Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4 (Read 1090 times)
GT
Oldtimer
*****
Offline



Posts: 714
Location: Northeast Wyoming
Joined: Jun 28th, 2015
Re: Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4
Reply #15 - Jun 12th, 2019 at 11:52am
Print Post  
Randy,
About three years ago I got sucked into Mann's writings and labored through his book, to fully understand what he discussed and experimented with I struggled comprehending, until I did some of his experiments.  I followed some of his path's but with a little more recent equipment, (note that I said recent, not modern as that is relevant).

There is another piece of work published that discounts a lot of Mann's findings, it's called Rifle Accuracy Facts by Harold Vaughn.   I haven't made it through all of this book but there is a part of it that with present equipment and processes sheds light on potential culprits for the unexplained flyers you are inquiring about.  Bullet imbalance. 
In my spare time  Grin  I'm chasing some of this concept.  Mr. Vaughn was concerning himself with the unbalanced condition of jacketed bullets which I agree does exist but is there really enough to create an effect for any but the most regimented shooter?  But in the world of cast bullets? We study a cast bullet and with our two primary methods determine that it's good or bad - visual and weight, do we really know?   I have almost completed a static bullet balance fixture (caliber specific) and have a thought bouncing around my little pea brain for making a dynamic balancer (again caliber specific).

I tired of the lube sizer and have found that pan lubing and shooting as cast improved? or at least wasn't detrimental to my accuracy - so I eliminated one step in my reloading process.  If one of these methods I have going that can check balance of my bullets works - will I make that one of my steps in the future? Can't say...   I made a fixture once that when the bullet was sized, the base of the bullet was faced so it was square to the sized sides, wasted effort?  Probably.  Improvement to accuracy and consistency? maybe.  I still had an occasional flyer I couldn't explain,  average of 1 in 10? 

To answer an earlier question you asked, "has anyone recovered fired bullet?"  My work has been done with 45 and 38 caliber bullets with my "normal" loads both black and smokeless.  I don't know how well the oiled sawdust worked for others in these calibers but in my experiments my box was never big enough to capture them - another item I need to spend more time with.  The clay bank on the other side did stop things but generally with considerable distortion and base obliqueness was hard to measure.
Hopefully, someone else can chime in with their findings?
Regards,
Greg
  

"To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk"† T. A. Edison
"To anger a conservative, lie to him - to anger a liberal, tell him the truth"† Teddy R.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RSW
Oldtimer
*****
Offline



Posts: 748
Location: Arizona
Joined: Sep 8th, 2006
Re: Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4
Reply #16 - Jun 12th, 2019 at 1:05pm
Print Post  
joeb33050
You'll have to read Mann's book for his measuring method for oblique bullet bases. When you read it, you'll understand why trapping undamaged bullets was necessary.
Greg
"Bullet imbalance" is a whole 'nuther ballgame. With that aspect you get into Mann's "screen shooting" and "plank shooting" which were tests near and dear to him. One has gotta read his book to even begin to understand Dr. Mann's concepts of bullet imbalance and its effects on accuracy.
Dellet
Interesting comments about semi-smokeless. After its introduction about 1897, it was adopted by many/most of the top-tier shooters in the Schuetze game. It definitely shot cleaner than either straight black or duplex loads yet was just a accurate. Shooters spent less time cleaning at the loading tables and more time on the firing line actually shooting. The most favored load was 3-5 grains (bulk) of DuPont No.1 smokeless as priming charge with the rest of the case full of semi-smokeless and topped with a card wad in the case mouth. Of course I'm talking about .32 & .33 caliber target rifles.
  

