StraightJacket Litmus test.

[Unit91]

Ask the next 20 people you run into how their complex algebra, integral calculus, and differential calculus skills are, and get back to me. Unless you're on a college campus or walking around an engineering department, I'll bet the majority of them won't have a clue. That's not condescending or arrogant, just reality.

I've gotta' back you up on this one. Heck, I know enginerds that aren't so good on the math front after so many years away from the classroom.

[rick08679]

I am new to these forums and after reading all the posts I have to say I am the "dumbest" one to post so with that being said can the argueing please stop and lets wait for the results of dogmush's tests? Being the dumb one, I look forward to seeing the results of someone who was a skeptic in the begining but decided to pour his money into it to really test it out. thank you.

[Regular Joe]

What he said.

[nhhillbilly]

I am also just waiting for the results. Thank you dogmusher for this test.

[snead888]

Ask the next 20 people you run into how their complex algebra, integral calculus, and differential calculus skills are, and get back to me. Unless you're on a college campus or walking around an engineering department, I'll bet the majority of them won't have a clue. That's not condescending or arrogant, just reality.

Mine isn't bad, I have a high B in Calculus.

[wristtwister]

Great Snead... how's your thermo and metallurgy? (just kidding)

Dogmush should get his rifle back today, if the shippers didn't lose it in the warehouse. The guys at TTI sent it back last week, so he can start reporting.

WT

[snead888]

haha, not quite as good. I'd like to get this for my rifle depending on how well the test goes and when I can afford it. don't care really how it works as long as it does.

[wristtwister]

Well, I've got it on two of my rifles, and have left the others to the dust. It makes the rifle, regardless of the caliber, more accurate, more comfortable to shoot, and able to take consecutive rounds without affecting accuracy.

The barrel's not heavy, like a solid bull barrel would be, and allows you to easily read what the gun's doing, what your ammo's doing, and what you're doing. The groups on my Nagant dropped from about 8", which was with iron sights (best groups about 5") to about 2" shooting junk ammo. When I load for the Nagant, it should drop to sub-MOA.

I'm in the process of building another AR, and I'll have a straitjacket on this one. It should be easily a "600 yard gun".

I don't pretend not to be prejudiced in favor of the straitjackets. They work and work better than anything I've seen in riflery for curing accuracy problems and heat related problems. Making them softer to shoot is just a bonus from the different design of the muzzle brake throwing the gases forward, but it's still a unique design and doesn't blow the targets off the table of the guy shooting next to you.

It changes so many things about your rifle shooting, it's almost like if you aren't shooting with a straitjacket, you left half your rifle at home. It's clearly not like shooting a conventional rifle... even though the conventional rifle is sitting right there, and your shooting technique is still the same.

Like the old ad used to say... "try it, you'll like it"...

WT

[kev74]

The groups on my Nagant dropped from about 8", which was with iron sights (best groups about 5") to about 2" shooting junk ammo.

So, you went from "about" 5" groups with iron sights and bad eyes to "about" 2" groups with a scope. Are you sure the gun is shooting better, or is it that you can now see the target?

Come on dogmush! I can't wait to see some experimentation that isn't influenced by marketing and wishful thinking.

[ClickClickD'oh]

Come on dogmush! Let's get some facts that aren't influenced by marketing and wishful thinking, please!

Dogmush will get them for us soon enough.

I predict we will see a mild increase in accuracy from his rifle, a reduction if felt recoil in accordance with the weight increase, a decrease in external barrel temperature and a very mild, but not significant decrease in chamber temperature.

I predict 1.5 to 2.25 moa out of his rifle... or as I said many moons and threads ago... a modern entry level hunting rifle.

Time will tell.

[wristtwister]

Are you sure the gun is shooting better, or is it that you can now see the target?

It must have obviously escaped you that I had to be seeing the target to shoot the 5" groups with iron sights. Yes, I have poor sight and cataracts, and yes, the gun is shooting much better. I'm looking to go sub-MOA with some home-cooking ammo... and then go looking at longer distances.

WT

[dogmush]

It's here.

Unfortunatly I have no idea when I'll have time to get to the range, but I promise I'll try to make it soon. I'll take some pictures and post them tonight along with my inital impressions of the work done.

[dogmush]

It's heavy.

That was my first mpression. When I pulled it out of the box I was surprised by it's wieght. I guess I was expecting whatever spaceage materials they used to be lighter. The scales tell me that this system added just shy of 2 lbs to the rifle, and it seems to be distributed pretty evenly along the length of the barrel. Assembled and with a scope, it's a little nose heavy, but not too bad. I wouldn't want to shoot it off hand very many shots in a row. It is, however lighter then an equivilant bull barrel would be.

Machine work:

The machine work looks pretty good. The muzzle brake and button are nicely machined, and the threads are clean and well done. The shroud is either one piece with the barrel nut, or has a very good transition. Both muzzle devices come on and off smoothly, and the brake indexes in the same place with the same torque every time.

Fit and Finish:

The whole thing came back to me DuraCoated, and it appears to be done well. The spray is good and the finish is nice and hard. The wood work in the stock is well done, and it fits the barrel very nicely. Overall it's quality work.
*One note: You'll notice that the muzzle button isn't coated. It's also Stainless. When my rifle got here the button wasn't in the box. When I called TTI to ask about it, they apologized and overnighted me the stainless one. Haveing dealt with these guys a little now, I'm sure that if I was going to do anything other then throw it in a drawer after today they'd coat it for me, I just don't care enough to even ask.

In that vein, TTI's customer service is top notch. Every contact I've had with them has been great, from the original "does this thing work?" call to them making sure the button got here. They returned my E-mails promptly, often times with a phone call, and were pretty much great to work with.

Some pics of the SJ'd rifle:








* the apparent eccentricity in the muzzle shot is an artifact of camera placement. The bore is centered in the gun.

Stay tuned

[dogmush]

Well it's heavier so it does shoot a lot softer now. I had them send me the button so I could do a little unscientific testing (the button is already in the bottom of my spare parts drawer).

SJ on, no muzzle brake:
It shoots like a heavy .30-06. (no real surprise there) I'd say maybe a 5% reduction in recoil for the added 2 lbs. And that's probably a little generous. Softer then stock, but not much.

SJ on, Muzzle Brake on

Yep, that's more like it. Now it shoots softer. Using the same metric as above, say 35%-40% softer. You still know it's a real cartridge. No one will mistake it for a .223 bolt gun, but it's a lot more pleasant. You can keep your scope picture and watch the round hit through the recoil impulse. It's still a sharp kick rather but much softer. Like most brakes, it throws some gas to the side, but none came back to me (and I was in a stall). So a solid, well designed brake. Makes accurate follow up shots easier.

Speaking of shooting.......

[dogmush]

Well, I know why gun rags don't test with crappy russian ammo (other then the fact they don't have to pay for it). It was getting just wierd stuff happening. At the risk of sounding a lot like WristTwister and his Mosin, groups were really hampered by ammo.

But

That was the whole point of using the same ammo before and after, as the hampering should be the same.

The rifle shot better and cooler. With the exception of group 5 all the groups were better then the corresponding stock group. POI did change as the rifle heated up though. Stock the groups (such as they were) just opened up wider. The SJ groups opened a bit and shifted right.

When looking at these targets, I pulled the bottom shot in group 4. I knew it when I did it. Other then that all 60 shots felt good on fireing. I have no idea what happened on Group 5. Shooting it I thought I was seeing the SJ go all wierd, and then Group 6 closed back up. Weird. I'm going to see if I can dig up some match grade ammo (or make some) before the heat range day and see what she'll group with something other then Golden Bear.

Anyway's here are the targets:







Graphs:



Data Chart:


Data chart from stock (for comparison)


Before and after comparisons:



On this chart, positive % is improvement with the SJ. I was a little slower shooting today, especially on the first group. I had a feed issue. Elapsed times for the whole string are pretty similar though 13:35 for 30 rds stock and 14:03 for 30 rds with the Straight Jacket:


So, Same ammo, same range, same shooter, same conditions the SJ is about 25% more accurate then stock. If I throw out Group 5 (it was a weird group) then it's about 30%. 30% accuracy improvment with nasty ammo is nothing to sneeze at however. I think the targets actually show better then the numbers though. It definatly groups better.

