Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
Sign in to follow this  
Glockster1

Too Much Posting Erroneous Chrono/PF Bullet Comparisons in This Forum

Recommended Posts

Some of you don't do this. Some people here know better and actually know what they're doing.

 

But I keep seeing other people posting absolutely ridiculous "test results" "chronograph tests" "power factor comparisons" between one bullet and another. You should realize that whenever YOU post this ridiculous inaccurate erroneous "ballistics data" based on your lack of knowledge with ammunition reloading/ballistics tests, you are publicly bashing bullet companies all over the United States. 

===========

So many times I'm reading post(s) here with words similar to this:

"I compared PF and FPS chronograph numbers between RMR 147gr .355 TC FMJ and Acme 135gr .356 RN coated bullets"  and I got 130 power-factor with the RMR and only 124 power-factor with the Acme. My choice for best PF is the RMR bullet"

===========

^^^ OMG!!! Huh?! What?! Did I just read that right?!  SMH.... This proudly posting FOOL actually thinks that's something real and accurate....^^^

 

It's ERRONEOUS "data" produced by an incompetent inexperienced fool.

 

If you're gonna compare Power-Factor/FPS numbers between bullets, BOTH bullets and loaded rounds NEED TO HAVE:

 

*The SAME jacket material

* The SAME nose shape.

*The SAME diameter.

*The SAME weight.

*The SAME cartridge OAL

*The SAME propellant charge weight

*The SAME brass case headstamp

*The SAME primer

*Fired from the SAME barrel/firearm with the barrel rifling chemically cleaned BETWEEN shots.

 

**And I'm not even mentioning wind conditions, ambient air and barrel temps.

 

 


 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then there’s the issue of other guns will be totally different so CHRONO results are just a guess at best for other shooters.

  I’m wondering if you got triggered by the same post I read today and scratched my head over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SAME jacket material

* The SAME nose shape.

*The SAME diameter.

*The SAME weight.

*The SAME cartridge OAL

*The SAME propellant charge weight

*The SAME brass case headstamp

*The SAME primer

*Fired from the SAME barrel/firearm with the barrel rifling chemically cleaned BETWEEN shots.

 

 

Well, pardon me, but wouldn't that make it an identical round of ammunition?  

 

I think people do it to give the reader/reloader a place to start or stay away from.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Glockster1 said:

Some of you don't do this. Some people here know better and actually know what they're doing.

 

But I keep seeing other people posting absolutely ridiculous "test results" "chronograph tests" "power factor comparisons" between one bullet and another. You should realize that whenever YOU post this ridiculous inaccurate erroneous "ballistics data" based on your lack of knowledge with ammunition reloading/ballistics tests, you are publicly bashing bullet companies all over the United States. 

===========

So many times I'm reading post(s) here with words similar to this:

"I compared PF and FPS chronograph numbers between RMR 147gr .355 TC FMJ and Acme 135gr .356 RN coated bullets"  and I got 130 power-factor with the RMR and only 124 power-factor with the Acme. My choice for best PF is the RMR bullet"

===========

^^^ OMG!!! Huh?! What?! Did I just read that right?!  SMH.... This proudly posting FOOL actually thinks that's something real and accurate....^^^

 

It's ERRONEOUS "data" produced by an incompetent inexperienced fool.

 

If you're gonna compare Power-Factor/FPS numbers between bullets, BOTH bullets and loaded rounds NEED TO HAVE:

 

*The SAME jacket material

* The SAME nose shape.

*The SAME diameter.

*The SAME weight.

*The SAME cartridge OAL

*The SAME propellant charge weight

*The SAME brass case headstamp

*The SAME primer

*Fired from the SAME barrel/firearm with the barrel rifling chemically cleaned BETWEEN shots.

 

**And I'm not even mentioning wind conditions, ambient air and barrel temps.

 

 


 

 

 

 

😅😅😅

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Glockster1 said:

SAME barrel/firearm with the barrel rifling chemically cleaned BETWEEN shots.

 

Don't take this wrong but you sound like one of those people you're insulting.

Who the hell,  chemically cleans the barrel between shots, when chronographing?

  I use a Magna speed 3 and generally fire a minimum of five shots, most of the time I shoot 10 shot strings uninterrupted.

Edited by usmc1974

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Glockster1 said:

Some of you don't do this. Some people here know better and actually know what they're doing.

 

But I keep seeing other people posting absolutely ridiculous "test results" "chronograph tests" "power factor comparisons" between one bullet and another. You should realize that whenever YOU post this ridiculous inaccurate erroneous "ballistics data" based on your lack of knowledge with ammunition reloading/ballistics tests, you are publicly bashing bullet companies all over the United States. 

