Scientific Positive Compensation test proves Stopped Muzzle?

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:

Brian_K said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Friend 404tbang

Friend 404tbang

_________________________


Friend 404tbang:

I got your call on my answering machine today about this test you've posted here and elsewhere around the various internet sites.

I doubt you'll get a lot of response, simply because, things like this get in the way of our "scientific" friends with their goofy compensation and tuning theories.

____________________________________


Greg, if one had a motion sensor that traveled with the barrel as it recoiled, yet, was independent of the barrel itself, and the sensor was focused at the exit of the crown of a barrel with a properly adjusted MD, the sensor would most certainly show the exit of the crown stopped.

And yes, the exit of the crown is actually, physically stopped on a barrel with a properly weighted and positioned MD.

___________________________________


Your friend, Bill Calfee

Bill Calfee said:

Friend 404tbang

_________________________


Friend 404tbang:

I got your call on my answering machine today about this test you've posted here and elsewhere around the various internet sites.

I doubt you'll get a lot of response, simply because, things like this get in the way of our "scientific" friends with their goofy compensation and tuning theories.

____________________________________


Greg, if one had a motion sensor that traveled with the barrel as it recoiled, yet, was independent of the barrel itself, and the sensor was focused at the exit of the crown of a barrel with a properly adjusted MD, the sensor would most certainly show the exit of the crown stopped.

And yes, the exit of the crown is actually, physically stopped on a barrel with a properly weighted and positioned MD.

___________________________________


Your friend, Bill Calfee

Click to expand...

Howdy Bill,
When I finally found that information again, I figured it would be of interest to you. As I said in the post:

"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."


That scientific test proved the existence of a Stopped Muzzle. I have always thought a variable was missed in the test. Of even greater interest though.......the test proved a muzzle can be stopped. I can find no other meaning behind "the rifle consistently flatlined".


I believe a rifle should be tested as it is shot in the real world. Just look at the fascinating scientific proof of the Stopped Muzzle...........from about FIVE YEARS AGO.

Bill, you are now backed up by science. The SAME test equipment and operator used in the Positive Compensation test delivered testing results that were "a little inconclusive" regarding positive compensation, and on the SAME DAY determined the existence of a Stopped Muzzle. Fascinating.


Take care,

Greg

Friend 404tbang

404tbang said:

Howdy Bill,

Bill, you are now backed up by science. The SAME test equipment and operator used in the Positive Compensation test delivered testing results that were "a little inconclusive" regarding positive compensation, and on the SAME DAY determined the existence of a Stopped Muzzle. Fascinating.


Take care,

Greg

Click to expand...

____________________________

Friend 404tbang:

Yes, we do physically stop our muzzles with a properly weighted and adjusted MD.

I've known that for a quarter century...

The first thing I had to do when I developed the muzzle device a quarter century ago, was to determine "why" it may have the potential to increase accuracy.

So the goal became to figure a way to stop the muzzle of a rifle barrel, like the dead place in the vibration pattern of the radio antenna on my truck, as it was vibrating in the wind one day.

_______________________________________


But, I doubt this test you've posted proves a stopped muzzle.......nor can it prove compensation.

My friend Dr. Kolbe's experiments most certainly did not prove compensation.....( matter of fact, I've got a feeling he wishes he'd never published his spearments....)

But, Dr. Kolbe's spearment is the only thing our "scientific" friends, with their goofy compensation and tuning theories, have to hang their hats on.....besides those goofy computer animations of my ole buddy Varmint Al, that is.

I apologize for the use of the term "goofy" to describe these things....but it fits.....

________________________________


Friend 404tbang, why don't we ask Wally to make your thread a sticky....

Then we can discuss the reasons why Dr. Kolbe's testing, and the tests you depict here, do not prove either the goofy compensation theory, or, a stopped muzzle.

Your friend, Bill Calfee

Bill Calfee said:

____________________________

Friend 404tbang:
But, I doubt this test you've posted proves a stopped muzzle.......nor can it prove compensation.

My friend Dr. Kolbe's experiments most certainly did not prove compensation.....( matter of fact, I've got a feeling he wishes he'd never published his spearments....)

But, Dr. Kolbe's spearment is the only thing our "scientific" friends, with their goofy compensation and tuning theories, have to hang their hats on.....besides those goofy computer animations of my ole buddy Varmint Al, that is.



________________________________


Friend 404tbang, why don't we ask Wally to make your thread a sticky....

Then we can discuss the reasons why Dr. Kolbe's testing, and the tests you depict here, do not prove either the goofy compensation theory, or, a stopped muzzle.

Your friend, Bill Calfee

Click to expand...

