Quote:

---

Originally posted by .400 Nitro Express:

One more time, how hard is it to figure out that a significantly harder bullet, like a mono solid (no lead core and thus not compressible at all) that the maker says is too hard to obturate within the standard pressure of the cartridge, will produce MORE deformation, perhaps enough to become plastic?

It's the little word "perhaps" in the last sentence here that is the trouble for many intelligent people reading this thread...


The purpose of the test was to ISOLATE that event BY EXCLUDING THE VARIABLE OF PRESSURE.

The addition of a new energy source for the movement of the bullet is just that, an addition. That is not an isolation of the event, it is the addition of a new variable, a completely different application of force {steady} versus what happens in a gun {pressure peak and valley of the pressure curve}. As for Woodleigh "lying", well, I never said it as you accuse me, in fact, I stated the opposite. I believe Woodleigh's test, and I believe it was a sincere attempt to duplicate OSR in a lab. The experiment however, did not do that. The bullet did not apply a force to the rifling that exceeded the elastic limit of the steel barrel.

I wish they had used ever larger bullets and as was suggested, monos. I still want to see a lab controlled firing of a mild steel bullet of the dimensions you stated per the .400/.408 barrel. That would be very interesting.

Who said anything about hydraulic fluid? The test was conducted with a hydraulic RAM, not hydraulic pressure (hydraulic fluid in the barrel). To have conducted the test with hydraulic pressure rather than a ram would have failed to isolate the desired variable. I've met Geoff. I don't think he's that dumb.

Now don't start calling Geoff dumb. I don't think he's dumb, either. But whether the bullet is moved by direct application of hydraulic fluid or whether the hydraulic fluid moves a ram which moves the bullet is irrelevant; both rely on hydraulic fluid for the force application to the bullet. And that force is applied in a completely different manner than is the force of expanding gases. Does this matter? Well, I don't know. I'm not willing to say categorically {others are}, but it IS different and the effect on the bullet and barrel may be, too. One cannot add a new variable and call it a control. Let me rephrase my previous statement; "I don't think many of us shove our bullets outta the barrel with a hydraulic ram". Good, cleared that up.

You ask a good question; Have I contacted Graeme Wright, David Little, Ross Seyfried, Holland & Holland, Geoff MacDonald?

The answer is; No.

This is correct. My original contact was made to find out if Barnes had done any testing, because it was stated here that they hadn't. That was false, they had done testing, but nobody seems to accept it or better put, most who post here seem to reject it. Same reason I contacted A-Square. I've contacted Merkel, and started the process with several other gunmakers. I applaud the invitation to any and all of these folks you mention to join in here. I think that would be great and if you can help me with the contact info on the list above I'd be happy to invite them myself. Send me a PM or invite them yourself. Or anyone else that could add information of value to the discussion; engineers, etc. Actually, I kind of thought you had contact with some of these folks and could get them in on the back-and-forth here. Your list may not be all-inclusive, so if you can think of any others in the future, get on the phone and call them as I've done with several. I absolutely agree with you about inviting experts. Get all you can. And by the way, everyone will have to accept or not accept the word of someone else, at least to a degree. Many on both sides of the "OSR Issue" have been accused by the other side of having side interests {business, etc} that flavor their opinions. Accusations flow both ways. That makes it doubly hard for a reasoned decision to be made by those of us who have never seen the phenomenon.

400; You have a really bad attitude, as we all know. We love you, and ignore it for the most part because in the area of double rifles you are better informed than almost anyone, even on this arguably World's Best double-centric forum {which is not meant as an insult to others!!! }.

Regardless, most here are straining to drive through what is very thick, hard wall; That rifling can be forced to the outside of a barrel by firing a mono bullet. Many very intelligent people recoil at the thought if it, seek proof, and want answers because, for one thing, we are all probably going to be stuck with monos of one ilk or another in the future. Some are just interested, others are concerned that the purchase of an expensive double rifle might be a expensive mistake or worry that if they did buy one and lead-core bullets disappear due to regulations, laws, etc, they would be stuck with nothing but a tomato stake that cost them the price of a nice sedan. Whether you like it or not, many here would like to see OSR proven in a controlled environment so all the dangers can be isolated and then, avoided. I, and many others, believe EVERY bullet maker will be making monos some day, and we want to make darn sure they don't wreck our guns.

---