V
Vibe
Guest
I guess you'd have to ask the guy who started the thread addressed to me. I just saw it and replied.
If I had to guess - going by what was said in the first post - it was to bring some of that discussion back to this site.
Like you have noticed, much of what I've been saying has a lot to do with things that Bill Calfee brought to light - some people seem to have a great deal of difficulty separating the theory from the man. I don't hold it against Bill that he happened to be wrong on this one issue, and I certainly don't hold his success against him. He's a hard headed cuss, but most of my good friends are hard headed - they have to be to put up with me. I know I am.
Last edited by a moderator:
H
Hambone
Guest
Wilbur
I think of it as spreading the word..........
IMO there is nothing wrong with spreading good information across the various fora. It helps broaden the circle of those who might be interested. They might also have something worthwhile to contribute to the whole.
I think of it as spreading the word..........
IMO there is nothing wrong with spreading good information across the various fora. It helps broaden the circle of those who might be interested. They might also have something worthwhile to contribute to the whole.
H
Hambone
Guest
Vibe
Some great stuff coming from you and Marty on your RA thread.
I never could get that "Node has length" . Just more dis-information to go with the rest.
Some great stuff coming from you and Marty on your RA thread.
I never could get that "Node has length" . Just more dis-information to go with the rest.
H
Hambone
Guest
Vibe
I sure enjoyed reading this quote pulled out of the hat by CGreen from a post made by Dr Geoff Kolbe
"The influential American rimfire gunsmith Bill Calfee, in an article written for Precision Shooting Magazine ("I'm Feeling Those Good Vibrations AGAIN!" Vol. 52, No. 11, March 2005) presented a rather novel view on how barrels vibrate, and also expressed his belief that for best accuracy, barrels should be tuned so that the muzzle is "stopped" and there is no change in muzzle angle, or position, as the bullet is launched. It should be noted that Calfee's theories have absolutely no basis in fact and are mathematically untenable. But that does not stop it being the most quoted work in the popular press on barrel vibrations and the tuning of barrels."
I sure enjoyed reading this quote pulled out of the hat by CGreen from a post made by Dr Geoff Kolbe
"The influential American rimfire gunsmith Bill Calfee, in an article written for Precision Shooting Magazine ("I'm Feeling Those Good Vibrations AGAIN!" Vol. 52, No. 11, March 2005) presented a rather novel view on how barrels vibrate, and also expressed his belief that for best accuracy, barrels should be tuned so that the muzzle is "stopped" and there is no change in muzzle angle, or position, as the bullet is launched. It should be noted that Calfee's theories have absolutely no basis in fact and are mathematically untenable. But that does not stop it being the most quoted work in the popular press on barrel vibrations and the tuning of barrels."
V
Vibe
Guest
The confusion comes in because Bill can tune a rifle. The results confirm it. But then the results don't confirm that he actually has ever created what he thinks he has. His success lies in Positive Compensation and the "Exact Center of the Parallel Node" in fact being an "X" shaped vibration node. If he could ever get his concepts in line with his practices, he'd realize that a whole 'nother dimension of possibilities would open up.
H
Hambone
Guest
I think it's way to late for Bill................................ hole dug and concrete poured.
?What "whole 'nother dimension of possibilities"
V
Vibe
Guest
Call me an incurable optimist. LOL.I think it's way to late for Bill................................ hole dug and concrete poured.
Being able to buy a single lot of good quality ammo and tuning your rimfire to that lot - as opposed to searching through hundreds or thousands of dollars worth in a frustrating search for "The Lot" that works.
Being able to not only tune for best accuracy at 50 yards, but 100 or 200 as well. As "perfect scores" increase in frequency at the current fixed ranges, I can see longer or variable (Varmint hunt for score?) ranges coming into play. It'd be nice to be prepared.
If (big if) we can get this ironed out to predictable science - have all of this click adjustable like scope turrets - focusing your rifle in tune with the ammo, if you will. Lot XYZ seems to shoot better in 40°F to 60°F temps and lot DFG seems to shoot better in 70°F to 80°F, but I need to stiffen the suspension by 3 clicks to make the change.
All of this is definitely within the realm of possibilities.
V
Vibe
Guest
Wilbur
I actually see just the opposite happening - the same size target will need to be used, but at longer ranges, to keep the number of perfect scores down.
I actually see just the opposite happening - the same size target will need to be used, but at longer ranges, to keep the number of perfect scores down.
H
Hambone
Guest
If the ISSF can change their rules why not RFBR. I can see that as being the easiest solution
Yes, I'm hip to that part of the equation but the other side would be an equivalent number of perfect scores without improving anything - just making the target bigger. Certainly, I realize that wouldn't be any fun and against everything we love about target shooting! I suppose what I'm getting at is that when somebody comes up with a method to make a killer rifle every single time....at that point it's gonna be the same as if we just made the target bigger right now.
H
Hambone
Guest
Wilbur
As the driving force behind all of Vibes and Marty's experiments/tests and writing is AIUI a desire to improve accuracy over all. and not simply to facilitating shooters to shoot maximum scores. Your suggestion of making the target bigger doesn't achieve the original objective.
As the driving force behind all of Vibes and Marty's experiments/tests and writing is AIUI a desire to improve accuracy over all. and not simply to facilitating shooters to shoot maximum scores. Your suggestion of making the target bigger doesn't achieve the original objective.
H
Hambone
Guest
If I have read the posts on RA correctly all of this PN & SM theorising came about from visual observation on Bills part. All 3m secs of it, Is that possible?
V
Vibe
Guest
He seems to think so. I can't take pictures of it because my camera's shutter speed is not that fast. Well, I might be able to take one snap in that time, but not two or more. Even TV takes 2 refreshes to make a single frame, and the fastest ones are on the order of around 4.0ms per refresh- most are 16 or 17ms and most people can't tell the difference.
H
Hambone
Guest
V
Vibe
Guest
If you say so.As I suspected. .........
I see he has now lost his audience.