Howdy Bill,
I excerpted portions of your quote above. Here is something I previously said:



"Bill, you are now backed up by science. The SAME test equipment and operator used in the Positive Compensation test delivered testing results that were "a little inconclusive" regarding positive compensation, and on the SAME DAY determined the existence of a Stopped Muzzle. Fascinating."

You may be right that the test proves neither positive compensation or a stopped muzzle. However, a test has to be repeatable for the theory to be valid. The post I found said some rifles tested the way positive compensation is supposed to work.......and on others the results were "a little inconclusive". Which means the positive compensation aspect was not exactly repeatable, and therefore problematic. Which seems to severely jeopardize the validity of the test and theory.

There is one thing that is undeniable for the positive compensation crowd. If they wish to claim the test proves positive compensation, then the same equipment and operator, on the same day when having results that were "a little inconclusive" regarding positive compensation, proved the existence of a stopped muzzle.

If they deny the stopped muzzle they must deny positive compensation. That test hamstrings them.

Yes, I think this would be an interesting "sticky".


Take care,

Greg

Friend 404tbang

404tbang said:

Howdy Bill,
I excerpted portions of your quote above. Here is something I previously said:



"Bill, you are now backed up by science. The SAME test equipment and operator used in the Positive Compensation test delivered testing results that were "a little inconclusive" regarding positive compensation, and on the SAME DAY determined the existence of a Stopped Muzzle. Fascinating."

You may be right that the test proves neither positive compensation or a stopped muzzle. However, a test has to be repeatable for the theory to be valid. The post I found said some rifles tested the way positive compensation is supposed to work.......and on others the results were "a little inconclusive". Which means the positive compensation aspect was not exactly repeatable, and therefore problematic. Which seems to severely jeopardize the validity of the test and theory.

There is one thing that is undeniable for the positive compensation crowd. If they wish to claim the test proves positive compensation, then the same equipment and operator, on the same day when having results that were "a little inconclusive" regarding positive compensation, proved the existence of a stopped muzzle.

If they deny the stopped muzzle they must deny positive compensation. That test hamstrings them.

Yes, I think this would be an interesting "sticky".


Take care,

Greg

Click to expand...

_____________________________________


Friend 404tbang:

You are exactly right.......

Let's get Wally to make your thread a sticky......

So we can discuss this issue......

_______________________


For starters:

In dealing with muzzle oscillations, we're talking about controlling a total muzzle movement of somewhere between .0002" and .0004".

(Between two ten thousandths and four ten thousandths total oscillation movement, at the muzzle, of a naked barrel)

So, are my eyes deceiving me, or, is that not an angle butt stock in the top picture you posted?

Your friend, Bill Calfee

In our little country here are also opinions of positive compensation. 2 or maybe more...

I think that with Kurzzeit high speed cameras it is possible to see what position barrel muzzle is when bullets comes outside.

They can take 3 000 000 frames/s.If I count right 22 LR bullets "straight part" 0,28 " lenght is coming out from muzzle about 0,00002 s.

Kurzzeits camera takes about 60 frames in this time.Bullets moves about 0,12 mm (0,005") per frame.

Hopely they are intrested sometimes make this.

http://kurzzeit.com/eng/videos.htm

I put my 2 cents to "stopped muzzle" opinion.And I have one idea why (Maybe alone with this idea and maybe also wrong).

When you get your RF or CF rifle to good tuning,also wind drift is coming smaller.If bullet leaves when barrel muzzle is moving,bullet is not stable and it has bigger surface area to wind than steady or stable bullet.

BR, Timo

If I count wrong,sorry...You must remember that I was fishing & hunting many days when other guys where on mathematic lesson.

Friend Timo

Timo said:

In our little country here are also opinions of positive compensation. 2 or maybe more...

I think that with Kurzzeit high speed cameras it is possible to see what position barrel muzzle is when bullets comes outside.

They can take 3 000 000 frames/s.If I count right 22 LR bullets "straight part" 0,28 " lenght is coming out from muzzle about 0,00002 s.

Kurzzeits camera takes about 60 frames in this time.Bullets moves about 0,12 mm (0,005") per frame.

Hopely they are intrested sometimes make this.

http://kurzzeit.com/eng/videos.htm

I put my 2 cents to "stopped muzzle" opinion.And I have one idea why (Maybe alone with this idea and maybe also wrong).

When you get your RF or CF rifle to good tuning,also wind drift is coming smaller.If bullet leaves when barrel muzzle is moving,bullet is not stable and it has bigger surface area to wind than steady or stable bullet.

BR, Timo

If I count wrong,sorry...You must remember that I was fishing & hunting many days when other guys where on mathematic lesson.

Click to expand...

________________________________________


Friend Timo:

That's way too much common sense........but you're exactly right.

