|
On 03-Nov-11 21:46, Frank L. Galli wrote: Gerald, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 04-Nov-11 11:59, Gerard wrote: Hi Fronk, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect you will stay out of any conversation on SH
regarding the subject… 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.
On 25-Dec-11
08:02, Gerard wrote: Hi Frank, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Original Message --------
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 --------
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 L. Galli
Sniper's Hide, LLC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Original Message --------
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.
|