PrecisionRifleBlog.com A DATA-DRIVEN Approach to Precision Rifles, Optics & Gear
Related Articles
Lots of people have asked what I’ve been working on, and I’m excited to finally be able to tell you guys about a huge project I’ve invested a ton of time in over the past several months.
Last year, Bryan Litz and team over at Applied Ballistics ask if I’d be interested in contributing to Volume 2 of their Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting series. I have immense respect for the work those guys have done and the huge impact they’ve had on me and the rest of the shooting community, so I was honored to even be asked.
The idea behind the Modern Advancements series of books is to publish regular installments of ongoing research on topics related to long range shooting. In particular, new equipment and ideas are tested to determine if and how they can help shooters be more effective. In an industry full of advertising and myths, the scientific approach taken by Applied Ballistics is refreshing. Rather than rely on popular opinion or marketing hype, they apply a Myth Buster style with careful experimentation described in a way that’s easy to understand and apply.
I feel like a kindred spirit, because I try to have a similar, data-driven approach on my website … although world-class engineers like Bryan Litz and Nick Vitalbo take things to a whole different level! I told them about a barrel research project I’d been thinking about, and they said it sounded like a perfect fit for the Modern Advancements series.
My Barrel Field Test
The basic idea of my barrel field test was to see how new composite barrel designs like carbon fiber barrels and the StraightJacket Barrel System from Teledyne Tech compare with traditional match-grade steel barrels. My goal was to equip fellow long-range shooters with as much hard data as I could reasonably gather, so they could make an informed buying decision for their application.
One hot topic when it comes to these modern barrel designs is “What happens as they start to heat up?” Will the point of impact shift as the barrel warms up over an extended string of fire? Will precision degrade, causing your groups to open up? Furthermore, it’s common to hear sweeping statements made like “carbon fiber is ten times stiffer than steel.” Is that true? How are carbon fiber barrels different from various manufacturers?
I included a few different contours of steel barrels, and even some fluted barrels, to try to quantify the pros and cons of the various options. Does a heavy contour hold its zero better, and if so by how much? Does fluting help a barrel cool faster?
With these questions in mind, I gathered up a pile of barrels, chambered them all in 6.5 Creedmoor, and fired 2,000+ rounds in search of the answers. Here’s a look at sneak peek at the barrels that were included in my experiments:
The full details and results will be available in the new book, which was just released for pre-orders. The books should start shipping the first week of July. Pre-Orders are available at a discounted price of $34.95 and you can order those here: http://store.appliedballisticsllc.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=0008
What Else Is In The Book?
Because I had contributed a chapter to the book, I got the perk of getting to proofread all the content. While I can’t share too much, I’m very excited about the research topics Bryan Litz and Nick Vitalbo presented in this new book.
Bryan presents a ton of original research focused on advanced handloading topics. These will be especially interesting to competition shooters trying to produce ammo with extremely consistent muzzle velocities and capable of tiny groups. He runs through extensive live fire experiments, and then applies rigorous statistical analysis to discover the cause/effect relationship behind various steps in the reloading process and their real-world impact. He presents compelling research on the effects of things like trimming/pointing bullets, powder measurement, flash hole deburring, annealing, neck tension, and more. There are certainly a few surprises in there!
He also bravely tackles the long-debated topic of group convergence. Is it possible for your rifle to shoot a sub-MOA group at 300 yards or 600 yards, but not at 100 yards? It’s a polarizing topic with strong opinions on both sides, but Bryan carefully crafts 70+ trials of different caliber, barrel, and ammo combinations on a quest to uncover if/when this occurs.
Also in this book, Nick Vitalbo, a foremost expert in laser technology, takes our understanding of rangefinder to performance to a whole new level. A couple of years ago I conducted a rangefinder field test, but what Nick did is groundbreaking. It will literally set a new standard in the rangefinder industry. Think back to the impact Bryan and the Applied Ballistics team had on our understanding of bullet performance when they released their standardized, experimentally measured library of bullet BC’s. Well, Nick presents a similar paradigm shift through a common means of evaluating and characterizing the performance of laser rangefinders. Nick includes performance models that allow you to objectively compare over 20 of the most popular laser rangefinders on the market. They’re all based on data collected from independent performance tests. He also provides a simple chart showing which models offer the best bang for your buck, which is one of the things we’re all going for. Nick goes on to show how we can use those models to estimate the performance on a variety of targets, environmental conditions, and scenarios. Frankly, it’s one of the coolest things I’ve read in a long time.