________________________


My good friend Dr. Kolbe, being he's a highly educated man, simply couldn't allow himself to believe a MD stops the muzzle......that's way too simple.

He believed it must be much more complicated than simply stopping the muzzle.

By the way, it is just that simple.

So Dr. Kolbe devised a spearment to try to disprove me, and my contention, that a MD simply stops the muzzle.

And this is when he came up with his............I apologize, but, "goofy" compensation theory......

_____________________________________


For anyone to believe in this compensation nonsense, you'd have to believe, that the muzzle of a gun barrel, when fired, and compensated, will stop oscillating long enough, at the exact place in the oscillation cycle, to allow a bullet to completely exit the crown, while the muzzle remains perfect motionless.......for all rounds fired to strike the target in the same vertical plane....

Now here's the most ridiculous part of this whole compensation nonsense: ( as if the first part isn't ridiculous enough)

All of this takes place within a total muzzle oscillation travel, now get this, of less than four ten thousandths of an inch..... .0004".


And friend Timo you are absolutely correct, a bullet that does not exit a stationary muzzle, will be so wind sensitive, that even Tony "TDX" Harper couldn't win with it.....

I'm going to ask Wally to make this thread of 404tbang's a "sticky".

Your friend, Bill Calfee

Bill Calfee said:

_____________________________________


Friend 404tbang:

You are exactly right.......

Let's get Wally to make your thread a sticky......

So we can discuss this issue......

_______________________


For starters:

In dealing with muzzle oscillations, we're talking about controlling a total muzzle movement of somewhere between .0002" and .0004".

(Between two ten thousandths and four ten thousandths total oscillation movement, at the muzzle, of a naked barrel)

So, are my eyes deceiving me, or, is that not an angle butt stock in the top picture you posted?

Your friend, Bill Calfee

Click to expand...

Howdy Bill,
Looks like an angled buttstock to me. The thing is, the test as performed did not have any setup that resembles what most folks shoot today. So as to conveniently reference it, here is the link for the original test:

http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/tuning_a_barrel.htm


And from the article is this last paragraph:

"The measurement of barrel vibrations in the way demonstrated will be a very quick and positive method of tuning a rifle, requiring very few shots and very little time. Moreover, there is no ambiguity or uncertainty about the result. When the barrel is tuned for complete positive compensation, no further improvement is possible."


That sounds great. And on the surface it would appear to be definitive. But as has previously been pointed out, it did not quite work out that way in the real world example quoted from another forum.

Brian_K said:

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

Click to expand...

There clearly are problems with the test. Personally, I have always thought some variables were missed, although I do believe the effort was there.

I think it would have been far better had the test been performed on a rifle set up in the manner in which they are usually shot in the real world. But the fact of the matter is, it really does not matter. When real world rifles were tested with the SAME EQUIPMENT and the SAME OPERATOR, the test did not exactly work as it did in the lab. The results were "a little inconclusive.".

Remember the last paragraph from the article:

"The measurement of barrel vibrations in the way demonstrated will be a very quick and positive method of tuning a rifle, requiring very few shots and very little time. Moreover, there is no ambiguity or uncertainty about the result. When the barrel is tuned for complete positive compensation, no further improvement is possible."

As shown from the test done on real world rifles, with the same equipment, by the same operator, the results were "a little inconclusive". And that means there WAS ambiguity and uncertainty about the result.

A test/experiment/theory must be repeatable to be valid. This was "a little inconclusive" regarding repeatability. That equates to the test/experiment/theory being invalid.

At least the existence of the stopped muzzle was SCIENTIFICALLY DETERMINED since "the rifle consistently flatlined".

Take care,

Greg

Friend 404tbang

Friend 404tbang

_____________________

Friend 404tbang:

Here's a quote from Dr. Kolbe's compensation article...

I've highlighted his last comment in bold orange.....


" The influential American rimfire gunsmith Bill Calfee, in an article written for Precision Shooting Magazine ("I'm Feeling Those Good Vibrations AGAIN!" Vol. 52, No. 11, March 2005) presented a rather novel view on how barrels vibrate, and also expressed his belief that for best accuracy, barrels should be tuned so that the muzzle is "stopped" and there is no change in muzzle angle, or position, as the bullet is launched. It should be noted that Calfee's theories have absolutely no basis in fact and are mathematically untenable. But that does not stop it being the most quoted work in the popular press on barrel vibrations and the tuning of barrels."


I'm sorry, Dr. Kolbe's compensation theory has absolutely no basis in fact and is mathematically untenable......

