On another website I discovered a conversation from several years ago which I had forgotten. In it was an extremely interesting and informative post. I have made a post to someone while quoting that post, and since this is a topic of interest over here as well, I thought I would go ahead and post it here, too. I'm pretty sure that it will be of interest to some folks.
I'm going to edit out the first quote from the post I made on the other site, it's on the other website, this person can respond there if they wish. At least they will definitely see it here.
"Of course, a further problem with Kolbe's test is that it was not exactly replicated as intended in the real world, as can be gathered from this post:
If you want to keep insisting Kolbe's test, and therefore positive compensation, is correct in later posts, then you simply must address your contradictions since you tried to discredit it in a previous quote, which I have previously posted. And you have not answered......
Interestingly enough, from what I read of Brian's quote, not only were the results of the testing, with the same equipment (exception being that the rifles are in stocks, as shot in the real world) Kolbe used for his test, "a little inconclusive", as he pointed out........it seems to have revealed that, since his rifle "flatlined", Kolbe's test proved that a muzzle can indeed be, as Calfee calls it, "stopped".
That the same setup used to "prove" positive compensation did not duplicate positive compensation as expected with other rifles in a real world setting is interesting. It's also problematic, isn't it?
It is even MORE interesting that Kolbe's testing of Brian's rifle, using the same setup, seems to prove a rifle barrel can be "stopped", as Calfee calls it."
For those interested in the original test, it can be found here:
http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/tuning_a_barrel.htm
I briefly reviewed it, it unless I overlooked it, I saw nothing about proving the Stopped Muzzle condition.
For me, reading the post that described the rifle as "consistently flatlined" showed something most interesting. The same equipment (other than the rifles being in the stock as in the real world) used in the Positive Compensation test, with the same operator and creator of the system, captured a rifle that "consistently flatlined" on the computer graph.
I agree with the owner of the rifle who was obviously there at the time......the muzzle was stopped. As proven by a scientific test.
Take care,
Greg
I'm going to edit out the first quote from the post I made on the other site, it's on the other website, this person can respond there if they wish. At least they will definitely see it here.
"Of course, a further problem with Kolbe's test is that it was not exactly replicated as intended in the real world, as can be gathered from this post:
We used Geoff Kolbe's test setup a little while ago to check several rifles from different manufacturers. The one in this picture is a Lonestar fitted with a Lilja barrel:
To be honest the testing was a little inconclusive. Some rifles showed the positive compensation Geoff was looking for (in the vertical plane), While others, such as my Turbo, fitted with a Border barrel did not, nevertheless in the right conditions the Turbo/Border is a very nice shooting rile:
The only thing different from the Turbo to all the other rifles tested is that it is a 'glue in', whether this has any bearing on the results I have no idea, but rather than produce the upward motion on the computer graph, the rifle consistently flatlined...........maybe the muzzle was stopped
Brian
If you want to keep insisting Kolbe's test, and therefore positive compensation, is correct in later posts, then you simply must address your contradictions since you tried to discredit it in a previous quote, which I have previously posted. And you have not answered......
Interestingly enough, from what I read of Brian's quote, not only were the results of the testing, with the same equipment (exception being that the rifles are in stocks, as shot in the real world) Kolbe used for his test, "a little inconclusive", as he pointed out........it seems to have revealed that, since his rifle "flatlined", Kolbe's test proved that a muzzle can indeed be, as Calfee calls it, "stopped".
That the same setup used to "prove" positive compensation did not duplicate positive compensation as expected with other rifles in a real world setting is interesting. It's also problematic, isn't it?
It is even MORE interesting that Kolbe's testing of Brian's rifle, using the same setup, seems to prove a rifle barrel can be "stopped", as Calfee calls it."
For those interested in the original test, it can be found here:
http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/tuning_a_barrel.htm
I briefly reviewed it, it unless I overlooked it, I saw nothing about proving the Stopped Muzzle condition.
For me, reading the post that described the rifle as "consistently flatlined" showed something most interesting. The same equipment (other than the rifles being in the stock as in the real world) used in the Positive Compensation test, with the same operator and creator of the system, captured a rifle that "consistently flatlined" on the computer graph.
I agree with the owner of the rifle who was obviously there at the time......the muzzle was stopped. As proven by a scientific test.
Take care,
Greg