===========

So many times I'm reading post(s) here with words similar to this:

"I compared PF and FPS chronograph numbers between RMR 147gr .355 TC FMJ and Acme 135gr .356 RN coated bullets"  and I got 130 power-factor with the RMR and only 124 power-factor with the Acme. My choice for best PF is the RMR bullet"

===========

^^^ OMG!!! Huh?! What?! Did I just read that right?!  SMH.... This proudly posting FOOL actually thinks that's something real and accurate....^^^

 

It's ERRONEOUS "data" produced by an incompetent inexperienced fool.

 

If you're gonna compare Power-Factor/FPS numbers between bullets, BOTH bullets and loaded rounds NEED TO HAVE:

 

*The SAME jacket material

* The SAME nose shape.

*The SAME diameter.

*The SAME weight.

*The SAME cartridge OAL

*The SAME propellant charge weight

*The SAME brass case headstamp

*The SAME primer

*Fired from the SAME barrel/firearm with the barrel rifling chemically cleaned BETWEEN shots.

 

**And I'm not even mentioning wind conditions, ambient air and barrel temps.

 

 


 

 

 

 

How is it erroneous? The data is correct for each bullet type/load. The poster is merely relaying the information (data) they got from their testing to the reader. If someone draws the wrong conclusion from that data, that error is on the head of the reader, not the poster. 

 

As far as the poster making a decision on which load and bullet to use, that is entirely their decision, not yours. 

 

Lastly, I strongly suggest that you read (and understand) the forum guidelines on posting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Glockster1 said:

Some of you don't do this. Some people here know better and actually know what they're doing.

 

But I keep seeing other people posting absolutely ridiculous "test results" "chronograph tests" "power factor comparisons" between one bullet and another. You should realize that whenever YOU post this ridiculous inaccurate erroneous "ballistics data" based on your lack of knowledge with ammunition reloading/ballistics tests, you are publicly bashing bullet companies all over the United States. 

===========

So many times I'm reading post(s) here with words similar to this:

"I compared PF and FPS chronograph numbers between RMR 147gr .355 TC FMJ and Acme 135gr .356 RN coated bullets"  and I got 130 power-factor with the RMR and only 124 power-factor with the Acme. My choice for best PF is the RMR bullet"

===========

^^^ OMG!!! Huh?! What?! Did I just read that right?!  SMH.... This proudly posting FOOL actually thinks that's something real and accurate....^^^

 

It's ERRONEOUS "data" produced by an incompetent inexperienced fool.

 

If you're gonna compare Power-Factor/FPS numbers between bullets, BOTH bullets and loaded rounds NEED TO HAVE:

 

*The SAME jacket material

* The SAME nose shape.

*The SAME diameter.

*The SAME weight.

*The SAME cartridge OAL

*The SAME propellant charge weight

*The SAME brass case headstamp

*The SAME primer

*Fired from the SAME barrel/firearm with the barrel rifling chemically cleaned BETWEEN shots.

 

**And I'm not even mentioning wind conditions, ambient air and barrel temps.

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

I think that you are wrong there.

 

What should be add to the chronographers post is:-

 

This data is from MY pistol and YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grumpy, well said.

As for the OP. Many times when people weigh in, it's in response to some ones question on other's experience. This is NOT empirical data from a manufacture's lab. That can be found in the reloading manual of your choice. Don't bag on others sharing what they have found to be true for them. Remember, this is a FORUM. Open to any and all opinions meant to be shared and used at others as they see fit.

 

I now relinquish my soap box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RangerTrace said:

 

 

 

 

 

I think people do it to give the reader/reloader a place to start or stay away from.  

 

That's EXACTLY the problem. Those people posting that junk are posting ERRONEOUS inaccurate garbage that newbies here will read and think is proper. It's NOT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, usmc1974 said:

Don't take this wrong but you sound like one of those people you're insulting.

Who the hell,  chemically cleans the barrel between shots, when chronographing?

  I use a Magna speed 3 and generally fire a minimum of five shots, most of the time I shoot 10 shot strings uninterrupted.

 

People who post accurate data done properly that unwitting newbies here will read from are the ones that chemically clean their barrels between shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GrumpyOne said:

How is it erroneous? The data is correct for each bullet type/load. The poster is merely relaying the information (data) they got from their testing to the reader. If someone draws the wrong conclusion from that data, that error is on the head of the reader, not the poster. 

 

As far as the poster making a decision on which load and bullet to use, that is entirely their decision, not yours. 

 

Lastly, I strongly suggest that you read (and understand) the forum guidelines on posting. 

 

It's erroneous if your comparison is between an apple and a orange. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, GrumpyOne said:

Lastly, I strongly suggest that you read (and understand) the forum guidelines on posting. 

 

Do elaborate on that comment.  There's no problem with what I posted.

Edited by Glockster1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like seeing data people collect. This allows me to search the forum and typically you might be able to find a dozen guys who have tested a bullet/powder combination I'm considering and it gives me a good idea of what it will do.