Stay tuned later this week hor the heat test.

[dogmush]

Hmmm. those targets didn't scan as nicely as the last set. I 'shopped them for clarity, and joined before and after for easy comparison. Stock on the left, Straight Jacketed on the right.

[Smokey Joe]

Dogmush, for these comparison tests!

Is it me, or do I really see consistent improvement at 100 yd with the same ammo/rifle/shooter, before and after a $300 modification of the rifle? (Well, except for maybe Group 5.)

Group 6 of the "after" series seems to have the most improvement from Group 6 of the "before" series--that's with the bbl warmest, right?

[Arte Johnson voice] Eeenteristing! Veeery eenteristing! [/Arte Johnson voice]

Anyhow, a big, BIG, THANK YOU for your testing!!

I wonder what she'll do with "decent" ammo???

[kev74]

Nice job, dogmush!

Do you think the improvements are worth the $300?

[wristtwister]

At the risk of sounding a lot like WristTwister and his Mosin, groups were really hampered by ammo.

Dogmush, now that the barrel is doing what it's supposed to be doing, the inconsistencies in the ammo show up much bigger. After you shoot your rifle for a while, you'll be able to tell which shots were "flyers" and which ones were "technique problems". When you hold the same aim point and get a flyer, you can look at your "core group" and see what the ammo did, rather than trying to figure out why you had 3 good shots and 2 "bad ones".

I can look at my targets and tell exactly what's going on with my shooting... and that's important if you're wanting to improve. Just be warned that you'll get so accustomed to shooting tight groups, that almost any spread is a "bad group". Where the best groups with my Mosin were about 5 inches with iron sights, I'm shooting 2 to 2-1/2 inches now, and stay pissed off that I can't "close the deal" with the surplus ammo. Even "weighted out" and putting ammo that weighs the same doesn't eliminate it. It's just plain "ammo inconsistency" that accounts for the spread.

WT

[dogmush]

Like I said in the your groups thread I dislike the whole idea of your core group, as it seems to me an easy way to discount results you don't like. I do have a pretty good idea what's going on in these targets (except, again, for group 5. :shakes head. wierd). After being a small arms instructor for the .mil for 10 years I've seen and decoded enough shot groups.

One of my reasons for a before and after useing the same ammo was to remove that as a variable. I mentioned it in the report because, frankly, those still aren't great groups. I wouldn't take that rifle\ammo combo hunting. I probably (almost definatlly) won't buy Golden Bear rifle ammo again. But it's what I could afford enough of to run this test. :shrugs

So I mentioned ammo so that anyone watching would know that's probably (almost definatly) not a fair picture of the rifle's accuraccy potential. The important thing to take from this is the change from the first set to the last.

I wonder what she'll do with "decent" ammo???

I dunno, but I was digging around on my reloading bench today and found a box of .308 168gr HPBT Noslers and some IMR 4350 that I forgot about. If I can come up with some brass before the heat test we'll find out. I actually have some extra Golden Bear, so worst case I'll pull 20 projo's, dump the powder and see what there is to see.

Do you think the improvements are worth the $300?

Isin't that the $64,000 question? I'm going to reserve judgement on that till I finish up. I want to see what the system does in the other tests.

ETA: to be clear, I'm not unhappy with it, I'm just waiting till I'm done to make my feelings public. That way the write-up/conclusion will be nice and concise, in one post.

[wristtwister]

Like I said in the your groups thread I dislike the whole idea of your core group, as it seems to me an easy way to discount results you don't like.

Okay... I'll give you that, if you're trying to fool someone. If you're trying to read what the gun is doing, and what you're doing as a shooter, then you have to think about it differently. In a perfect world, every bullet would go exactly where you aim it, and every bullet of the same caliber would be consistent. That's not real life.

Minute discrepencies in bullet weight, powder load, case weight, and "air in the case" make bullets go lots of places you didn't intend when you put the crosshairs up. With the gun "locked down", it should conceiveably shoot into the same hole repeatedly... not the case in reality.

