Heavy barrel Swede

Forum for discussion of guns and ammo
Forum rules
Don't do illegal things. We don't want that kind of attention here.

Heavy barrel Swede

Postby Doug Coulter » Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:22 pm

Well, so far the first part could be called "little girl", as in "when she was good, she was very, very good".
Heh. This was its 3rd 5 shot group. First was the lead load and fairly rotten, second was a "throwaway" load with 39 gr Varget, a 95 gr hornady (with ~ .1" jump to the lands - it's a tiny bullet for this caliber) - I moly coated them...all FLR brass which barely expanded and with no flattening of the primer. Probably ~ 3k fps, but I didn't crono - next nice day, I promise. I didn't think this would shoot, just kinda doing the shoot some and clean some breakin dance here. But.
Target2.png
Now if I could just hold better...

P1000488.jpg
A pretty girl if your taste runs like that.


Bore scope still shows lots of tool marks, and more copper gets on the grooves than the lands...Not so bad I want to use abrasive and fire-lap, I'll be patient - that's been working out so far, even if the anticipation is hard on me.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Heavy barrel Swede

Postby Donovan Ready » Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:07 pm

Sweet. Thanks.
Donovan Ready
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:22 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Heavy barrel Swede

Postby Doug Coulter » Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:31 pm

To relate this ever so slightly to fusion -
This is almost as accurate as you'd need to collide two bullets midair, or hit a bullet at around 1/3 mile. (I do have two guns with the requisite accuracy, FWIW - better than this one, so far)
In terms of that "fly in a cathedral" that's 100% fusion probability if you can do it with D ions....

If we can do it with a rifle, with all the variables we have there that you don't have with atomic nuclei - you're kinda there, except being able to do a LOT of it quickly enough to make meaningful power.
Given that it should be a lot easier with nuclei than with bullets, it's kind of embarrassing that we're not there yet.
I did run the math (open of course to someone who can do it better) - and if we were for example firing protons at lithium - and could do it this well - we'd be "there" now. Heisenberg doesn't limit this, we don't need to push that limit to be good enough.
So in a way, this is all related, and encouraging. I think we can get rid of wind, and most barrel vibrations, as well as charge variations, with atoms...

shrunk-P1000490.jpg
Bullets hitting other ones in the backstop and driving them out the backside...I need a new stump. Bullet fusion!
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA


Return to Guns and ammo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron