder why a shot drops, or hypothesize about why a tuner affects POI, and be assured that careful experiments or computer models with sufficient detail will explain these phenomena. Our initial guess of the relationship between cause and effect may be wrong, but we knew that going in. Science is a process of testing hypotheses until you find the right one. Most of our hypotheses are wrong, unless we are good at reasoning the right ones. It doesn't mean that the science is wrong. Clinging to an incorrect hypothesis after it has been proven wrong is not a part of good science.

Off the science philosophy soapbox!;)

Keith
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top