Search results

'fcourse not. As it is written: "Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less."

if I may adventure a question -- what is the AGOG you've put on it, and why ?

The third brother has arrived. I've been hunting for the original, uncastrated full-auto Stgw57, for a few years now, and finally -- here it is! Top to bottom, all original full-autos: - Swiss army issue Stgw57 - German contract FN-FAL, the army issue G1. Alas, not the border guards (or...

I do not have much experience with the SCAR 17 – maybe 100 rounds shot prone at 300 m at our village range (not further, and not dynamically), so can't really state anything conclusive in that sense (SCARs in our parts are just insultingly expensive). As compared to the HK 417, it is pretty much...

Now that's a rackful of Insane Beauty! Love the 34s! And the M2, but of course, what a splendid instrument!

Re: 2000+ yards -- this is über-cool! This said, if it is not a trade secret, how would you go about, for example, Mach 0.5 for a .375 CT? Multiple radars covering subsequent overlapping trajectory segments? Extrapolation using similar shaped (but smaller calibre) projectiles? Shooting at...

For the record: I entirely agree with the opinion of Cal from PRB, quoted above, and with the unnamed "industry pro" that he is referring to. Because of obvious power limits, it is totally illusory to expect Labradar to produce meaningful data for a full bullet-specific Cd/Mach curve, or, as...

Well, for correct terminology, here are a few gas guns then (mostly semi-autos).

Strictly speaking, you're right -- it's recoil, not gas impingement.

My favourite long-range .308 gas gun. A bit off-topic though, as it's not a semi-auto.

Time-of-flight based measurements? (Don't know, just guessing)

Yep, they (the Soviets) did so for bullet development, but the military trials were even more elegant. From what I've read, they were using time of flight as the base measure, which is much simpler to put in place at long range than velocity measurement -- just need to detect the shot, the...

Note to self: "Never play chess with pigeons - they knock over the pieces, shit all over the chessboard, and strut around convinced they've won."

I cannot help but wonder if I am the last person on the Internets who did not tell you yet that you are useless and boring. That would explain your frustration. Why don't you imagine yourself an opponent, and go argue imaginary arguments with voices in your head? -- you seem to be very good at...

The question of inflated BCs / significantly higher G7 BCs in the beginning of the trajectory is a tricky one. While it's certainly true for G1, just by the shape of the reference Cd curve vs. real spitzer boat tail drag profiles, with G7 I would almost expect the opposite (because of higher...

You are arguing with someone imaginary / voices in your head. SNR = 0, try again.

No. You have provided a fine example of flaming butthurt, which is not the same as real-world data and hard facts. In the starting post and in a couple of contributions to this thread there is a number of real-world examples of successful usage of Labradar + Labrabaco to obtain G7 BCs, which...

SNR is unsatisfactory, try again. I reiterate: re: "just real world data and how this works" – would you provide some "real world data" in support of your statements, or is it just a figure of speech? re: "Thus and among other things it's not realistic to derive a BC based on such short...

Sorry, this hardly qualifies as substantiation. re: "just real world data and how this works" – would you provide some "real world data" in support of your statements, or is it just a figure of speech? re: "Thus and among other things it's not realistic to derive a BC based on such short...

To start with, the purpose of the exercise is certainly not to compare data from 2 different radars with vastly different power outputs. As for the rest, this is... hmm... an interesting opinion. Would you mind substantiating any of these strong claims?