Randy W
ASSRA 10211† -† ISSA 125
Saying guns kill people, makes about a much sense as saying, a pencil creates my drawings.
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
bisaacson
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 140
Location: Kailua
Joined: Sep 1st, 2009
Re: Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4
Reply #17 - Jun 12th, 2019 at 4:20pm
Print Post  
One might like to think that a cast bullet, carefully made, with the best equipment, would be a consistent item, bullet to bullet - however - as a cast metal, lead will crystalize in slightly different orientations internally, from bullet to bullet, depending on a variety of factors, over which we have little control. Small differences in how the bullet metal flows into the mould as it fills and cools may leave us with differing crystal orientations and slightly different strengths along different grain orientations, perhaps resulting in different flow under the pressure of the propellant gasses, and a slightly distorted bullet leaving the bore. Do I know this for a fact? Nope, but it's a possibility. Sometimes swaged bullets shoot better than cast, perhaps because the crystal structure is predistorted or normalized by the swaging process. Another mystery to ponder...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff_Schultz
ASSRA Board Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 979
Location: Ransomville, NY
Joined: Apr 25th, 2004
Re: Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4
Reply #18 - Jun 12th, 2019 at 5:05pm
Print Post  
  The difference between one bullet and the next is minute compared to the difference in the atmosphere from one shot to the next.
  

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo

ďSociety grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.Ē

― Anonymous Greek Proverb
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JLouis
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 6551
Joined: Apr 8th, 2009
Re: Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4
Reply #19 - Jun 12th, 2019 at 6:38pm
Print Post  
Air pockets that are cast into and traped inside of a bullet is also something to take into consideration. Actually all of the variables that can be taken into consideration are seemingly endless and swagging would be means to eliminate at least one.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GT
Oldtimer
*****
Offline



Posts: 714
Location: Northeast Wyoming
Joined: Jun 28th, 2015
Re: Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4
Reply #20 - Jun 12th, 2019 at 8:04pm
Print Post  
Jeff_Schultz wrote on Jun 12th, 2019 at 5:05pm:
† The difference between one bullet and the next is minute compared to the difference in the atmosphere from one shot to the next.


Absolutely!  But we have to have something else to blame/explore because the guy shooting next to you reads conditions better and his group is half the size of yours?  Grin
  

"To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk"† T. A. Edison
"To anger a conservative, lie to him - to anger a liberal, tell him the truth"† Teddy R.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JLouis
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 6551
Joined: Apr 8th, 2009
Re: Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4
Reply #21 - Jun 13th, 2019 at 11:26am
Print Post  
Thank you for sharing Randy it's good information for one to think about and I appreciate the time and effort you set aside to share it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
cheatin_charlie
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 208
Location: ohio
Joined: Jan 10th, 2009
Re: Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4
Reply #22 - Jun 13th, 2019 at 11:01pm
Print Post  
cheatin_charlie
Some of Mann's tests were fired with no wad, others with Leopold's Oleo wads. Bullet base deformation randomly occurred with or without wads.

I would think that there would be considerable difference between Oleo wads and .063 thick low density polyethylene (LDPE) wads.  Which did not exist in Mann's day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RSW
Oldtimer
*****
Offline



Posts: 748
Location: Arizona
Joined: Sep 8th, 2006
Re: Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4
Reply #23 - Jun 14th, 2019 at 12:18am
Print Post  
cheatin_charlie
Seems to me that either a Leopold Oleo or a .063 thick low density polyethylene (LDPE) wad would flex when slammed by 20,000 PSI in a .45-90 or even a .32-40. Of course the Oleo wad would likely flex more than LDPE, or am I mistaken?
  

Randy W
ASSRA 10211† -† ISSA 125
Saying guns kill people, makes about a much sense as saying, a pencil creates my drawings.
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mick B
Oldtimer
*****
Offline



Posts: 619
Joined: Apr 11th, 2013
Re: Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4
Reply #24 - Jun 14th, 2019 at 2:17am
Print Post  
I would have thought that the sudden force applied by the powder detonation would be evenly spread across the base of the bullet or wad. What that pressure might be in PSI I have no idea but no doubt would be different depending what type of powder and in what amounts were being used.
A simple test would be to stack three LDPE wads ahead of the powder and see what difference that made, I think it would be unlikely that a column of lDPE wads that thick would flex very much,if at all.
Mike.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
cheatin_charlie
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 208
Location: ohio
Joined: Jan 10th, 2009
Re: Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4
Reply #25 - Jun 14th, 2019 at 7:07am
Print Post  
RSW wrote on Jun 14th, 2019 at 12:18am:
cheatin_charlie
Seems to me that either a Leopold Oleo or a .063 thick low density polyethylene (LDPE) wad would flex when slammed by 20,000 PSI in a .45-90 or even a .32-40. Of course the Oleo wad would likely flex more than LDPE, or am I mistaken?