Finally, if you’re reading this you’re likely familiar with the G1 and G7 standard drag curves related to ballistic coefficients (BC’s). Both are models used to compare the performance of a specific bullet to a standard projectile, and ballistics programs use that to estimate trajectory. A ballistics engine just starts with one of those known, standard drag curves and then scales that curve one way or the other based on if the bullet has more or less drag than the standard projectile. This simple approach typically produces results that are close enough, but it isn’t able to accurately model the unique drag of each and every bullet shape. What if instead of settling for the “best fitting” representation of your bullet’s drag according to one of the “G” standards … you could use a Custom Drag Model (CDM) for your exact bullet? Yeah … that’s a crazy idea, but Bryan shows how the subtle differences in drag modeling between the “G” standards and CDM’s are the last frontier in bringing predictions from ballistics programs into alignment with actual impacts in the field. Bryan does a great job of helping us all understand what this means, and conducts live fire experiments to quantify how CDM’s can help us get more first round hits.
… and there is even more in the book! Too much to cover here! It even includes the latest library of measured G1 and G7 ballistic coefficients with data on 533 long range bullets. Go order a copy. You won’t be disappointed!
And if you missed Volume 1, you can purchase a discounted bundle of both Volume 1 and Volume 2 for $69.95 (normally $79.95). Volume 1 covers a ton of other topics, and serves as a foundation that Volume 2 builds on.
If nothing else, I now completely get the vision of the Modern Advancements series. It’s about a regular cadence of research. It’s about carefully investigating topics important to long range shooters, without any agenda or theory to prove, and simply presenting the results. It’s about a format that is more in-depth and thought-out than what you’ll typically find online, but still timely enough to spotlight areas where exciting advancements are being made. It’s less of an academic or theoretical approach, and more about instrumenting live fire experiments to learn how we can put more rounds on target.
I’m honored to be able to contribute to this series in a small way. Now I’m even more excited about the prospect of future research these guys have planned, and how this installment and upcoming volumes will continue to advance the knowledge of the long range shooting community.
I’ll leave you with a great quote Bryan includes in the book. It’s from Franklin Mann, a hard-working ballistician from the early 20th century, and Bryan thought it perfectly describes the motivation for the MA series:
“It is easy to sit about the fireside or under the shade of the home trees, after a day’s work at competitive rifle practice, and talk over the causes of bad shots, and it’s good fellowship’s pleasures are not to be denied; but it’s not so easy to prove by repeated and, maybe, costly experiments that our fine theories are correct.” – Franklin Mann, 1909
Nice job Cal
Congrats !
Thanks, Marc. It was a fun experience!
I’m happy that you had this opportunity to work with them and I look forward to spending some time with your article. I’m thankful that I found your site and I greatly appreciate the type of work that you do here – I’ve learned quite a bit from you and have learned to appreciate the sport further as a result. I wish you the best for future projects and opportunities, sir.
Thanks, Matt. Glad to hear you appreciate the approach. All of the science and research definitely amplifies my passion for the sport as well. It seems like there is still so much to learn in this emerging field. I appreciate the kind words.
Thanks,
Cal
This is great. Really appreciate your work. Thanks!
I would be happy to order it unfortunately my country is not listed when i try to check out. Also it would be nice to have a soft copy instead of waiting for it to arrive by courier. Please consider this option.
Naser from UAE
Sorry to hear that, Naser. Bummer. If you know someone in your country that would like to become a dealer, they can contact support@appliedballisticsllc.com. I’m afraid that’s the best I can do. I know some of the other books were eventually available through Amazon, so I’d think that might be true for this one at some point. I just don’t know about those kinds of plans. Sorry I couldn’t be more help.
Thanks,
Cal
Cal:
Just ordered both volumes. Will be most interested in reading the methodology of your tests. To be more specific in your experiment system accuracy is the dependent variable, as it always is, and a barrel is the independent variable. But system accuracy is some combination of receiver/stock accuracy, barrel accuracy, ammunition accuracy, sighting accuracy, gun platform accuracy and environmental conditions. In a good experiment there is one independent variable, one dependent variable and the rest of the potential variables are held constant. How you choose the other variables and what you did to hold them constant will be of great interest.
