Old wives tales.

[snake river rufus]

I've been thinking about some of the more persistant beliefs that surround the shooting sports and reloading. The ones that are just flat out wrong, do not make any sense, and keep popping up again and again. My least favorite is the one about shooting bird shot out of a rifled barrel will ruin the rifling. Think shot shells in a .22 rimfire.
No way at all is it possible to ruin a hardened steel barrel with soft lead shot. this one doesn't take much thinking to see through.
Another foolish one is that a rifled slug will harm the choke in your shotgun barrel. Nope, not only will the rifleing squeeze down before any harm can befall your barrel but the rifled slug is hollow like a shuttle @#)(#. Testing done by Olin in the early 1970s showed that a rifled slug causes less stress to the choke that a conventional charge of shot does.
Any others?

 

[Washington Hunter]

Yes, I hear this all the time: "the elk was too close and the 150 grain bullet out of my 7 Mag. was moving so fast that it just 'penciled through' without expanding."

I have no idea where some people get this idea that a bullet at relatively high velocity will behave like a FMJ, yet that same bullet when used on an animal at a longer distance where it has slowed down significantly, will expand perfectly. I do know that whatever it is that these guys are smoking surely can't be legal. |oo

 

[snake river rufus]

Yeah that one makes me scratch my head. Or how about the one that goes " with the high speed rotation of the bullet the petals will cut like a buzz saw"
edited for typo/srr

 

[snake river rufus]

Another one that I just saw
"A bullet going too fast will just zip through an animal with out opening up."
NO,NO,NO, Bullets open up when they meet resistance. One particular bullet or another may not hold it's integrity at high velocity but the idea that a bullet won't expand because it is going too fast is bull.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Isn't that the same as what I said? |oo

 

[snake river rufus]

I see that now. I was just so PO'd from reading it on Monster mulies that I rushed to post it here with out recalling your earlier post. Sorry.

 

[snake river rufus]

That said the idea is so stupid it needs to be quashed repeatedly.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Yes it's just so ridiculous I can't believe how often I hear people saying it. Drives me crazy! |oo |oo |oo

 

[snake river rufus]

I got my first rifle in about 1964 0r 5, a .270. and there were people saying the same about it then as now. A co-worker was having trouble knocking down deer a few years back (also a .270) and the guy at the indoor range spouted off the same B.S. then.

 

[snake river rufus]

I don't know how common this one is but I just read on another board that a poster, who wanted to rebarrel his rifle, wanted a cartridge with a long neck. He felt that a longer neck reduced barrel "burnout".
Not true. A barrels life is determined by the total amount of powder going down the tube and the temp. the barrel is allowed to reach.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Is there any truth that some powders burn cooler than others, and thus extend barrel life? I have seen Winchester claim this about their W-748, for example, with varmint loads in some calibers. (Granted, letting your barrel overheat will still shorten life, even if the powder itself burns cooler per shot.)

 

[snake river rufus]

Some powders do burn cooler. but I have never seen published evidence that this extends barrel life to a noticeable extent. IIRC the frankfort arsenal did test for the M-16 back in the '70s concerning cooler powders and barrel life. The coolest burning powder that was suitable for the M-16 only added some 400 rds to the barrel life that was some 10,000 rounds. So yes there is something to that. I would not give up any performance for that gain though.

 

[TheTone]

Yeah that one makes me scratch my head. Or how about the one that goes " with the high speed rotation of the bullet the petals will cut like a buzz saw"
edited for typo/srr

One of my favorites. Seemed to be popular with the media on Winchester Black Talon's. Also Have seen both Barnes and Winchester say they open to razor sharp petals before. I also likes Barne's rediculous triple impact that the Triple shock X's suppsoebly make

 

[snake river rufus]

Is there any truth that some powders burn cooler than others, and thus extend barrel life? I have seen Winchester claim this about their W-748, for example, with varmint loads in some calibers. (Granted, letting your barrel overheat will still shorten life, even if the powder itself burns cooler per shot.)

Ref; Winchester's advertising
In the late 60s and early 70s Winchester boasted that they made the primer of choice for the Apollo missions. And while they did make the primer for the 3 booster stages, it was not a standard 209 as pictured in the ad. And of course the engine of the CM and the two engines of the LM were hypergolic

 

[snake river rufus]

One of my favorites. Seemed to be popular with the media on Winchester Black Talon's. Also Have seen both Barnes and Winchester say they open to razor sharp petals before. I also likes Barne's rediculous triple impact that the Triple shock X's suppsoebly make

From Barnes' website
The bullet delivers a triple impact-one when it first strikes game, another as the bullet begins opening, and a third devastating impact when the specially engineered cavity fully expands to deliver extra shock with maximum transferred energy.
Well perhaps. I think an animal would certainly notice 3 shock waves in the incredibly long time that it takes a bullet to pass through an animal.

 

[snake river rufus]

On another forum a JFK conspiracy follower posted
Sights on rifles are calibrated for level fire. When Firing at a downward trajectory the sights place the bulet too high because the bullet does not drop as much as when firing level. ( its already dropping from the downward trajectory)

Well trained riflemen firing downward must adjust their aim for the fact that the bullet will not drop as fast as the sights are set for...


When I challenged him this is what he came up with

As to bullet drop... you are incorrect about aiming lower going uphill or down.

If the barrel was parallel to the line of sight of the scope- the bullet could not possibly hit anywhere near the crosshairs.

When firing level a sight zeroed at 100 yards is at an angle to the barrel such that the barrel is actually pointing slightly upward.
You are looking dead level thru the sights at a target the bullet can only hit if it is "lobbed" higher than your line of sight.
The trajectory of the bullet rises and then falls in an arc, the end point of which, at 100 yards, intersects the line of sight of the scope.

The effect of "raising your sights" or flipping up the familiar vernier on the back of a rifle is to increase the upward angle of the barrel relative to the line of sight- tossing the bullet in a higher arc.


When firing uphill, the effect of gravity is increased as the bullet is rising against the pull of gravity during its entire trajectory, Instead of rising during the first half of the trajectory and falling during the second half, as in level fire.
Rising the whole way, it loses more energy. Firing uphill with leveled sites the bullet will hit well below the crosshairs at 100 yards.
You must compensate for uphill firing by aiming much higher, not lower, to "lob" the round higher.

When firing downhill, the bullet does not rise at all during any part of its trajectory, it is dropping the entire way. The sights are assuming a certain loss of energy anticipated in level fire, and when firing downhill, the bullet is is simply not losing energy at the same rate.
The result is that the angle of the barrel to the line of sight throws the bullet much higher than the line of sight, and for a longer distance.

This means that when firing downhill you must aim much lower, because the bullet will hit well above the crosshairs.
How much lower is a function of estimating the distance and drop and speed with which the target is moving away.

Ok, this is pretty much all bullfeathers. Do we need to start a post on exactly why you hold lower shooting uphill and downhill at fairly long ranges and steepish angles? |oo

 

[noharleyyet]

SR, WTF did you just say?

 

[snake river rufus]

this is what I said
When I challenged him this is what he came up with
and
Ok, this is pretty much all bullfeathers. Do we need to start a post on exactly why you hold lower shooting uphill and downhill at fairly long ranges and steepish angles?
I hope that everone here knows better than the crap this sculpter posted

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Yep - uphill or downhill doesn't matter to the bullet - horizontal distance is what counts. So the hypotenuse of the triangle could be 300 yards, but the base (horizontal distance) may only be 200 yards. The bullet's trajectory is that of a 200 yard shot, not a 300 yard shot.

 

[snake river rufus]

Exactly right.