StraightJacket Litmus test.

[RecoilRob]

I just looked for the original thread where most of the exaggerated claims were made, and it seems to have vanished. Huh!? But, if I remember correctly, didn't the 'half a dime' thing refer to a 600 yd group? It might have been just 300, but either way, it most certainly was NOT 100yds as you now try to rewrite history and just reading it was laughable.

This was just one of the statements that made me, a 'conventional' rifleman unlikely to believe anything else coming from such a source. And, the group was never backed up....was it?

And you are all panty twisted because us mean, bad men are 'unreasonable'. Harummph.

[wristtwister]

It might have been just 300, but either way, it most certainly was NOT 100yds as you now try to rewrite history

Your reading skills are as bad as your logic and memory. I did not say that it was 100 yards. I said that the error was off by 100 times the actual claimed group size. .003 is 100 times smaller than .35, which is what the actual "half a dime" measures.

As someone who had the guns made available to you to shoot, you hardly have any reason to complain about misinformation... however, it is easier to sit at your keyboard and rail than to actually prove your own marksmanship. I have no doubt that Chris would be more than happy to let your shoot anytime it's convenient wilh you. I think he's a former Green Beret, so he might be able to shoot the guns effectively for you if you just want to observe.

WT

[bdg146]

You didn't explicitly say 100 yards, but you said half a dime is .35", which is equal to .33 MOA. When you give a group diameter -> MOA conversion, you are implying a distance. In this case, approximately 100 yards.

[wristtwister]

Bldg146, I don't disagree with you about the conversion, but the MOA is the method of measuring angular variation in sighting and it's distance related only by it's calculation. It's actually 1.047" at 100 yards for 1 MOA, and it's set up so that you can tell how you are aiming at any particular distance. A 10" group at 1000 yards would still be within 1 MOA, a 5" group at 500, etc. That, however, does not indicate a distance.

What happened to me was somebody else's bad math. They calculated MOA incorrectly and somehow came up with .003 instead of .33428, which was the actual MOA of the shots. It was off by a factor of 100, but why bother to be accurate when they could simply accuse me of making outrageous claims?

The way it seems to work here, is that if you say something and somebody else makes a counter-claim, the counter-claim is not subject to the same rules or scrutiny... so if you said you shot somebody in a war zone, I could claim you claimed to shoot Osama Bin Laden, and it would be up to you to prove otherwise. It would be simple enough to get everyone on board by giving them the "they're all dressed alike"... "a lot of them have beards"... and keep on crafting the argument to look like it's what you really said... when in fact, all you said was you shot somebody in a war zone...

Oh... did you really say you only "fired a rifle in a war zone"?... how did that get blown all out of proportion?

WT

[Regular Joe]

Wasn't this thread OVERWITH when the ORIGINAL POSTER gave us the end results, IAW the TITLE OF THE THREAD??????? Can't we respect that?

[herohog]

Lock this puppy! If not that, can we at least remove WT or any references to him from this point on?

[dogmush]

What happened to me was somebody else's bad math. They calculated MOA incorrectly and somehow came up with .003 instead of .33428, which was the actual MOA of the shots. It was off by a factor of 100, but why bother to be accurate when they could simply accuse me of making outrageous claims?

OK, Lets be accurate.

The claim in question is quoted in post 169 of this thread. You said

they had a group you could cover with half a dime that was shot at 400 yards. It was a .338 Lapua that a competitor had bought for his competition rifle.

which is a [i]claimed[/] .0875 MOA.

Or more simply since you're claiming a .35" group with a .338" bullet, you effectivly claimed shooting the same hole, at 400yds.

[tlynch]

Dogmush:

I really appreciate the manner in which you designed and executed your experiment. I always prefer to have the opportunity to draw my own conclusions based on facts I can observe. Your empirical results let me do just that.

Thank you!
Tom Lynch

[tlynch]

Armchair commandos are a dime a dozen, and you can find them everywhere. It's the people with "skin in the game" that are important.

Wristtwister:

As near as I can tell, this thread has all been dogmush's "skin in the game". His rifle, his money for the modification and the ammo, and his time spent on a fact-based experiment, complete with objective measurements from which anyone can draw their own conclusions. I do not think it is High Road at all for you to have called him lazy. It seems apparent to me that he has put a great deal of effort into this. To resort to name calling is low enough; to use a name that is so clearly contrary to the truth of the situation really demeans you.

What I do find High Road is the tremendous loyalty that you show to your friends at TTI. It is clear that you want them to succeed, and are doing everything you can to let people know about their services and the high regard in which you hold their work.

I encourage you to take a moment to think about whether your tireless drumbeat is really helping TTI in the way that you clearly want to help them. At least one person on this thread (maybe more, but I AM lazy, and can't be bothered to re-read 200+ posts in order to be exact ) has said that they are less likely to make use of TTI as a result of the vigorous manner in which you have touted the Straitjacket system. You have resorted to calling one of their paying customers names. You have told the rest of the forum that we basically don't have the math skills to keep up with the conversation.

Is that the type of salesmanship or friendship you would like to have working on your behalf?

Regards,
Tom Lynch

[Balog]

Been away from the board a while, I've been wondering how this turned out. Thank you so much for the research dogmush. I greatly appreciate it.

I, personally, would be very interested in the SJ system given the dataset presented here. However, twisty's continued lies and personal attacks have turned me off so much I will wait until they have publicly repudiated his "help" (or told him off in private until he stops) before even considering it. In the mean time, I'll continue my observation of a near text book example of how to not run a grass roots advertising campaign.