As always many thanks for your effort. Rick
Rick, you’re clearly a sharp guy. You definitely cut to the heart of it, because that was one of the toughest parts of this project. Honestly, a lot of research projects are like that. Crafting some experiments to do your best to isolate variables for that “all else is equal” scenario can be tough, and maybe not even possible in some cases. I was about to start to try to explain my approach on this, but honestly that takes up a few pages in the book … because like you said, it’s tricky. Luckily I had a few really sharp researchers like Bryan and others from Applied Ballistics that are “deep behind the curtain,” but also what I can only classify as “scary smart.” While I was still in the planning phases of this barrel test, I also ran my detailed test plans by industry experts, including guys like Frank Green at Bartlein Barrels who is an expert among experts and has been privy to a lot of barrel-related tests over the years. I feel fortunate that all those guys were willing to invest some time talking through this stuff with me, and giving me their honest feedback on what I should focus on, what I should be careful with, and what I should avoid completely. My favorite part of this whole gig is getting to have fun conversations with guys like that who are leadings in their field. They have so much wisdom and knowledge. I really, really enjoy bouncing ideas off those guys and learning from them. Like I said, it’s my favorite part of all this.
This was what made this an ambitious project. I think it includes some very interesting results that we can learn from, but like most experiments, it also helped identify areas of interest for future research. That is one of the cool things about the Modern Advancements series. You’ll see that in some of Bryan’s experiments too. He’ll find something unexpected in the data or see a tangent that he’d really like to investigate. But, instead of making all of us wait for years for him to finish all the research, they’ve decided to publish the results they have and then start the additional research and publish it in the next volume. Rinse and repeat. When I started to realize that is when I started getting excited about what the Modern Advancements series represented long-term. It’s kind of an evolving and exploratory science-based approach. Nobody has the outline of the future volumes. We’re discovering in real-time! It reminds me of agile project management, which is an iterative, incremental method of managing a project with the aim to provide new product or service development in a highly flexible and interactive manner. In my professional experience, this approach delivers more value both short-term and long-term.
Sorry for chasing a rabbit there! I think that is one of the elements of this I neglected to mention in the post, and I’d been thinking about it yesterday and today. I guess I had to get it out somewhere! I also say all that to say that it might not perfectly answer all the questions you have, but those are just opportunities for future research. At least that’s the way I see it!
Thanks,
Cal
Cal:
As expected a most interesting reply. Not so smart but an ill-spent youth doing an experimental thesis in geophysics.
There is a forum for owners of Blasers, Mausers and Sauers called BlaserBuds. Plenty of members, plenty of expertise at least in hunting. Last week I suggested a section of the forum devoted to member’s results on the accuracy of factory ammunition. What variables are necessary need in order to uniquely define the situation with factory ammunition the independent variable and accuracy the dependent variable given you are shooting a Blaser, Mauser or Sauer? As you well know a lot, a whole lot even for a single caliber. So I was excited to read your blog about testing barrels. Especially since our initial communication was about barrel life.
What we need is a constant temperature underground tunnel 1500 yards long devoted to experimental ballistics research. And with a facility to generate precisely defined winds, if that is possible. Then again, what manufacturer wants the accuracy of their product well measured?
Rick
Ha! I agree, Rick. That sounds awesome! I actually did look into the cost of building a 100 yard tunnel recently and it was over $20,000 the way I was wanting to do it. Unfortunately that’s way outside my budget! But I like your style. If you’re doing to dream, dream BIG!!!
I think about the Houston Warehouse experiments a lot. I wish I had access to a big facility like that. Just like those guys, we could learn so much in a fully controlled environment! If you haven’t heard about the Houston Warehouse, you should check it out: http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/10/18/secrets-of-the-houston-warehouse-lessons-in-extreme-rifle-accuracy/
Thanks,
Cal
Could you discuss the practice of barrel “setback” in these barrels? Can this common practice be used on any currently available composite barrels? Done intelligently, it can virtually double the useful life of a solid stainless barrel, particularly one dedicated to field use where micrometer-level precision is not absolutely necessary.