And the reason my stopped muzzle is the most quoted work in the popular press, is because it's fact, no theory.
__________________________


Here's the quote of Dr. Kolbe's that you quoted:


"The measurement of barrel vibrations in the way demonstrated will be a very quick and positive method of tuning a rifle, requiring very few shots and very little time. Moreover, there is no ambiguity or uncertainty about the result. When the barrel is tuned for complete positive compensation, no further improvement is possible."

As the world has come to realize since Dr. Kolbe penned the above, things didn't work out like he envisioned.......

As a matter of fact, because of Dr. Kolbe's "goofy" compensation theory, more goofy tuning theories have been concocked, resulting in more folks, especially new shooters, wasting their hard earned money on goofy tuning ideas and mickey mouse nonsense, without success, instead of addressing the real issues of what it takes to have a killer shooting RFBR gun...

_____________________________


After a quarter century now, we produce accuracy by the use of my muzzle device, which places the proper weight, at the proper location, in front of the muzzle, causing the exit of the crown to remain completely stationary, as the bullet exits.

Even with the muzzle completely stationary, stopped, we still have to contend with the vertical displacement, at the target, caused by the velocity variation in the ammo we use..........

I've estimated this vertical variation to be something on the order of .150" at 50 yards. (this is with the very best ammo available, and, the muzzle stopped)

The inability to eliminate the SDVP factor in our ammo is proof positive as to the nonsense of Dr. Kolbe's compensation theory.

Your friend, Bill Calfee

Bill Calfee said:

Friend 404tbang

_____________________

Friend 404tbang:

Here's a quote from Dr. Kolbe's compensation article...

I've highlighted his last comment in bold orange.....


" The influential American rimfire gunsmith Bill Calfee, in an article written for Precision Shooting Magazine ("I'm Feeling Those Good Vibrations AGAIN!" Vol. 52, No. 11, March 2005) presented a rather novel view on how barrels vibrate, and also expressed his belief that for best accuracy, barrels should be tuned so that the muzzle is "stopped" and there is no change in muzzle angle, or position, as the bullet is launched. It should be noted that Calfee's theories have absolutely no basis in fact and are mathematically untenable. But that does not stop it being the most quoted work in the popular press on barrel vibrations and the tuning of barrels."


I'm sorry, Dr. Kolbe's compensation theory has absolutely no basis in fact and is mathematically untenable......

And the reason my stopped muzzle is the most quoted work in the popular press, is because it's fact, no theory.
__________________________


As the world has come to realize since Dr. Kolbe penned the above, things didn't work out like he envisioned.......

After a quarter century now, we produce accuracy by the use of my muzzle device, which places the proper weight, at the proper location, in front of the muzzle, causing the exit of the crown to remain completely stationary, as the bullet exits.

Even with the muzzle completely stationary, stopped, we still have to contend with the vertical displacement, at the target, caused by the velocity variation in the ammo we use..........

I've estimated this vertical variation to be something on the order of .150" at 50 yards. (this is with the very best ammo available, and, the muzzle stopped)

The inability to eliminate the SDVP factor in our ammo is proof positive as to the nonsense of Dr. Kolbe's compensation theory.

Your friend, Bill Calfee

Click to expand...

Howdy Bill,
Regarding the .150 vertical spread, I have seen people try to argue that positive compensation won't close that gap. To me, that defeats part of their own argument.

Look at this excerpt from the article:

http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/tuning_a_barrel.htm

"And if the upward swing in the muzzle is exactly right, there will be complete positive compensation as the trajectories of bullets across the entire spread of muzzle velocities all meet at the same height on the target at a given range."

That's not exactly what those who try to say positive compensation won't fill the gap say. Yet, they reference this article. And it appears the article itself contradicts them.


This quote, as you have pointed out, is interesting:

" The influential American rimfire gunsmith Bill Calfee, in an article written for Precision Shooting Magazine ("I'm Feeling Those Good Vibrations AGAIN!" Vol. 52, No. 11, March 2005) presented a rather novel view on how barrels vibrate, and also expressed his belief that for best accuracy, barrels should be tuned so that the muzzle is "stopped" and there is no change in muzzle angle, or position, as the bullet is launched. It should be noted that Calfee's theories have absolutely no basis in fact and are mathematically untenable. But that does not stop it being the most quoted work in the popular press on barrel vibrations and the tuning of barrels."


And yet, in the real world, on real rifles as they are shot.......when the same test setup and the same operator tried to check the rifles mentioned in the post from another forum, this happened:

Brian_K said:

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

Click to expand...

One of the rifles "consistently flatlined".

I can only see "consistently flatlined" as meaning one thing........the muzzle was stopped.

The same setup used in the positive compensation article, with the same operator, captured on his computer graph the existence of a stopped muzzle. And that seems to directly contradict his assertion that "Calfee's theories have absolutely no basis in fact and are mathematically untenable.". Quite the opposite, it appears that the same setup and operator from the positive compensation article proved Calfee's theories have a basis in fact and are mathematically tenable.

