Quote:

---

Yes, I agree, but then you should also take into account
the dimensions of the bullets, the fact some are tapered so only a small part of the bullet is engaging the rifling plus a whole lot of other factors.

Exactly, something planned.


As an example, I have fired "hard" Woodleigh Steel jacketed solids through a heap of double rifles and none have OSR.

I'm not certain Woodleighs would be the only steel-jacketed solids falling under the "hard" tag. For example, what would be the effect of a lifetime of shooting, say, Hornady's, in a gun with thin, soft UNDER-sized tubes? I'm not sure, but it wouldn't seem like a good idea.

Just how "hard" is "hard"? I don't know, but if anyone wants to attack THAT problem, have at it. I believe a slick little device could be made to measure the resistance of a bullet to rifling. I'm going to guess that a similar device exists for some reason in the world somewhere, but I don't know where or what it is. The machinists here might be able the weigh in on that one. Might be nice to have some means by which "resistance to rifling" could actually be compared.

Use Woodleigh's hydraulic test as an example. Could a small device be made to measure such resistance? I think so. Would it be relevant to the discussion? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. It would not necessarily correlate to exactly what is going on in the barrel under the pressure of the expanding powder gases, but might be a useful measure of bullet "hardness" for comparative purposes.

PS: I make knives so I'm well acquainted with the various methods of measuring material hardness. Let's not confuse material hardness here with "hardness" as it might apply to resistance to rifling. For example, a Woodleigh steel jacket solid might scale a higher hardness to a Rockwell instrument yet might slide through rifling easier than some other bullet, or maybe not. Just some further brainstorming...

---