Hey, Carl. That is a great question. The Christensen Arms carbon fiber barrel design doesn’t have much steel on the breech side of the barrel, so there wouldn’t be enough steel to set that one back. The PROOF carbon fiber barrel has longer breech steel, so I wasn’t sure if it was possible with their barrel. So I passed this question on to PROOF’s Development Engineer, Chad VanBrunt, and here is his response:
I think it’s the same situation with the StraightJacket Barrel System. All of these composite barrel designs are based on the idea of having a pencil thin steel liner (i.e. contoured to SAMMI minimum specs), so unfortunately that part of the design doesn’t lend itself well to setting back the chamber on a barrel to get a little more life out of it.
Great question!
Thanks,
Cal
better be getting a percentage of the profits, then you can plow them into more research.
will order.
Thanks
Ha! Well, I only wrote a small part of the book, so I’m not expecting to make much off this … but they did offer me what I thought was a completely generous offer for my work. I’ve actually authored a couple published books before, with one of those being a Computer Science textbook that is used in some colleges. If that was any indication of the money people make off books, it’s not much to get excited about! 😉 But I do appreciate those guys sharing a small part of whatever profit they end up with. It just shows how generous they are. They were happy to get more people contributing to the shooting community. Like me, they’re in it to help other shooters and not for the money. We seem to be cut from the same cloth in that regard.
Thanks,
Cal
Keep up the good work. I will be getting an autographed copy. Oh boy. What I would like is to be a fly on the wall when you guys get together and talk about this stuff. How about yall invite me and I will bring the refreshments.
Thanks
James
Ha! Yeah, you get what I’m saying. Those conversations are priceless to me. I went to the Applied Ballistics Seminar back in February in Michigan, and I was telling my wife how much I enjoyed the conversations. I told her I was walking around and I’d hear little groups of people talking about “spin rate decay” or “G7 Ballistic Coefficients” … and it just felt like MY PEOPLE!!! 😉 The deeper you get down this rabbit hole, the more you appreciate those conversations with people who are just as passionate as you are about it.
If you’re really interested in being part of those kinds of conversations, I’d HIGHLY recommend you attend on of the Applied Ballistics Seminars. They are having one in Dallas today, in fact. But they have more scheduled through the rest of the year. The first one sold out, and I suggested to Bryan that they hold it at a bigger facility next time so more could attend. But Bryan said part of his vision for those is to keep them smaller, so that people attending feel like they can have discussions and that he, Nick, and the other guys from Applied Ballistics are available for questions or open discussions between sessions. They even had little informal groups setup in the evening discussing different topics … over free beer. So if you want to talk ballistics and testing with Bryan over a beer … there is your chance. It’s a pretty cool vision he has for that, and just shows his heart to serve the shooting community.
Here is a link with more info about those seminars: http://appliedballisticsllc.com/abseminar2018/
I’ve been to SHOT Show several years, done a bunch of cool training events and matches … but that Applied Ballistics Seminar was my favorite thing I’ve done in a long time. Lots of those good conversations!
Thanks,
Cal
Houston Not Dallas. 5 1/2 hour trip for me.
My flight back from the Michigan seminar was delayed 6 hours and I missed my connection home and ended up having an overnight layover … So it was a 20 hour trip for me. But it was worth it! 😉
Thanks,
Cal
Ha! Well, I only wrote a small part of the book, so I’m not expecting to make much off this … but they did offer me what I thought was a completely generous offer for my work. I’ve actually authored a couple published books before, with one of those being a Computer Science textbook that is used in some colleges. If that was any indication of the money people make off books, it’s not much to get excited about! 😉 But I do appreciate those guys sharing a small part of whatever profit they end up with. It just shows how generous they are. They were happy to get more people contributing to the shooting community. Like me, they’re in it to help other shooters and not for the money. We seem to be cut from the same cloth in that regard.
Thanks,
Cal
Cal, saw the announcement on the book and excited to see you and Bryan Litz collaborating. Looking forward to reading the section on barrels.
Thanks, Jeff. Partnering with a guy like Bryan is a huge honor. Not only is he a really bright guy, but he’s also humble and generous with his time and talent. Great experience overall.
Thanks,
Cal
I hope you made a buck or two. I realize you do this because you love it, but you deserve the pay if it comes your way! You have helped out my decision making as I delve ever deeper into this endeavor. I will be ordering this book tonight. Great job Cal!