I can only imagine that, as the folks who were there that day gathered around the computer graph, there was more than a little bit of surprise to see that the positive compensation test equipment had captured the existence of a stopped muzzle.

Take care,

Greg

Friend 404tbang

Friend 404tbang

_______________________________

Friend 404tbang:

I pulled this quote from your post preceding this one of mine.


"I can only imagine that, as the folks who were there that day gathered around the computer graph, there was more than a little bit of surprise to see that the positive compensation test equipment had captured the existence of a stopped muzzle.

____________________________

Friend 404tbang:

The muzzle of a gun barrel can not be "stopped" unless the correct weight, is placed at the correct location past the exit of the crown.

It is impossible to stop the muzzle of a gun barrel with weight flush with, or behind, the exit of the crown...

BUT................

I can change the barrel vibrations, and, the rate of muzzle oscillations to any degree I wish, with weight flush with, or behind, the exit of the crown.

In other words, if compensation were a reality, one does not need to have weight past the exit of the crown to cause its effect.

_______________________


So here's what some of our compensation theorists need to do, to prove compensation:

Build a Class A RFBR gun, and tune it to compensate, using weight flush with, or behind the exit of the crown. ( no weight in front of the exit of the crown)

And then, carry it to a PSL and see what you can do with that compensated RFBR gun, without the muzzle stopped.

Your friend, Bill Calfee

Friend 404tbang

Friend 404tbang

_____________________


Friend 404tbang:

It's going to be citing watching our compensation theorists friends making their mad rush to construct a bunch of Class A RFBR guns, with compensated barrels, without any MD weight past the exit of the crown.

_______________________________

One can alter barrel vibrations and muzzle oscillations to any degree one wishes, with the MD weight completely behind the exit of the crown.

_____________________________

So our compensation theorists friends can "tune" their compensated barrels to any degree they feel necessary, without having any MD weight beyond the exit of the crown.

____________________________


Of course one can't "stop" the muzzle of a gun barrel without the proper MD weight, being placed at the proper location, past the exit of the crown...

So, it's going to be citing to see these fully compensated RFBR guns, without their muzzles stopped, at the next PSL.........


Your friend, Bill Calfee

Bill Calfee said:

Friend 404tbang

_____________________


Friend 404tbang:

It's going to be citing watching our compensation theorists friends making their mad rush to construct a bunch of Class A RFBR guns, with compensated barrels, without any MD weight past the exit of the crown.

_______________________________

One can alter barrel vibrations and muzzle oscillations to any degree one wishes, with the MD weight completely behind the exit of the crown.

_____________________________

So our compensation theorists friends can "tune" their compensated barrels to any degree they feel necessary, without having any MD weight beyond the exit of the crown.

____________________________


Of course one can't "stop" the muzzle of a gun barrel without the proper MD weight, being placed at the proper location, past the exit of the crown...

So, it's going to be citing to see these fully compensated RFBR guns, without their muzzles stopped, at the next PSL.........


Your friend, Bill Calfee

Click to expand...

Howdy Bill,
Nope. That won't happen. If it were going to happen, it would already have been done.

You can move the MD and change point of impact either high or low. You might even get an inconsistent or unrepeatable degree of "positive compensation". But, I don't think you can get to "Complete Positive Compensation" as was declared in Kolbe's test. The test done with the same testing equipment by the same operator on real world rifles as they are shot in the real world proves it. Any slight change in ignition that changes the vibrations of the barrel can throw a bullet out of the group, and that proves another weakness in the "positive compensation" theory. It relies on the muzzle swinging upward at a precisely repeatable rate for every single shot. Every single shot. Regardless of velocity. In an extraordinarily small window of time. Vibration changes can affect that.

That is not speculation.

Targets have been posted that show a dropper at a chronographed velocity that should be in the group. And it's not. I need to see if I can find that again, while I think the idea was to present positive compensation, and that shot was clearly low and of a higher velocity, I want to verify it. Coming up with the time to find it will be challenging right now.

The same test equipment, with the same operator, on real world rifles, as they are shot in the real world, gave results which were "a little inconclusive". And that was with the MD in FRONT of the muzzle, at least in the rifle pictured. That proves the muzzle did NOT swing upward at a precisely repeatable rate for every shot. Otherwise, the results would not have been "a little inconclusive".

Would they?

The test on real world rifles as they are shot in the real world was not repeatable in the way it was done in the first test. A test/theory must be repeatable in order to be valid. This test, when it came to repeatability on real world rifles as they are shot in the real world was "a little inconclusive".

