Don’t Beretta barrels tend to slug slightly bigger than average?
Don’t Beretta barrels tend to slug slightly bigger than average?
I don't think it does. If it does, probably not enough to matter or measure. Glocktalk used to say the same essential thing about heavier RSAs.Originally Posted by Enel
Apparently, my comments have incurred a few disagreements or needs for clarification. I will clarify and attempt to respond.
The information on impact velocity for hydra-static shock is taken from studies while I was in Gunsmithing school on ballistics. It is based on FBI records of hydra-static shock assigned to the actual slug. Nowadays, we have so many technically advanced bullets that can cause larger wound channels (secondary and primary) that the measuring is hard to standardize.
It was determined that an impact velocity of 1,016 FPS was needed for a lead projectile, not a hollow point or altered impact surface.
My comment was only seeking to isolate velocity, which is what the thread is addressing. This information might be old (as am I) and there might not even be studies on this anymore since ammunition has advanced past velocity dependency. Flesh however, has not changed.
That is my source for the information.
I cannot reply to the pontification of @DocGKR “This is an unusual, as well as incorrect statement.”
@PNWTO wrote, “I don't think it does. If it does, probably not enough to matter or measure....” Perhaps it does, perhaps not, but I agree- If it does, probably not enough to matter or measure. Slow motion videos seem to indicate a secondary gas push just after bullet exit that is or is not in alignment with the trajectory, dependent upon barrel position.
My Poor-boy methods of measuring (currently) are inferior to @EricM ’s chronograph tests. It does seem similar to my mathematical extrapolations, which is cool. Thanks.
Last edited by PX4 Storm Tracker; 02-21-2018 at 07:47 PM.
I know Doc can hold his own but that isn't pontificating... that is a highly respected professional who has a metric f-ton of information from a lifetime of work. Maybe you and your "we" can learn a thing or three.
Last edited by PNWTO; 02-21-2018 at 08:27 PM.
When I chronographed my Px4 Full Size with 4" barrel against my APX, I noted a distinct difference in velocity between the two. When I slugged my barrel it was a bit larger than what might be average, but I believe it was "within tolerances" for a barrel of that size, so I don't think it was out of spec.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....-Abnormalities
I'd say that a chronograph is required to tell for certain, because everyone's barrel is different, and you need to be sure of what your barrel is doing specifically. It's pure guesswork otherwise.
Your taking personal offense and returning a personal attack is contrary to the understanding of the rules of PF and not productive. If "Doc" would like to present evidences, I'd hope to learn or at least, respect his view.
He might indeed be miles ahead of us all in knowledge. I don't know. I've noticed that other big names and highly respected teachers explain their view, show why the other might be wrong and show reasons for their comments.
I look forward to learning something from this person that you highly respect.
Last edited by PX4 Storm Tracker; 02-21-2018 at 11:12 PM.
Perhaps you might like to check out the Ammunition section, or google “Dr. Gary Roberts ballistics”? I don’t want to insult anyone’s intelligence, but at the same time if I were barking up the wrong tree, I’d like someone to clue me in.
Last edited by DpdG; 02-21-2018 at 11:29 PM. Reason: Spelling
Anything I post is my opinion alone as a private citizen.
I would read more P-F then, like @DpdG suggested. I think it is safe to say he knows his stuff and doesn't need to offer an explanation when replying to conjecture. We have a lot of appreciation for the time and willingness to share that the SMEs, like Doc, have shown this place and frankly it is attitudes like the one you adopt when not discussing technical items that has kept some of them away.
/derailoff
Last edited by PNWTO; 02-21-2018 at 11:41 PM.
I suggest you go to the ammunition forum and start reading the stickied posts, noting their author.
It is well accepted that no common pistol velocities are anywhere near the threshold for “hydrostatic shock”. That is why your earlier comment was both nonsensical and wrong. It is possible you were taught the ballistics incorrectly, or your information is out of date, or your terminology means something else, nevertheless it is wrong and the onus is on you to educate yourself.
“Doc” has been respected as an authority on ballistics both on this forum and other forums for decades. FNG shows up in Jan 2018 and suggests “Doc” should provide evidence now, needs to go somewhere else, or start doing a lot more listening and a lot less posting.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