I've shot groups with the rifle sandbagged in place and only touching the trigger to set off the shot and had a 6 inch "miss" using ammo that grouped within 1 inch otherwise... so whether you choose to believe in them or not, "flyers" are real... they're just inconsistent ammo in the batch. I realize we've never "shot together", but I'm the first one to tell you when I "pull a shot" or do something technique-wise that causes the group to spread. The holes in the target are where they are... so what causes them to be different is the difference between recognizing ammo deficiencies and technique deficiencies. While we like to think of all ammo in a "lot" as "the same", being an engineer by trade, I can tell you that manufacturing tolerances aren't nearly as accurate as the advertising would lead you to believe.

Having scope mounts that are too high can also cause you to "roll off" the target by a wide margin, so if your rifle isn't exactly level with the target, the slightest roll can move your shot group several inches at 100 yards and even more at distance. A scope that isn't level can cause the same problem. If you're "dead on" sighting, and you get a flyer , you get the same results... and if you're a decent shooter, you can tell whether you were "on target" or not, and unless you don't pay attention, you should (instinctively) know if you jerked the shot off target. Once you iron out whether or not your rifle is "on", you can start reading what it's doing.

Being accustomed to conventional shooting, and moving over to shooting the straitjacketed rifle is a bit of a paradigm change. You no longer have to deal with heating issues, your POA (if consistent) will render a core group with ammo that is marginally close, and the differences will show up clearly when you learn to read them. That's not a slam on anybody's skill or understanding, it's just a new way of looking at the data you're generating with your gun.

I'm shooting 1 to 1.25 inch groups with my ATR using Winchester Super X ammo... and it's a $267 rifle. It was shooting 3 to 3.5 inch groups before having it straitjacketed... and it "tracked" as it got hot, just like my Remington 700 does. It was "consistent" too, it just shot in a different place every time you pulled the trigger. Now, it shoots in the same place, and when there are differences, I can tell if I did it, or the ammo did. That's not to "fool anybody"... just to read the results.

WT

[dogmush]

I don't really want to start this whole dance with you yet again, but when you say:

so whether you choose to believe in them or not, "flyers" are real... they're just inconsistent ammo in the batch

You're implicitlly assuming that the rifle you're working with is perfect. And that is just silly. I know flyers are real. I called one on the target earlier this page. But you don't get to just say "well my rifles working fine, so it must be ammo". (or you can say it, just don't expect us to buy it.)

In reality, quite literally dozens of factors effect even a short 100 yd shot, including, but not limited to, wind temperature, barrel, ammo and shooter technique. On your sand bagged shot it could have been the rifle shooting off, the rifle moving between shots, parralax on your sight picture, a gust of wind, or bad ammo. (frankly, ammo grouping in 1" with a 6" flyer probably isin't ammo related. Inconsistant ammo is usually consistantly inconsistant)

This is why I dislike discounting any missed shots, it makes it too easy to convince yourself you know what the problem is (i.e. ammo). It's the shooting equivilant of saying you won an arguement because you discounted all the evidence against it. You'll note I'm not throwing out the shots from this test that I know I pulled, or the unexplainable group. I could work those charts a little bit, justify it with bad ammo handwaving and make the SJ perform another 25% better. But the fact is, I don't actually know which ones were ammo related. I have a strong suspicion, tempered by more then 2 decades shooting, but I don't know. And neither do you with your Mosin.

That being said, I can tell I'm not going to convince you, and I don't really want to. Is it possible however you could stop trying to convince me? Suffice to say you made your case in 3 threads now, and I think you're wrong. Let it go.

Being accustomed to conventional shooting, and moving over to shooting the straitjacketed rifle is a bit of a paradigm change.

[jim147]

dogmush,

How many cases do you need and how soon do you need them?

jim

[dogmush]

Jim, how soon do you want to see handloads shot through this thing?

Actually, while I do appreciate it, I have a buddy here in town that reloads for his 700, I'm going to call him tomorrow and see if he can throw me 50 cases. He owes me for a bunch of .50 I got for him. he lets me down I'll PM you though.

[wristtwister]

Dogmush, not a problem. I hope you enjoy your new straitjacket, and shoot groups to brag about.

WT