[BrocLuno]

Thank you dogmush so much for your tests. I was intrigued by the StraightJacket system, but skeptical. I have an old '06 Eddystone with a two groove JA barrel that I want to build up to a fun bipod shooter. Nothing fancy. Keep the chopped stock and BLO finish, etc. Been thinking about what I wanted to do with the barrel as it needs a new crown anyway. I think the SJ system is just right for this piece. And your independent observations helped me make up my mind. Excellent work, much appreciated

[dogmush]

An older rifle that needs a new crown, and will be shot off a bipod is an pretty good candidate for an SJ. It should serve you well. Do you handload? That always helps.

[JohnBT]

Do the new crown first and see how the gun shoots. Then you will have a benchmark should you feel you need additional improvements. A new crown might fix it right up.

Did you ever fix that Remington shotgun that needed a hammer? The gun you offered to sell on the remingtonsociety forum for $25 after somebody told you the last hammer they sold went for $100. Or did you sell the one good hammer? Just curious.

[BrocLuno]

I sold the whole old Rem BP shotgun in two pieces so I could ship it easily. What you all did not know was that it was chopped (short barrels and pistol grip). Came out of East LA, so who knows what history it had? It was just a parts source, but did have lots of good stuff and the fit was still tight. It went to the moderator of the Rem forum. I hope he has been able to get good pieces out of it

Yeah, I'll do the Eddy one step at a time. But, I really like the straight jacket concept for long barrels that may whip? If the JA barrel shoots well, I might leave well enough alone, but ... This is another gun I got already hacked up, so I'm really kind of leaning toward matte black coating, big tube profile, threaded barrel end for recoil reducer (metal butt plate you know) and other muzzle toys

[dogmush]

While one step at a time is often a good idea, and recrowns are pretty cheap, I would point out that TTI will recrown it suring the Straight Jacket. So unless you really want to seperate that variable (And I understand that desire) you could save yourself $50 or so and let them do it.

If you decide to go that route (TTI) do post up and let us know the results. I'd be very interested in other owners views and reactions to the system.

[dogmush]

I know it's been a while since this thread, but I finally finished the stock, got a new trigger installed and took the Savage back to the range.

Here's what she looks like now:


And here's the best group of the day, 10 rounds:


That's pretty much the best I've ever shot, and it was the 4th 10rd group of the string. Overall, my little Savage is doing pretty good now. (It still needs new glass though. That Barska is only good for hammering tent pegs)

I'm pretty happy with it, and except for the scope, and a few small tweaks to the stock fit, this projects done.

[kcshooter]

I don't care who you are or what you're shooting, that's a damn impressive 200yd target!

I'm pretty happy with it

And I think that's really the important thing here, after all the WhiTe noise thru the rest of this thread.

[LamarCouncil]

So, you plan to measure temps with an infrared gun? How about measuring several places along the barrel, say every 3 or 4 inches from chamber to end as the chamber will be hottest and the temp should decrease as you go away from it.

When you get the gun back, you could bore small holes in the jacket to the barrel and measure it directly in exactly the same spots as before for an apples to apples comparison.

I think that would be the easiest and most accurate method, plus......you get to see inside the shroud! For Science, of course!

Here you can more, https://bestflashlightsreviews.com/

[deckrdshaw]

I used to design power boilers and have a pretty good understanding of thermodynamics, and what you can discover with temperature readings really isn't going to tell you anything. You will get the most noticeable results in accuracy and repeated accuracy, which is why I posted the advice regarding the wobbly bipod. If your optics are good, you should be shooting one ragged hole if you hold the same aim point. I don't know what distances you have available to you, but you should start with your 50 yard test and then move it to longer and longer distances looking for consistency. You'll be well satisfied.

Like Sheik Yerbouti said, "it's easy to make an accurate rifle", but an "accurate rifleman" is a different story, and since the improvement in accuracy is the main point of applying the system to a "hunting" rifle, it only makes sense that you should make sure you don't short-change the system's benefits and limit it to heat dissipation.

I had a problem during the rifle competition last Saturday because I ran out of 180 grain ammunition and had to switch to 165 grain ammo right in the middle of the shoot, and didn't have my gun "dialed in" for that bullet weight.
I don't really feel bad though, I was shooting against people with $5000 benchrest rifles and it was the first time I had shot under their rules, etc. so I kind of wrote it off as a "learning experience". My first rounds were "middle of the pack", but the last two were off the charts bad because of the bullet weight, wind, and an optics problem.

[deckrdshaw]

I used to design power boilers and have a pretty good understanding of thermodynamics, and what you can discover with temperature readings really isn't going to tell you anything. You will get the most noticeable results in accuracy and repeated accuracy, which is why I posted the advice regarding the wobbly bipod. If your optics are good, you should be shooting one ragged hole if you hold the same aim point. I don't know what distances you have available to you, but you should start with your 50 yard test and then move it to longer and longer distances looking for consistency. You'll be well satisfied.

Like Sheik Yerbouti said, "it's easy to make an accurate rifle", but an "accurate rifleman" is a different story, and since the improvement in accuracy is the main point of applying the system to a "hunting" rifle, it only makes sense that you should make sure you don't short-change the system's benefits and limit it to heat dissipation.

I had a problem during the rifle competition last Saturday because I ran out of 180 grain ammunition and had to switch to 165 grain ammo right in the middle of the shoot, and didn't have my gun "dialed in" for that bullet weight.
I don't really feel bad though, I was shooting against people with $5000 benchrest rifles and it was the first time I had shot under their rules, etc. so I kind of wrote it off as a "learning experience". My first rounds were "middle of the pack", but the last two were off the charts bad because of the bullet weight, wind, and an optics problem.

To apply online visa for Azerbaijan from America, go to this page .