|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,465
Posts545,054
Members14,409
| |
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,341 Likes: 389
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,341 Likes: 389 |
It is certainly fascinating to see the turmoil a grade school level calculation can cause.
I suspect the root cause is that this is the "pie are round" contingent.
I hope none of you work for NASA Actually what I should have said was that I'm glad none of you worked for me. This is quite amusing. I wish we could conduct a poll to determine how many here think that Dr. Wanker has contributed more useful information than Miller. But I don't think even an overwhelming response in favor of Miller would do anything to deflate Dr. Wanker's egotistical self-image. Better watch it Miller. Dr. Wanker gets pretty jaded about being wrong. He is very likely to pretend to IGNORE you if you get his estrogen level any higher than it already is. Speaking of rocket scientists, this is a brain-child who actually recently insisted that repeated soakings in organic solvents will do nothing to degrade the cellular structure of walnut gunstocks.
A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212 |
It is certainly fascinating to see the turmoil a grade school level calculation can cause.
I suspect the root cause is that this is the "pie are round" contingent.
I hope none of you work for NASA Actually what I should have said was that I'm glad none of you worked for me. Why bother with the gun at all. If you never order the container of clay targets, you don't have to shoot at them. One of the very few things I wish for in this life is to get up each morning and working for Doc Wonko. I guess we can't have it all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Justin;
I did make a slight Boo-Boo on that first calculation which I went back & corrected. That approximately 4.7 oz would be correct if you were removing the .010" per side. We were actually speaking of removing .010" on the diameter so it needs to be divided by 2 thus 2.35oz for a .010" bore enlargement from a nominal .730" bore. The approximation itself is not within the "Formula" but I simply had to guess where the point would be in relation to the forcing cone to determine the length of bore over which metal would be removed. The longer the cone of course the less will be the length of the bore you are going to enlarge.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,814 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,814 Likes: 1 |
I kinda questioned that...Glad you cleared it up...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610 |
Miller, thanks,I did catch that extension of the formula.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
Well, WTS, I did work for NASA for awhile. It was a good experience, but not one I wished for a career.
AS for working for you ---- gee, I dunno. How about the other way round?
BTW, I care much less for the level of involved math than for the ability of people to use any math to solve a problem.
What say we raise the ante? What would be the moment of inertia of the removed metal? How would the removal impact the gun's weight, balance, and swing efforts? This is the set of calculations that I said above made changes to guns reasonably predictable. WTS? Anybody?
DDA
Last edited by Rocketman; 06/01/17 09:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 205 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 205 Likes: 1 |
Both sides may land a few hits, but there are no winners to an internet fight, gentlemen.
-Leverhead
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,174 Likes: 39
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,174 Likes: 39 |
It is certainly fascinating to see the turmoil a grade school level calculation can cause.
I suspect the root cause is that this is the "pie are round" contingent.
I hope none of you work for NASA Actually what I should have said was that I'm glad none of you worked for me. Never worked NASA....close as I can come to that is working on vacuum chambers for testing satellites in outer space. As for working for you.....the feeling is mutual. Hell, why would anyone need to work for you? You know everything....allegedly.
Last edited by Ken Nelson; 06/02/17 09:33 AM.
Dodging lions and wasting time.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,278 Likes: 11
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,278 Likes: 11 |
What I do know absolutely is that if I lived in so humorless a world as do most here I would certainly open a vein
have another day
Dr.WtS
Mysteries of the Cosmos Unlocked
available by subscription
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879 Likes: 15
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879 Likes: 15 |
Don,
I don't know about calculating the MOI of 2 oz over the length of 22 1/2" of barrels. But my experience suggests that the money to remove .010 out of the bores has a higher MOI.
I went thru these calculations and weighed the cost/benefit on a 32" Win 101 years ago. It had screw-ins, so the limit was about .010" out of the bore before the chokes became an issue. With such a small change in weight, I couldn't rationalize the cost. I just bought a 32" Beretta Gold E with very light barrels. Those new barrels came with a new action too. It was a much better move.
|
|
|
|
|