What must be truly troubling for those who want to refer to the science of the Complete Positive Compensation test (and applauded the science at the time) is that the same equipment, with the same operator, discovered on their computer graph the existence of a muzzle that "consistently flatlined". Scientifically, at that. It will be difficult to argue that "consistently flatlined" does not realistically equate to your "stopped muzzle".

Sorry to have taken so long to reply, sometimes life gets WAY too busy! More when I get time.

Take care,

Greg

Friend 404tbang

404tbang said:

Howdy Bill,
Nope. That won't happen. If it were going to happen, it would already have been done.

You can move the MD and change point of impact either high or low. You might even get an inconsistent or unrepeatable degree of "positive compensation". But, I don't think you can get to "Complete Positive Compensation" as was declared in Kolbe's test. The test done with the same testing equipment by the same operator on real world rifles as they are shot in the real world proves it. Any slight change in ignition that changes the vibrations of the barrel can throw a bullet out of the group, and that proves another weakness in the "positive compensation" theory. It relies on the muzzle swinging upward at a precisely repeatable rate for every single shot. Every single shot. Regardless of velocity. In an extraordinarily small window of time. Vibration changes can affect that.

That is not speculation.

Targets have been posted that show a dropper at a chronographed velocity that should be in the group. And it's not. I need to see if I can find that again, while I think the idea was to present positive compensation, and that shot was clearly low and of a higher velocity, I want to verify it. Coming up with the time to find it will be challenging right now.

The same test equipment, with the same operator, on real world rifles, as they are shot in the real world, gave results which were "a little inconclusive". And that was with the MD in FRONT of the muzzle, at least in the rifle pictured. That proves the muzzle did NOT swing upward at a precisely repeatable rate for every shot. Otherwise, the results would not have been "a little inconclusive".

Would they?

The test on real world rifles as they are shot in the real world was not repeatable in the way it was done in the first test. A test/theory must be repeatable in order to be valid. This test, when it came to repeatability on real world rifles as they are shot in the real world was "a little inconclusive".

What must be truly troubling for those who want to refer to the science of the Complete Positive Compensation test (and applauded the science at the time) is that the same equipment, with the same operator, discovered on their computer graph the existence of a muzzle that "consistently flatlined". Scientifically, at that. It will be difficult to argue that "consistently flatlined" does not realistically equate to your "stopped muzzle".

Sorry to have taken so long to reply, sometimes life gets WAY too busy! More when I get time.

Take care,

Greg

Click to expand...

_____________________________________


Friend 404tbang:

I got your message on my answering machine about the picture I posted of that amazing threading and chambering.

CYankee schmidts, I don't believe, will ever be capable of the quality of work depicted in that remarkable photo.

Your friend, Bill Calfee

PS: Friend 404tbang, our compensation theory friends don't want to hear what your comment above tells them......bc

Bill Calfee said:

_____________________________________


Friend 404tbang:

I got your message on my answering machine about the picture I posted of that amazing threading and chambering.

CYankee schmidts, I don't believe, will ever be capable of the quality of work depicted in that remarkable photo.

Your friend, Bill Calfee

PS: Friend 404tbang, our compensation theory friends don't want to hear what your comment above tells them......bc

Click to expand...

Howdy Bill,

Nope, I don't think Positive Compensation theorists want to hear this, thanks!

"What must be truly troubling for those who want to refer to the science of the Complete Positive Compensation test (and applauded the science at the time) is that the same equipment, with the same operator, discovered on their computer graph the existence of a muzzle that "consistently flatlined". Scientifically, at that. It will be difficult to argue that "consistently flatlined" does not realistically equate to your "stopped muzzle". "

But WAIT, there's MORE!

I thought I remembered something else about the test, or one of the tests. Took awhile, but I found it......

Here are a couple of posts from someone else who had his rifle tested with the same Complete Positive Compensation testing equipment and operator:

himself said:

Well I have learned not to take 2 much notice of machines that puport to tell us about such goings on with rifle barrel's[nodes ect]
Earlier this year I had my rifle on such a machine ,as had 4 or5 of my shooting friends,the upshot was that after much tweaking and twiddling all the other rifles shot to form,IE the readings from the computor were much the same for all the rifles with various types of tuner fitted.[No better or worse after much tweaking]My rifle was de oddball cos it did exactly the opposite to the others,and I was told it would never shoot well,which I found to be a bit strange seeing as how I hour before the test it had shot a 250x22x's.Now I no ed dis to be a fact,I is still shooting dis ol ting an it won me the top shot in a league we shoot here in the UK[over 18 cards] Oh,and NO tuner.JohnF

Click to expand...

himself said:

Yes sir it was on thet there border ting.Tried with a tuner and instead of the graph showing an upward spike as had the other rifles tested that day,my rifle showed a downwards spike,this happened without the tuner as well.
I will try to say what I mean to make it clear.Not having any idea of the correct terminology,imagine if you will a bullet traveling more or less in a straight flat line and then shooting suddenly upwards and a 45 degree angle,well this happened with all of the rifles tested on the day except mine which traveled in a straight line and then shot downwards at an angle of 45degrees.
No Slick my boy this is not the old annie of my trip to the usa,but my all singing and dancing Stiller lonestar,with Lilja barrel and Mcmillan edge stock.It shoots fine.
My trip to the Usa was a great experience for this ol fellow,and I enjoyed the company of some great shooters,but lordie you is all fired up with this nody ting.John F.

