Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
.408 Status???
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Warren Jensen" data-source="post: 23008" data-attributes="member: 21"><p>Lets look at that statement by Mr. Coburn.</p><p></p><p>Identify specifically where the term ".408 bronze bullets" is used in our website or by our representatives. You used this term earlier in this thread.</p><p></p><p>Identify specifically where the price,"around $2.50 each" is used in our website or by our representatives. You used this price earlier in this thread.</p><p></p><p>We recently shot the .408 CheyTac and every significant 50 BMG ammunition including, M2 machinegun, 750 gr. AMAX, and the Barnes 50 cal Bronze solids through the Weibel Radar at Yuma Proving Grounds. The .408 CheyTac 419 gr. ammunition had a greater supersonic range than any of them. Your statement to the contrary earlier in this thread is based upon supposition and opinion and not science and is characteristic of unprofessional analysis.</p><p></p><p>"Balanced Flight" as described mathematically and objectively is real and quantitative. The bullets conforming to this formula have a patent pending. Patents often times take years and only the simplest ones become final in three months. Statements to the contrary are nonsense.</p><p></p><p>Describe specifically how being in existence since April of 2001 qualifies as "the .408 has now been around for a while". You stated this earlier in this thread.</p><p></p><p>Describe specifically how you qualify as the spokesman for "our military", as in "our military has no interest in it". There are many parts of our military and some have more than a little interest in it as demonstrated by their presence at our shooting ranges.</p><p></p><p>And lastly your tactic of smearing me and implying that my credentials are false is despicable. For everyone's information Mr. Coburn called up West Point to check on my academic record. When told that I was awarded a Bachelor of Science Degree with a concentration in International Security Affairs he E-mailed an associate of mine to state that there was something wrong with my record. He was not specific about what was wrong, just that something was wrong. </p><p></p><p>For clarification, I claim to be an Ordnance Engineer. Which I am. West Point at the time I graduated only awarded Bachelor of Science Degrees no matter what the course of study. West Point, also, did not classify any course of study as a major, or a minor, no matter the numbers of hours taken. They allowed you to pick a concentration. As we took between 23 and 25 credit hours a semester for four years we each amassed enough hours in separate courses of study for three or four majors and numersous minors. My major courses of study were Ordnance Engineering, International Security, and International Law in that order. My Senior Thesis was on long range artillery design. At the time of graduation I designated the International Security Affairs as my concentration as it seemed the most appropriate to my being an Intelligence Officer. That does not in anyway diminish my studies in Ordnance Engineering. Mr. Coburn seems to want to use any partial fact or appearance of deception to imply lack of credibility. He also seems to think that I would be ashamed to discuss it. I am not.</p><p></p><p>Mr. Coburn, in my opinion, repeatedly demonstrates the worst kind of conduct. Partial facts, incorrect facts, inuendo, smears, and generally bad behavior. </p><p></p><p>I am content to face the judgment of the reader and of history. I won't accept judgment by Mr. Coburn.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Warren Jensen, post: 23008, member: 21"] Lets look at that statement by Mr. Coburn. Identify specifically where the term ".408 bronze bullets" is used in our website or by our representatives. You used this term earlier in this thread. Identify specifically where the price,"around $2.50 each" is used in our website or by our representatives. You used this price earlier in this thread. We recently shot the .408 CheyTac and every significant 50 BMG ammunition including, M2 machinegun, 750 gr. AMAX, and the Barnes 50 cal Bronze solids through the Weibel Radar at Yuma Proving Grounds. The .408 CheyTac 419 gr. ammunition had a greater supersonic range than any of them. Your statement to the contrary earlier in this thread is based upon supposition and opinion and not science and is characteristic of unprofessional analysis. "Balanced Flight" as described mathematically and objectively is real and quantitative. The bullets conforming to this formula have a patent pending. Patents often times take years and only the simplest ones become final in three months. Statements to the contrary are nonsense. Describe specifically how being in existence since April of 2001 qualifies as "the .408 has now been around for a while". You stated this earlier in this thread. Describe specifically how you qualify as the spokesman for "our military", as in "our military has no interest in it". There are many parts of our military and some have more than a little interest in it as demonstrated by their presence at our shooting ranges. And lastly your tactic of smearing me and implying that my credentials are false is despicable. For everyone's information Mr. Coburn called up West Point to check on my academic record. When told that I was awarded a Bachelor of Science Degree with a concentration in International Security Affairs he E-mailed an associate of mine to state that there was something wrong with my record. He was not specific about what was wrong, just that something was wrong. For clarification, I claim to be an Ordnance Engineer. Which I am. West Point at the time I graduated only awarded Bachelor of Science Degrees no matter what the course of study. West Point, also, did not classify any course of study as a major, or a minor, no matter the numbers of hours taken. They allowed you to pick a concentration. As we took between 23 and 25 credit hours a semester for four years we each amassed enough hours in separate courses of study for three or four majors and numersous minors. My major courses of study were Ordnance Engineering, International Security, and International Law in that order. My Senior Thesis was on long range artillery design. At the time of graduation I designated the International Security Affairs as my concentration as it seemed the most appropriate to my being an Intelligence Officer. That does not in anyway diminish my studies in Ordnance Engineering. Mr. Coburn seems to want to use any partial fact or appearance of deception to imply lack of credibility. He also seems to think that I would be ashamed to discuss it. I am not. Mr. Coburn, in my opinion, repeatedly demonstrates the worst kind of conduct. Partial facts, incorrect facts, inuendo, smears, and generally bad behavior. I am content to face the judgment of the reader and of history. I won't accept judgment by Mr. Coburn. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
.408 Status???
Top