EMAIL EXCHANGE
 

On 03-Nov-11 21:46, Frank L. Galli wrote:

Gerald,

I read the exchange on the site and wanted to let you know, if you want us to shoot your rounds we would be happy to do so and that we are not sharing the images or load with Noel.

You can send some to me personally, or you can send them to Cory Trapp at Gunsite if you want another layer of separation.

We are completely sincere in that we want to see everyone succeed across the board and my feelings are, any failure will come through no fault of the shooters. We are looking to put the rounds on target as accurately as possible. In my mind, from the shooter's aspect we want the best possible bullet and data we can get.

Let me know, I understand the feelings between the group. The distrust and dislike for the parties, but I hope you understand we participating as outsiders looking for the best possible outcome for everyone. Bullets and the Chronograph people.

Thanks,

Frank L. Galli

Sniper's Hide, LLC.
http://www.snipershide.com
fgalli@snipershide.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 04-Nov-11 11:59, Gerard wrote:

Hi Fronk,
Thanks for the thought but GSC will not be participating. We are involved in a number of projects that is eating all the available time and there is no way we can make the deadline I see for this exercise. Also, the fact that only one supplier will be allowed to have matched equipment and that one shooter has been testing extensively for this supplier, with dedicated equipment, makes that we would rather not be involved here.

Kind regards,
Gerard

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 04-Nov-11 17:55, Frank L. Galli wrote:

Gerald

Thanks for the response,

One correction, no one is "matching" to a manufacturer. The rifle being used by Jeff is a small part of this and has been around for quite some time. Myself and Cory are bringing our standard rifles in the most common twists. Taking the data from Jeff's single rifle and making it the forefront of this test is inconsistent with what we are doing. Also I was lead to believe Jeff has tested for several other bullets to include yours ? Was this incorrect ? You're point would be valid if Noel's bullets only work in Jeff's rifle but that is not the point, nor the focus. It one rifle in 4.

Given the battles you guys have fought on my site, you'd think having not one, but 2 outside shooters would solve some of these problems. Apparently not. We have been contacted by other manufacturers and they have no issue with the rifles or the test. I mean Berger contacted us immediately to participate. So the idea that is being slanted towards Noel is completely false. According to all the back and forth between you and others regarding Noel, there is 50/50 chance he can fail this test with his rounds. My understanding is none of his rounds have been shot to date ?

Either way, I suspect when this over it will end the debates on the site. Opportunities were openly afforded, and graciously decline, still that leaves very little room for argument later on. Like Ed from ELR you're trying to frame it early on as an bias issue, before the first round is downrange. I think this is short sighted on your part, but you're entitled too it.

Good Luck, and Cheers,

Frank L. Galli

Sniper's Hide, LLC.

http://www.snipershide.com

fgalli@snipershide.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The SH test came and went on December 10 and 11, 2011, and Mr. Galli saw fit to include a previous generation of the GSC 338 232gr bullet.  He took the BC of the upgraded bullet from the GSC website and used it incorrectly as the specification for the older bullet.  Further, he loaded the GSC bullet 300fps slower than the next heavier bullet. I sent the email below.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

On Dec 24, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Gerard wrote:

Hi Frank,

Thank you for setting Carlson straight on commenting on GSC product. I assume that you did so. However, my personal view is to request that you exclude GSC from further testing.

Gina may decide otherwise in the future but, for the moment, that is my position.

The reasons for this are:

 

1. You tested a previous generation (2008) bullet from us, but incorrectly used the data for an upgraded bullet from our website.

 

2. The 232gr SP you tested, and which appears in Applied Ballistics, was superseded by an upgraded design more than two years back.

 

3. You measured BC and speed. These two factors do not determine the path a bullet will follow, there is more to it but most of your readers do not realise this. The result is that misconceptions take root and we prefer to avoid this. GSC has independent test data to 1600m (drop tables determined with Horus A Trag MP v3.76 to give dial up) done with the 2008 232gr SP, on which we base our numbers.

 

4. GSC will start manufacturing in the USA early in 2012 and we will not be able to do anything other than see to the manufacturing setup. Premises have been fixed and equipment ordered. Delivery of equipment and setup will allow only time for Anthony and Gina to attend Shot. I may be there but it is not certain at this point.

 

5. I am perhaps too much of a stickler for attention to detail. GSC sweat the details so that our customers need not. Based on that, I firmly believe that getting at least a name right is a pointer. I am the only person and GS Custom is the only product misspelled in your report. My experience is that attention to detail will be lacking in other aspects as well.

Season's greetings to you and yours. May 2012 bring all that you plan for.

Regards,

Gerard

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Dec 24, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Gerard wrote:



Frank,
Comment inserted in your mail.

Regards
Gerard


On 24-Dec-11 20:53, Frank L. Galli wrote:

Gerald

Thanks for the note on the subject,

I have no GSC Bullets to test further and the bullets we had were from Jeff V who I assume bought them. So I cannot comment to the date of manufacturer of them. This is a prime reason to get manufacturer support, so these issues do not come up.

