Posts by Wishihadgills

My bad Dan your right. Dan can you elaborate on what Judah said?

"The original case has terrible resolution underwater?

Shouldn't that be fixed with the new lens or is there something else Im missing?

Dan I think the effect your describing might be called vignetting? Im really interested in this camera and will most likely be getting one this summer when I get home.

Shallow Runner your basically asking for an impossibility, trying to balance video quality, price, size, picture quality, and do it all underwater. If its small it can take either decent video OR decent stills. If you want both then you need a bigger more advanced sensor. This also means more expensive. You can get a Cannon like the T1 or T2 put it in a 3000$ case and get great pics and video but this isnt small or cheap. From what Ive seen the gopro is the best compact HD camera that is cheap and works well underwater. If you want good stills there are the SeaLife cameras that take great stills and work underwater pretty well.

There is also the option Judah described which is to capture a "screenshot" from the video. This works and will avoid the vignetting but will not yield a very good pic and wont allow you to blow up the image too much.

These conclusions are from my experience with still photography above water so take them with a grain of salt. I am by no means an expert and I dont have any experience with the actual gopro camera.

Good Luck, If theres a better tool for the job I hope someone brings it up.

Well I wont have that problem because I have a poured epoxy track. Thanks for the warning though. The most vulnerable part of my gun will be the bottom under the band holes and that should be more than 1/4 thick.

Where can I get xylene? Also in one of Phil Herranen's Posts on SB he strongly discouraged using thinners. Im going to do a little research since I wont be able to start until I get home from school. I have heard of using Xylene before so I would be really surprised if it wasnt a good choice. I like the penetrating epoxy because of how thin it is and the look it creates. Thanks for posting that Dan.

Thats pretty much the look I want. Where can I get it? Home depot?

I have a question about which coating I should use. I bought the 207 hardener with intentions to coat in epoxy for its improved durability and lower maintenance. After hearing from Bill and a lot of respected gun builders that they like to use teak/tung oil I cant help but second guess my choice. While Im still fairly certain Im going to use the epoxy I want to know a combination of the two is possible. I know that epoxy doesnt adhere to the wood if it has any oil on the surface but Im wondering if I coat the gun in epoxy first but dont use epoxy around the mech and other parts (in order to prevent epoxy build up) Then using teak/tung oil to seal the parts that require a clean fit and would not take the same physical abuse that the barrel and other exposed parts. Would this be more trouble than its worth? What potential problems are there with this and/has anyone tried it?

Newest updates. After receiving word from Bill that hes finished working his magic on the gun I only have a few more items on the checklist before its complete.
- shape muzzle
- drill band holes
- coat/seal
- ballast
- kill

I have a question about which coating I should use. I bought the 207 hardener with intentions to coat in epoxy for its improved durability and lower maintenance. After hearing from Bill and a lot of respected gun builders that they like to use teak/tung oil I cant help but second guess my choice. While Im still fairly certain Im going to use the epoxy I want to know a combination of the two is possible. I know that epoxy doesnt adhere to the wood if it has any oil on the surface but Im wondering if I coat the gun in epoxy first but dont use epoxy around the mech and other parts (in order to prevent epoxy build up) Then using teak/tung oil to seal the parts that require a clean fit and would not take the same physical abuse that the barrel and other exposed parts. Would this be more trouble than its worth? What potential problems are there with this and/has anyone tried it?

Thanks, Ill get some more pics up in a few minutes.

If you guys can wait till the May session Ill be back from school and will join you.

I love the concept but I think it need a few years and a few improvements. But once it gains a little popularity and is refined a bit (and price drops) I think it would be a great piece of equipment.

How does this stuff compare to the riffe wishbones? Ill probably give it a try when I get my new gun back from Bill's workshop.

Thats a good idea Jeff. I hadnt thought of that and was trying to transfer what I know about a regular rifle. I like Dans Idea because it seems a little sturdier. You could use two poles because the gun is long enough and you would effectively connect the dots to the target. They also wouldnt inhibit the recoil sounds like we have a test we can agree on. Now we only need a date

I had not thought about the muzzle jump from the recoil. A clamp that allowed the gun to pivot about the handle would fix that.

It would seem that its necessary to have two tests. There are certainly there are things that can be learned from tests similar to the one in the video (IMO this test is skewed and shows more of a relationship of a shooters skill and familiarity than it does of the guns inherent accuracy) and there are things that can't be learned from clamping a gun ( like Dan and Greekdiver have mentioned) If both tests were conducted then compared and recalculated there might be pretty accurate (no pun intended) depiction of the results.

What about testing some of the claims like Riffe's tend to shoot low or another brand shoots high? Anyone who regularly shoots a Riffe may compensate for the gun and anyone who doesn't may skew the results. A new user wouldn't be able to consistently aim and would probably adjust his shots after missing a little low with out even thinking about it. If you were to clamp it down you would be able to get consistent shots and could find a general point of aim.

I would also think that repeating the test at different ranges would be a good idea.

Well if the all shoot about the same then there isnt much reason to do an accuracy test. If its all preference then there is no way to come up with any sort of results. The gun that will be most accurate is the one that was closest to the guns used by whoever was testing it.

Im not saying that how the gun moves or can be aimed isnt important, but for a test with shooters that are not familiar with the gun that is the most unbiased way of testing. In order to get the best performance out of any gun the shooter needs to be familiar and to have lots of practice with it. Unless they are all familiar with all of the guns then the individual shooter will affect the accuracy of the gun more than the guns inherent accuracy.

By clamping the gun you will find the pure precision of the gun but not necessarily how well it can be used. You can see with the video of the guy walking along the bottom that he is so familiar with his weapon that he can probably hit anything he wanted, but that doesn't necessarily mean he has built the most accurate gun on the planet. Each shooter has his/her own methods but in order to remove the shooters influence clamping the gun will will produce the clearest results. It removes the human error from the equation.

Just saw this video and I dont like this test. Like seaweed said too many variables and not enough consistency. To really test the accuracy of these guns they need to be clamped down to some kind of rest so that there is no influence of the shooter itself. Just like with a rifle you can adjust your point of aim but if the gun can group well its useless. while hitting the bullseye is great its not the real measure of a guns precision. It would be fun to get some local guys together maybe at Judahs "spearing range" and do our own test

What about the big goliath they took? I thought they were protected?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvcS--64N6g

The 50 cal is a much better solution as well as a lot more practical. The barret has a lot of features that reduce the recoil. (a proper muzzle break, semi-atomatic and its more than double the weight of the gun in that video) There is still a lot of recoil as Judah mentioned. Sad thing is the same people who designed that round also created an even larger .700 nitro express (why?:crazy:)

Ill post a video of me shooting a .50 cal that my uncle has at a hay bail as part of a redneck mythbusters experiment. Some people thought that because of the way a hay bail is wound it would act similar to a kevlar vest and stop the bullet. They couldnt have been more wrong. The round went right through the bail and clean through two 1/2 in steel railroad ties with out a problem. the gun in the video weighs 55 lbs and I weigh 185. Sorry for the poor vid quality its a cell phone vid.