Bryan and the guys at Applied Ballistics offered what I thought was a generous split of the royalties from the book. I’m not sure what that will end up being, because I only wrote a small part of the book. But I enjoyed the experience. Just seeing how they go about the process of conducting and compiling all the research was really cool. Not only am I into the shooting part of this, but I also enjoy learning how to research and quantify things effectively … and those guys have a lot of experience at doing that. So I stand to make a buck or two, but have enjoyed the experience as much as anything.
Thanks,
Cal
Cal-
Great to see a post! I always enjoy your view and scientific style of reviews and equipment.
I was hoping you hadn’t been washed away or sucked into the upper levels of the atmosphere, with the weather your state has been experiencing.
Congrats on being able to contribute to such a praised volume!!! Your work on your website, surely attracted the much deserved attention and opportunity.
I believe I will go and pre-order one of these now.
Be Well-
JMV
Ha! Thanks, Jeff. Glad to still be around too! I appreciate the encouragement.
Thanks,
Cal
I’m anxious to see your research Cal. I definitely need to pick up a copy of the book. Interesting experiments and testing!
(OB)
Obadiah
Cal, Thanks for sharing your work in Blog and Book, very interesting! Is that pic right for the 22″ PROOF Research M24? it looks like a StraightJacket.
Yes sir! It’s a big fat steel barrel. PROOF offers both carbon fiber barrels, and match-grade stainless steel barrels. Honestly, I didn’t know that either until I started doing research for this project. I just wanted to include a big fat barrel in the test for reference. I actually shoot a MTU contour barrel on one of my precision rifles, and the M24 is very similar. It’s a fatty, but they almost always shoot really well. I also think I’m able to shoot better with a heavy barrel, because of the increased inertia. Not sure how much is the barrel or how much is the increased weight, but I like being behind a really heavy contour barrel. Now when you have to carry it around, I like it a little less! 😉
Thanks,
Cal
Congrats Cal …….. real honor and testament to your own research and skill sets….
Thanks, Caylen. I’ve definitely grown and learned a lot since I started this website.
Thanks,
Cal
Cal:
I should have stated I was using the new definition of accuracy, i.e. accuracy = precision(as before) + trueness. Trueness is defined as the offset of the group center from the aimpoint. So an accurate group is now necessarily a precise group but not vice-versa.
Rick
Ha! Rick, I think I got it. Those two words are used interchangeably so often that I’ve learned to roll with it. You can typically know what someone is referring to by it. It’s kind of like “deceleration” … technically speaking, there is no such thing. It’s more correct to refer to that as “negative acceleration” … but sometimes it’s just easier to say “deceleration” because everyone knows what you mean by that.
Precise academic conversations have a place and can be helpful, but accuracy and precision are one of those combinations that if you get frustrated every time uses it incorrectly, you’ll might end up a very bitter person! So I try not to get bent out of shape by it. Having said all that, I can appreciate your definition. Sounds good to me! 😉
Thanks,
Cal
Cal:
Bryan Litz’ book “Accuracy and Precision for Long Range Shooting” spends the first chapter carefully explaining the difference and the importance of the difference.
Muzzle velocity and muzzle speed I can accept since muzzle velocity is the entrenched term. However, the definition of accuracy I stated is the BIPM and ISO 5725 standard. It is different from the one I learned long ago and the one stated in Bryan Litz’ Book “Accuracy and Precision for Long Range Shooting”. I realized that definition of accuracy is appropriate for situations where true value is not known such as surveying. The aimpoint is known so the ISO 5725 standard is relevant.
Bitterness certainly not. Life is too short. But if someone confuses accuracy and precision I heavily discount the accuracy, and hence the precision!, of everything else they say. Cursed by Germanic ancestry. Thank goodness my wife is also of Germanic ancestry.
Thanks, Rick
Very interesting. I look forward to reading this after the July release!
Thanks, Josh. I’d love to hear what you think about it.
Cal,
I saw that Teludyne Tech was mentioned as one of the barrels that was evaluated as part of your test. When I was looking to rebarrel my rifle theirs was one of the products that I came across.
Because of the claim they made about the heat transfer characteristics of these proprietary barrels I checked to see if they had patented the process.
As far as I can determine, based on a patent application that has their name on it, their secret ingredient is nothing more than some type of cement mixture.