The Oleo wad I believe is nothing more than what is now commonly called a grease cookie placed at the base of the bullet for lubrication coating the bore for not having to clean between shots.  The LDPE wad is used to protect the base of the bullet from black powder peening.  Now we are back to the original question of what causes the angular displacement of the bullet base?  Is it from powder peening or something in the bullet itself?  I know that a wad of LDPE or veg. fiber does improve the accuracy of black powder loaded ammo.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ratseye
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 114
Location: Eastern, PA
Joined: Feb 28th, 2017
Re: Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4
Reply #26 - Jun 14th, 2019 at 8:35am
Print Post  
I've read and re-read Mann's book to get a good understanding of his tests and what he was trying to prove. He shot, cast and swaged, lubed and unlubed, unbalanced and specifically deformed bullets to see how they would fly. I don't believe he ever came up with an answer for the obliqueness of the bases after firing. My thought is either the pressure wave is arriving at the base near one side first or the bullet is being started crooked and the pressure deforms the base. However, I don't know if this shouldn't occur with muzzle loaded bullets. He also showed bullet bases damaged by muzzle blast in shorter barrels. My thought is that some damage occurs even with long barrels.  One thing I believe he proved is the purposely deformed bullets that were oriented to leave the muzzle at the same point would shoot fairly accurately. It also seemed that muzzle condition didn't make much difference as long as the bullet exited the same way. I have been testing in two areas, one is loads with very low muzzle pressures and the other is very soft lubes that completely leave the bullet at the muzzle. Both are showing promise. Thanks, ratseye
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dellet
Senior Forum Member
****
Offline



Posts: 266
Joined: May 19th, 2017
Re: Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4
Reply #27 - Jun 14th, 2019 at 8:52am
Print Post  
Lee Shaver has a thought on this.
Quote:
If you load your bullets as I often do with grease grooves exposed, you need to remember that if you load that cartridge into a hot barrel and leave it sit for very long that the lube will begin to melt and run down to the bottom side of the bullet and puddle up in the bottom of the barrel in the rifling grooves. When the cartridge is fired that bullet will once again bump up, but not bump up properly on the lower side where the puddle of lube is and will be out of balance and will shoot out of your group.
Many times the cartridge case mouths differ in thickness from one side of the mouth to the other. It wonít be much; maybe a couple thousandths of an inch at most. Keep in mind that since the bullet swells up against the case until the case touches the chamber walls, if the case wall varies then the bullet will swell out more on one side than the other. This will once again affect the balance of the bullet. This is a very minor effect, but still it exists.


(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
calledflyer
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2687
Joined: Mar 9th, 2015
Re: Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4
Reply #28 - Jun 14th, 2019 at 11:45am
Print Post  
No matter what the rest of the internet says- here or elsewhere- that Shaver article has been the one that's put me back on firm footing and I thank you, Dellet, for pointing it out to those who may have missed, or forgotten its wisdom. Good, good article.
  

happily ignored by J. "Sonny" Louis
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JLouis
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 6551
Joined: Apr 8th, 2009
Re: Dr Mannís shooting tests c.1900 still relevant? 4
Reply #29 - Jun 14th, 2019 at 3:26pm
Print Post  
One shouldn't confuse opinions as have anything to do with wisdom if so Dan Theodore's opinions could make him seem to have more wisdom than maybe Lee. The later spent endless time and money out doing actual testing so was it actually knowledge and not wisdom that he really obtained.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Send TopicPrint