 

Since you like useless data I compared 135 Gr Blues to 115 Gr blues with clean shot. Both making 130 PF. Exactly the useless info you're talking about. The 135 is just a little softer, both are accurate in my  X5 and zero is the same. So to save money on my training I use the slightly snappier and cheaper 115's for practice and club matches which is most of my shooting. Then I'll run the 135's for majors. I don't think that test was useless. It probably doesn't sound like much, but when I order 115's the cost per case is basically the same but I get 600 more bullets per case. That's a extra 2,400 or so bullets per year I can train with for the same money. I thought it was a worth while experiment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

I like seeing data people collect. This allows me to search the forum and typically you might be able to find a dozen guys who have tested a bullet/powder combination I'm considering and it gives me a good idea of what it will do.

 

Since you like useless data I compared 135 Gr Blues to 115 Gr blues with clean shot. Both making 130 PF. Exactly the useless info you're talking about. The 135 is just a little softer, both are accurate in my  X5 and zero is the same. So to save money on my training I use the slightly snappier and cheaper 115's for practice and club matches which is most of my shooting. Then I'll run the 135's for majors. I don't think that test was useless. It probably doesn't sound like much, but when I order 115's the cost per case is basically the same but I get 600 more bullets per case. That's a extra 2,400 or so bullets per year I can train with for the same money. I thought it was a worth while experiment. 

I'm sure you would prefer reading useful accurate data that was done competently and correctly so as to improve your reloading skillset and overall knowledge of ammunition manufacturing and shooting alike.

 

I don't "like" useless data. That would clearly go against the intent of this thread.

 

I don't know who you are, nor was I referring to you or any post you've ever made here. My "quote" was one that I just made up, but is similar to ones I'm regularly reading here. I made that very clear in my original thread post.

Edited by Glockster1
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, can you tell me the softest shooting major load for my limited gun? Also can you tell me which load will make my sights land on target after recoil the best? And will i need to chemically clean my barrel between,  shots, stages, or matches for the best results?

 

TIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Glockster1 said:

 

 

I don't "like" useless data. That would clearly go against the intent of this thread.

 

 

 

I think that nobody does, but it gets posted anyway.

 

If you don't like the data that's posted then ignore it and move on or don't go into the Chrono forum. 

 

No one is forcing you to look at or use the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glockster1 said:

I'm sure you would prefer reading useful accurate data that was done competently and correctly so as to improve your reloading skillset and overall knowledge of ammunition manufacturing and shooting alike.

 

I don't "like" useless data. That would clearly go against the intent of this thread.

 

I don't know who you are, nor was I referring to you or any post you've ever made here. My "quote" was one that I just made up, but is similar to ones I'm regularly reading here. I made that very clear in my original thread post.

 

Yeah, I prefer accurate data and complete data.

 

Comparing two loads with everything exactly the same like in you're OP will result in two basically identical shooting loads. That's fine, but it's also not really much of a comparison and would be a waste of time to me. Many of the guys here are trying to tune their load to get it to feel the way they want while also safely making power. Some people like soft and flat, others like faster snappier loads. You need to experiment to figure that stuff out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Glockster1 said:

 

Do elaborate on that comment.  There's no problem with what I posted.

In your opinion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Glockster1 said:

 

It's erroneous if your comparison is between an apple and a orange. 

There is nothing erroneous about comparing an apple to an orange...if the data for the apple is correct and the data for the orange is correct. How is "X" manufacturer bullet weight 124 at such and such velocity vs "Y" manufacturer bullet weight 135 at such and such velocity providing erroneous information? It is neither erroneous or false. It is data. Perhaps you don't fully understand the relationship between bullet weight, velocity, and power factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, GrumpyOne said:

Perhaps you don't fully understand the relationship between bullet weight, velocity, and power factor.

 

Or good manners.

 

Nolan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Glockster1 said:

 

That's EXACTLY the problem. Those people posting that junk are posting ERRONEOUS inaccurate garbage that newbies here will read and think is proper. It's NOT. 

That’s not a problem because there’s nothing erroneous or inaccurate about the data being posted. The data posted were based on the posters gun, bullet, primer, powder, crimp and OAL. If a newbie will use all of the information given on that particular load, more than likely he’ll get the same results. As long as nobody gets hurt using the info given, all is well. Besides, I know the mods will do their best to make sure reloading posts or thread are not going to blatantly hurt anyone.
 

With the choice of words  and the way you posted, you sound like a know-it-all.

Edited by George16
Sp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I don't get too hyped up on looking at the data.  I realize that the results may differ for various reasons,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Glockster1 said:

 

Do elaborate on that comment.  There's no problem with what I posted.

Problems with your post...

1. It's ERRONEOUS "data" produced by an incompetent inexperienced fool

2. This proudly posting FOOL actually thinks that's something real and accurate

3.YOU post this ridiculous inaccurate erroneous "ballistics data" based on your lack of knowledge 

Please read the Forum guidelines on attitude when posting..

Attitude
Please be polite. Or if not polite, at least respectful.
No bickering. Regardless of the subject matter.
Antagonistic, offensive, or quarrelsome tones are not acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...