|
You are going to argue with a scientific publication involving more history, research, and testing on the physics of ballistics and firearms than you could have researched in 2 life times?
You sure look like someone just dying to get into a fight.
I can't see, but WHO is the WORLDS most scientific author you quote?? I am curious as to who he is and how his writing has become the world standard for fact. Is it that Robert Rinker fellow? If so, I have to admit, I have read just about everything published and I don't recall his name being thrown out there as some "expurt"
Just to be fair, I have done just a bit of actual research on not only Fosters, but various sabot slugs. I was doing a free lance article and I received 100's of slugs from the various manufactures.
I was beyond careful in my testing, mostly with sabots, but many Foster types.
I used an Ithaca Deerslayer, Remington 870, Remington 1100 and a Mosberg all with scopes in testing Fosters. Depending on the brand, in the Ithaca, the rifling was compressed to ,,, like gone. The gun still outshot all other guns. Why, because Ithaca bored out their barrels small and precisely uniform from one end to another.
Different brands of slugs are made in different diameters so an arguement based on rifling depth is hardly argueable.
There was NO rifling to consider on recovered Ithaca slugs, so the rifling contributed NOTHING to the accuracy, nor was there any rifling left to impart a spin. How could that be?
If you look at the situation with a half open mind, you should be able to see, the depth of the rifling on a slug would have no real impact on spinning the slug. I would be surprised at the 1 in 24 feet spin in fact.
Slugs simply fly somewhat accurately based on the heavy nose principle as exhibited by darts, arrows, spears and badmitton birds.
I also have to laugh at the statement, the Author of your book, a single individual, had MORE reaseach in the book than SOMEONE else could achieve in 2 LIFETIMES???
Comic relief right??
|