Jack Wood, on Dec 15 2008, 10:59 AM, said:
cockerpunk, on Dec 15 2008, 02:56 PM, said:
Jack Wood, on Dec 15 2008, 06:18 AM, said:
cockerpunk, on Dec 14 2008, 01:17 AM, said:
Lord Odin, on Dec 13 2008, 08:23 PM, said:
CP and Bryce, in your barrel break test, did the bore size affect where the ball broke in the barrel? Or were they always similar?
thats what i was saying before, in all our bores we got the breaks right at the breach of the barrel.
That would definitely suggest loading fracture as the cause of break from everything that I have seen so far.
yup that was my conclusion as well.
So, if that is the case, what are your revised conclusions of the test? If all the breaks you had were loading fracture failures, what does that mean to the underbore/overbore/matched arguments? You would have to say that if all breaks were loading fractures, all you proved was underboring, overboring and matching all yield the same results as far as Pure barrel breaks per number of shots fired. Would you not?
if loading failures are so much more common then pure barrel breaks - to the level where i can shoot 10,000 rounds without one, then what does it matter? esp when 3,000 of those round were though a pretty hefty underbore, with very brittle paint.
what the test shows is that there isn't a large correlation
[edited by bryce] between bore size and breaks. overboring wont measurable prevent barrel breaks, probably because
[edited by bryce] most barrel breaks are not caused by the barrel itself.
Iím with bryce, the loading fracture theory fully supports the results we got in our testing, almost too
[edited by bryce] well. the test we did really just showed that the current model we were using (that bore size is the largest factor) was simply wrong. now we have a theory that makes a lot more sense, and matches with a far larger variety of the evidence presented.
ill toss a phone call mikes way right now about uploading space.
This post has been edited by brycelarson: 15 December 2008 - 01:00 PM