>>537037
>Harmonics has some hair brained claims that I just can't swallow.
You have claimed to disagree with *SOME* elements of barrel harmonics:
< initially, you didn't even know what barrel harmonics are, and dismissed it entirely, despite the links and descriptions provided
"Harmonics are a fudd myth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accurizing
< your original conception of both barrel harmonics and recoil forces were patently wrong
">barrel harmonics
>They're called recoil forces.
Only the barrel harmonics that ARE recoil forces are called "recoil forces".
>And they only affect:
1. Your follow up shots if,
Barrel harmonics, especially recoil forces, affect every shot, even the first.
2. They're fired fast enough after the first (burst fire) or,
While the conditions within the barrel increase in complexity with each subsequent shot in a series, it isn't the speed of which a following round is introduced, but at what point in the rifle's harmonics the bullet leaves the barrel.
3. The rifle is built so flimsy that recoil actually damages it slightly between shots."
I have considered my ultimate long range rifle, and all but decided on a modified M2. The M2's barrel is ridiculously thick, and even it must take harmonics into account for accuracy at long range.
< that the primer charge is not an appreciable source of pressure affecting accuracy
"Even IF the primer somehow caused the rifle to move, it wouldn't do so in a transverse wave, it would be longitudinal and not at all affecting the position of the barrel."
Accounting for a perfectly symmetrical barrel, and everything symmetrical attached thereto? Possibly… but in reality, rifle barrels are very often supported on the bottom, and often have a bunch of shit hanging everywhere. There are many forces co-occurring, and even the primer charge energy hasn't yet dissipated before affecting "larger forces". An unequal powder charge, therefore, DOES affect the position of the barrel at exit. Bench test: immobilized rifle, bare barrel, laser benchmarking, extended range, and two primer quantities; the first, just enough to activate the propellant, the second, filling the cartridge to capacity while maintaining the same amount of propellant.
< that the spin imparted onto the bullet is not a source of twist within the barrel
"That's even dumber than the "bullet spinning causes rifle to move" harmonics myth."
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The spin of a bullet is considerable, and the twist of the barrel is, too. A 1/8 twist barrel, assuming a muzzle velocity of 3000 FPS, produces 12/8 or 1.5 revolutions per foot in the bore. The RPM is 3000 x (12/8) x 60, or 270,000 RPM. The opposing force of the bullet's greater than 1/4 of a million rotations per minute outside of the barrel is also imparted into the barrel. You add that sort of violence into an atmosphere which is already volatile and changing rapidly, and barrel twist becomes a player at long ranges.
>Shot out barrels don't impart zero spin to the bullet, they impart improper spin to the bullet, have a ton of blow-by, the bullet is basically rattling its way down because there's too much space between it and the barrel walls. Which results in keyholing and absolute shit accuracy.
The bullet isn't falling ass over teakettle… the destination of the bullet is changing in reaction to barrel conditions. The bullet is spinning slower, the bullet has less velocity, the bullet has lost/gained/shifted mass, the bullet has been influenced by an asymmetrical crown, etc. Many of these conditions change the timing at which the bullet leaves the barrel, and thereby the position of the barrel upon exit, and thereby the destination of the bullet.
>A pure smoothbore, given short enough range not to be affected by wind, and a flechette with tails to prevent keyholing, would be just as accurate.
Anything is accurate at a short enough range. The smoothbore must be tested to around the extent of its muzzle velocity. A flechette *is* something with an aerofoil ("tails"). Hickok45 was launching Winchester foster slugs (1oz/12 gauge), which are rifled for in-flight stabilization (even out of a smooth bore) and are flechettes by virtue of the rifled vanes.
>Smoothbore tank guns prove that.
Smoothbore tank guns firing flechette rounds are a fucking joke compared to the accuracy of rifled tank rounds. Rifled tank barrels, however, do not often accept sabot rounds, and do not afford their penetrative characteristics.
>So yeah my opinion is kind of based on reality.
No. Just no; but it is improving.