If this is correct, the heat transfer capabilities of such a substance appears to be substantially less than any type of metal that barrels are currently made from.
Was any testing done to check how much heat was being transferred through these barrels.
This has nothing to do with whether or not the barrels shoot with any kind of reliable accuracy, but it could have a major affect on any barrel life that they make claim to in their advertisements.
I would appreciate you verifying this information before deciding whether to post.
Thanks
Eric
Absolutely, Eric! I used a thermal imaging camera throughout the experiments to capture temperature profiles of the barrel as it heats up and cools (both external and chamber temps). I was intrigued by the claims made by Teledyne Tech as well, and some of the carbon fiber barrel manufacturers make heat-related claims about their barrels. So I tried to do my best to capture some independent data to get a real perspective on the differences these composite designs have in terms of heat transfer compared to traditional steel barrels. I bet you’ll appreciate the findings. It helps put all this stuff in perspective.
Great question! I’m glad someone else out there was interested in that part of this experiment, because I certainly was.
Thanks,
Cal
Hey Cal congrats on the collaboration with Brian. I am rather novice when it comes room some of the more advanced topics of long range shooting and have been wanting to read Brian’s books. My question is ‘Is there a order to read the books that you would suggest?’ Thanks DJS
Hey, Dillon. There is definitely one of his books that serves as a foundation, and it’s the place to start. It’s entitled Applied Ballistics For Long Range Shooting, and he just released the 3rd Edition of it a few months ago. Here’s a link: https://store.appliedballisticsllc.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=0006
That book is the gold standard for an overview of all the important elements of external ballistics. You’ll have a great foundation after you read it.
Beyond that, you could either dive into the Modern Advancements series or read his “Accuracy and Precision For Long Range Shooting” book. The Accuracy & Precision book covers something called WEZ analysis in depth, which is more helpful than it sounds! But I know he went back and included some of that content in the 3rd Edition of the first book I mentioned. I have the new edition, but haven’t looked to see what it does or doesn’t hit on. I’m sure it doesn’t cover everything the Accuracy & Precision book does, but after you read the first book I suggested you might have a better context for which direction to go.
Best of luck to you!
Thanks,
Cal
should have tested at least 1 nitrided barrel..
Sorry, Russ. You might be right. I wasn’t doing a barrel life test, so it didn’t occur to me. A barrel life test would be too expensive and time consuming for me. Maybe someone else will take it on. It’d certainly be interesting!
Thanks,
Cal
Cal:
I first learned about the Houston Warehouse experiments in your blog. After reading it I knew you were a kindred spirit. Experimentation is fun but also has very tangible practical benefits.
OK, 1500 yards is a bit ambitious. But I wonder if you could set-up a foundation for ballistics research to which people could contribute. The first facility would be the 100 yard underground range and perhaps the second a railgun. Then when you are not using the range it could be rented for a nominal fee to others who want to do ballistics experimentation with thoir own rifles and ammo. As time went on I am certain there would be continuous improvement in the methodology. I would certainly put it on my bucket list.
Rick
Cal,
Just took advantage of the pre-publishing bundle to go with my previous volume of Brian’s.
Once again I commend you & Brian et al. for filling the void left when Precision Magazine ceased publication.
Wish there was a periodic update subscription to these books…mine are so heavily highlighted, annotated, tabbed and page cross-referenced that “just buying the latest update” creates a ton of “bookkeeping”. I miss the old “pin & ink changes (updates)” we did in our flying manuals as USAF pilots !
I hear you! I have the earlier edition of Bryan’s Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting all highlighted and marked up. I’m not sure what to do with the new edition. Transferring all those notes seems too time consuming. Guess I’ll keep both copies around. But I definitely hear you! That’s not a bad idea!
Thanks,
Cal
Hi Cal,
Congrats on your contributions to the book. All your hard work and, more importantly your impartiality, has been noticed!
One question; what does that mean for PRB moving forward? Will you still be conducting seminal research for the benefit of our community via this site? I sure hope so!
Thanks for all you do.
That’s a good question, Konrad. I’m trying to sort that out, and when I do I’ll make an announcement on here. My desire for you guys to continue to get quality, data-driven info through this website free of charge. Too many details to go into here, but I’ll keep you posted.
Thanks,
Cal