Click to expand...

Bill, this may have been the same test as the one I first posted about on RFC. John describes his rifle and the description seems to match the rifle in the picture from the first post. HOWEVER, it was apparently not possible to tune his rifle to "Complete Positive Compensation" since his barrel had a "downward spike" both with and WITHOUT the Muzzle Device!

himself said:

Well I have learned not to take 2 much notice of machines that puport to tell us about such goings on with rifle barrel's[nodes ect]
Earlier this year I had my rifle on such a machine ,as had 4 or5 of my shooting friends,the upshot was that after much tweaking and twiddling all the other rifles shot to form,IE the readings from the computor were much the same for all the rifles with various types of tuner fitted.[No better or worse after much tweaking]My rifle was de oddball cos it did exactly the opposite to the others,and I was told it would never shoot well,which I found to be a bit strange seeing as how I hour before the test it had shot a 250x22x's.Now I no ed dis to be a fact,I is still shooting dis ol ting an it won me the top shot in a league we shoot here in the UK[over 18 cards] Oh,and NO tuner.JohnF

Click to expand...

It is self evident that Geoff's computer readout captured NEGATIVE COMPENSATION on John's rifle. And since "after much tweaking and twiddling" John's rifle did NOT show Complete Positive Compensation, but instead showed NEGATIVE COMPENSATION (which I have read about before) John said "I was told it would never shoot well,which I found to be a bit strange seeing as how I hour before the test it had shot a 250x22x's.Now I no ed dis to be a fact,I is still shooting dis ol ting an it won me the top shot in a league we shoot here in the UK[over 18 cards] Oh,and NO tuner." John also made it clear his rifle did the same thing on the test both with and without the Muzzle Device.

The pretty part is that, as John said, his rifle had shot a 250X22X an hour before. Obviously with a barrel that was shooting NEGATIVE COMPENSATION. Which is the POLAR OPPOSITE of Complete Positive Compensation. And he was told "it would never shoot well".

250X22X "ain't bad".........

Sounds to me like the NEGATIVELY COMPENSATED barrel may have shot as well (possibly better?) than the Complete Positively Compensated barrels that day..........

I've said this for years......when fact and theory collide, fact wins.

I'm glad the test SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED the existence of the Stopped Muzzle. And it's interesting that the rifle that John was told "would never shoot well", because it was SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to be in negative compensation, won John's league.

In Geoff's article found here:

http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/tuning_a_barrel.htm

there is this final paragraph:

"The measurement of barrel vibrations in the way demonstrated will be a very quick and positive method of tuning a rifle, requiring very few shots and very little time. Moreover, there is no ambiguity or uncertainty about the result. When the barrel is tuned for complete positive compensation, no further improvement is possible."

Based upon John's posts, in the real world shooting real rifles as they are shot in the real world, it didn't quite work out that way. According to Geoff's theory, scientific testing, and article, John's rifle shouldn't ever shoot well. And John was told that. But reality is much different, according to John's posts.

There are some more things to point out, but I'm out of time. Need more coffee, too. And I'm out of Ale 8, so no caffiene there. Sometimes coffee don't hit the spot as well as Ale 8.

Gotta go, have a good day!

Greg

Friend 404tbang

404tbang said:

Howdy Bill,

Nope, I don't think Positive Compensation theorists want to hear this, thanks!

there is this final paragraph:

"The measurement of barrel vibrations in the way demonstrated will be a very quick and positive method of tuning a rifle, requiring very few shots and very little time. Moreover, there is no ambiguity or uncertainty about the result. When the barrel is tuned for complete positive compensation, no further improvement is possible."


There are some more things to point out, but I'm out of time. Need more coffee, too. And I'm out of Ale 8, so no caffiene there. Sometimes coffee don't hit the spot as well as Ale 8.

Gotta go, have a good day!

Greg

Click to expand...

___________________________


Friend 404tbang:

I highlighted one of your paragraphs in bold orange, with one interesting sentence of the paragraph in bold, sky blue.

I don't know which of these is more ridiculous, the entire paragraph in orange, or, the sentence in blue.