 

GSC: I stated very cearly that GSC does not wish to be part of the test so, manufacturer support from GSC was not present, yet you went ahead with the GSC product and creating the issue yourself.

 

I explained in great detail that we were simply moderating this test so we can get past the in fighting. You defended your product tooth and nail and now say it was a flawed because the bullets were old ?

 

GSC: Not flawed, improved. Is GSC not allowed to improve a product like other companies do? The first generation bullet from GSC did not do badly and the improved one is better. What is wrong with that?

 

We'll someone bought them so you sold them that way. Had you supported the test like other companies we could have avoided the problem from the start. As you can see we are still getting manufacturer support and in fact greater support. Not only from the companies, but from people like Bryan Litz to help fill in any gaps as KNS is a new group doing this. Horus software is just a predictor and not an end all be all.

 

GSC: That is what I said.

 

Ballistic profiles are often wrong and need adjusting based on the rifle shot.

 

GSC: Quite so. All your numbers are lower than what the manufacturers listed. Every one of them. Should this not be a clue? I have actual drop tables over 1600m that differ from your data and I know why. It is the reason why I preferred not to be included at this point.

 

Phase II will determine the potential accuracy independently out to distance. As the end user often we find the information provided is not 100% useful to the shooter and it needs to be determined independently ballistic software or not. We used Field Firing Solution to determine the drops necessary, a better software package. If someone has your bullets regardless of the date of manufacturer and they want to shoot them, well that is why you sold them. I have none, never did. I recommend supporting the next phase in March with your latest products to avoid someone else stepping forward with old models.

I apologize if your name is misspelled,

 

GSC: Yet you continue to do so. I tend to assess people by what they do, not by what they say they do.

 

If it is a difference between saying GSC and GS Custom I think you are splitting hairs.

 

GSC: No it is not. Do you have a customs rifle built or customs fit a stock? I am Gerard, not Gerald.

 

And you can look at the test as flawed because of it, but clearly nobody else is, which should be a clue.

 

GSC: That is like sending me an email to let you know if if do not get the email. How would the reader know something is incorrect if that is the only information offered? No information is then better than the wrong information.

 

People are very interested in this test and especially the next phase. Even Dynamic Research who makes the Predator Projectiles is stepping up to help to determine why we saw a difference in what they thought should be the numbers. They supporting us in a very big way because they feel the Phase II testing will clarify so much more. If you choose to stay out of it,

 

GSC: Indeed we do, we have our reasons at this point.

 

that is just less attention you'll get where I believe others will shine in your place. Out of sight out of mind so to speak. I am not Scientist nor am I am Mathematician,

 

GSC: This is precisely why I ask that GSC be excluded. Enthusiasm and belief in 'doing the right thing' does not make up for a lack of facts. Not your fault, we simply see a different picture. See #3 in my original mail.

 

I was there to make sure the rounds were shot equally and fairly and to get this project off the ground as well as provide a place for the information to be disseminated. If you have issue with the test procedures, or the information I recommend contacting KNS however there was no less than 6 people collecting the data from the points along the flight path. It would be kinda hard to fudge all those numbers.

 

GSC: This was in no way implied, please do not read more into what I say than what I do say. I am saying that some facts are lacking and it is creating perceptions we wish to avoid at this point.

 

We had a Chronograph at the muzzle, with 3 people there, and two points downrange with 4 microphones with someone sitting underneath the flight path collecting the data at each point. This was pretty well covered. Again, I recommend supporting it and not basing your numbers on a model from Horus. Their reputation in the industry is much more flawed then a misspelled name. Trust me I have been using Horus since 2003 and have several version of their software. Which is we use FFS from Lex Talus it is a much better program.

I did speak to Noel at length about the fights and warned him against attacking you or anyone else. I explained in details it was counterproductive every bit as much your refusal to take part then critiquing us from behind the computer.

 

GSC: I asked that GSC not take part because I have information that prompted this decision. Now that you went ahead and included GSC you need to man up and accept that there were mistakes made.

 

Clearly people like Bryan Litz don't see an issue which should speak volumes. People are listening and applauding this first step as ground breaking. Detractors are not fairing so well as you can see even Oscar has asked to be part of it again. He recognized we were able to do something others were not.

I will be wandering around SHOT Show if you want to discuss this in person, otherwise, I can tell you that I have none of your bullets, but I cannot say the same for others. The test is moving to Phase II if your bullets are on the line we will use them, if they are not you will no longer be mentioned. Except to remind people you refused to participate, if we are asked. Personally I think falling off the list will only move customers to other products. Ones they can trust and know have been verified.

 

GSC: Thank you for the concern and the thought. I prefer not to be on the list at this point.

 

Have a Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year

Frank L. Galli

Sniper's Hide, LLC.

http://www.snipershide.com

fgalli@snipershide.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 25-Dec-11 00:16, Frank L. Galli wrote:

I suspect you will stay out of any conversation on SH regarding the subjectů

Whether someone uses your bullets or not, they bought them they are allowed to do with them as they wish. You can't say what the drop was because we never published any drop information only BC information. We didn't measure drop.