_________________________________

I've said this before, but it bears repeating:

All our compensation theory friends need to do, is to build a compensated RFBR gun, with no MD weight past the exit of the crown.

Then take it to a PSL/ARA National and win........

Then I'll jump on the compensation cart myself.

Thanks again for all of those Ale8s....

Your friend, Bill Calfee

There is no such thing as compensation, positive or otherwise

There is no such thing as compensation, positive or otherwise

CYA friends:

The world of accuracy is full of some of the goofiest theories about barrel vibrations, and controlling them, and the absolute goofiest, of all, is this compensation nonsense.

__________________________

Compensation is "supposed" to alter the muzzle position, to correct for velocity variations, so all rounds will strike the target at the exact same vertical position.......

Therefore, if compensation were a "fact", we could flat line our guns......

Compensation would, well compensate, for the velocity variation of our ammo.

The problem is, no one on Earth has ever flat lined a rimfire target gun.........no one.

It has never been done, not one single time, with the millions of attempts that have been made throughout the ages.

__________________________


There is no such thing as "compensation".

Of all the goofy barrel vibration controlling theories, compensation is without question the goofiest.

Your friend, Bill Calfee

_______________________


PS:

CYA is about advancing rimfire accuracy, seriously advancing rimfire accuracy.

Someday I'll have to make a list of some of the goofy theories, and contraptions, that folks have come up with, and devised, in the name of advancing accuracy.

And I mean there are some doozies..........bc

The goofy compensation nonsense..

The goofy compensation nonsense..

CYA friends:

While I was lapping the little old school, .825 today, I got to thinking about the goofy compensation nonsense that floats around these internet forums...

And then, paralleling that goofy compensation nonsense, this ridiculous notion that one needs a unique chamber to shoot Lapua ammo..

All one needs to be able to shoot Lapua, today, is a chamber like I've pictured below....

_____________________________________

CYA friends, this picture below is a Lapua chamber......

I mean, just look at that chamber...........

It makes one want to give up trying to duplicate that degree of perfection................man!

______________________________

I mean, how does an old RFBR schmidt, like me, try to reproduce this kind of perfection?
_____________________________

Bill Calfee said:

There is no such thing as compensation, positive or otherwise

CYA friends:

The world of accuracy is full of some of the goofiest theories about barrel vibrations, and controlling them, and the absolute goofiest, of all, is this compensation nonsense.

__________________________

Compensation is "supposed" to alter the muzzle position, to correct for velocity variations, so all rounds will strike the target at the exact same vertical position.......

Therefore, if compensation were a "fact", we could flat line our guns......

Compensation would, well compensate, for the velocity variation of our ammo.

The problem is, no one on Earth has ever flat lined a rimfire target gun.........no one.

It has never been done, not one single time, with the millions of attempts that have been made throughout the ages.

__________________________


There is no such thing as "compensation".

Of all the goofy barrel vibration controlling theories, compensation is without question the goofiest.

Your friend, Bill Calfee

_______________________


PS:

CYA is about advancing rimfire accuracy, seriously advancing rimfire accuracy.

Someday I'll have to make a list of some of the goofy theories, and contraptions, that folks have come up with, and devised, in the name of advancing accuracy.

And I mean there are some doozies..........bc

Click to expand...

Howdy Bill,
There is something amusing about the compensation theorist/experts.

In years past they were all too happy to say there is no "stopped muzzle" and that the positive compensation test that they claimed proved complete positive compensation was the end of the matter. If I recall correctly, there could be no further improvement, or something close to it, was one of the statements. I'll check that again when I can get time.

And yet, that same test equipment used on real Rimfire Benchrest rifles as they are shot in the real world proved the existence of the "stopped muzzle".

But amusingly enough, those compensation theorist/experts can not bring themselves to actually admit that the stopped muzzle was proven using the same scientific test setup on real rimfire Benchrest rifles as they are shot in the real world, as was used on the complete positive compensation test, with the same operator running the equipment.

Now, every now and then you'll see complete positive compensation theorist/experts say something that is beyond amusing. Here is an example:

folks between a discount for birthdays and gift cards this worked out pretty well. ammo will arrive tomorrow, hope positive compensation doesn't let me down! by the way with a reverse taper heavy barrel and a lite tuner only about 67% of the rounds fall into the category of positive compensation. balance is negative compensation and barrel time........

Click to expand...

In debate, that is called a self defeating argument.

With statements like that it becomes obvious that there are problems with complete positive compensation......

The barrel is tuned to about 67% positive compensation and about 33% negative compensation......... SIMULTANEOUSLY........but it's still called positive compensation.

Oh well, I'm glad the stopped muzzle was scientifically proven.

Take care,

Greg