As far as taking a jab at me as not being a Scientist, all I did was shoot, I did not crunch a single number. And as stated, Bryan found no fault in the gathering process. Some of the differences where only 2% less than manufacturers who have a vested interested in publishing the largest number they can. At this point I think if I find someone with your bullets I will definitely move to include them without your blessing. If you can't handle the facts on the ground, maybe it is time to improve again.

Cheers,

Frank L. Galli

Sniper's Hide, LLC.

http://www.snipershide.com

fgalli@snipershide.com


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 25-Dec-11 08:02, Gerard wrote:

Hi Frank,
I am sorry, I should have been clearer and made no assumptions:

I said that "I have actual drop tables over 1600m that differ from your data". The connection between my data and your data is BC (see 3 in my original mail). Speed alone does not determine BC. I assumed you would make the connection, but I was wrong. Should you test GSC in future, and make flawed assumptions, you will leave me no choice but to refute such assumptions. Given that you would probably wield the ban stick, when faced with a contrary opinion, I will obviously not do so on SH.

It does not suit GSC to take part in this exercise at this time. This may change in the future and, no doubt, GSC will have valuable and pertinent information then, which will be applicable to the industry as a whole, not just GSC. It is your choice to be petulant now, rather than more informative to the entire industry and your readers later.

Regards,

Gerard

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I tried three times to post the corrected BC numbers for the GSC bullets used but Mr. Galli deleted my posts every time. 

 

The data was handled by Francis (ply1951guy) originally.  I contacted him on 30 January 2012, explained the error and supplied the correct numbers. He explained that the numbers were given to him by Galli. He posted an apology (which was not neccesary) and said that the error would be corrected.  Galli at first edited Francis' post to one that was insulting and then deleted it altogether.

 

I now see that the pdf files, summarising the results of the SH test, posted by Francis, have also been removed.

 

See page 5 of the 'test' thread, the second post by ply1951guy, the link to the full results at  http://freepdfhosting.com/4626d2127d.pdf  (this is the link as on 2nd Feb 2012)

 

The Muzzle Velocity and Atmospheric Data posted by ply1951guy has similarly been removed.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 30 January 2012 Frank Galli (Lowlight) banned me from Snipers Hide for one year.  I sent the mail below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: It is a pity
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:20:44 +0200
From: Gerard <gerard@gscustom.co.za>
Reply-To: gerard@gscustom.co.za
Organization: GS Custom
To: Frank L. Galli fgalli@sniper.us.com


Frank,
I won't be back but it is a pity that you have taken this route.  It could have been different and you will be the loser.  Life is tough and it is even tougher when you are acting the way you do.  Changing Francis' post was a mistake that you wil regret especially.

Watch this space.

Regards
Gerard

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: It is a pity
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:37:14 -0700
From: Frank L. Galli <fgalli@snipershide.com>
To: gerard@gscustom.co.za


If you say so, 


Lot so of people claim it, but nobody over the years has backed up the threat with any real effect. 

You are the one who will lose in the end, because there are plenty of others out there willing to work with us, and not attacking the results but understand it is a just a step in the process.  I even met with Dynamic Research who came on well behind in the test and he was excited to work with us.  In fact he pledged a lot of support to clarifies the end results which is really all anybody wants.  To know what the end results area. 

With all the competition you have, out sight will be out of mind and people will simply turn to those they can trust and will be open minded, crying about the test and posted stuff on a site like yours that very few people will see is not gonna affect SH one bit.   Every week we get the same time of statement, 10 years later we are still on top. 

Best of luck to you,  as I said we were hoping to work with you but you made it far too difficult. 

Cheers, 

Frank L. Galli

Sniper's Hide, LLC. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: So you know
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:07:53 -0700
From: Frank L. Galli <fgalli@snipershide.com>
To: gerard@gscustom.co.za

Gerard, 


So you know, these arrived just before SHOT 

This way have more to work with and get the load developed for them as we move forward. Hopefully your data on the side of the box is correct this time. 
 
(Picture of 2 boxes of 338295SP bullets)
 
Cheers, 


Frank Galli



Frank L. Galli

Sniper's Hide, LLC. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: So you know
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:27:32 +0200
From: Gerard <gerard@gscustom.co.za>
Reply-To: gerard@gscustom.co.za
Organization: GS Custom
To: Frank L. Galli <fgalli@snipershide.com>


Frank,
Keep digging.   I will start on your lies, shoddy manner and bad form shortly.  Watch 'the space' and watch as it climbs in the search engine ranks.

"Hopefully your data on the side of the box is correct this time."   Thanks for that one, it will feature well.

Life is tough.

G
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Further mail from Galli to GSC South Africa is now blocked.

 

 
GS Custom Bullets, situated in Port Elizabeth on the East Coast of South Africa, manufactures solid copper, turned, monolithic bullets for hunting and sport shooting. These bullets are used by hunters on several continents, hunting from the smallest of antelope to the largest of dangerous game, using the smooth HP bullet, as well as the more popular HV, FN and SP bullets with the patented drive band concept. GSC bullets are configured for the highest possible ballistic coefficients. SP bullets are mainly used for sport shooting. All GS Custom Bullets are coated.