This Board is DIFFERENT.

[BruceB]

Amigos;

On the thread titled "My Ignore List", which grew legs far beyond what I ever expected, friend Al has penned an eloquent screed about "HOW" members should behave themselves in their relationships and discussions on this Board. I applaud his succinct summation and support his position completely.

I now want to address the "WHAT" side of the question, or, more particularly, the actual material that comes to the surface for discussion and experimentation. It's rather disheartening and not a little disappointing to find that some members have appealed to the Staff to CENSOR certain types of posts. Not having any personal knowledge of such requests, it seems that these appeals are apparently based on the refusal of such appellants to consider anything outside " The Manuals" as valid information.

The Cast Bullet side of the reloading hobby has long labored under the handicap of limited published information. It's only in about the last ten years of Internet availability that we, the actual handloaders working in the CB field, have had the ability to perform our studies and GET THE INFO OUT TO OTHERS in a timely and efficient manner. We have moved the CB hobby forward to a marked degree in just a few years, with techniques, materials and concepts that were largely unknown not long ago....and that STILL DO NOT EXIST IN THE PRINTED FORM.

This Board is BY FAR the most-active and vital source of cast-bullet information on the Internet, which also means in the entire hobby, as far I'm concerned. To depend on "published information", which I reckon means info from actual, physical books or properly "blessed-and-shriven" missives from some commercial company, is simply to ignore the work of many dedicated individuals in this field. Such individuals have developed VALID INFO in many niches of cast-bullet shooting, information which otherwise DOES NOT EXIST in the annals of handloading.

As one member who tends on occasion to strike off on my own into the previously-unknown, I enjoy finding approaches and loads that are otherwise unknown (at least in common PUBLISHED circles). Sometimes I find that the info I want is only available if *I* do the actual research and development. For my best "Exhibit A" of this sort, take a look at the sticky on Military Rifle Loads about loading the 7.62 NATO in the M1A Rifle with cast bullets. There's a LOT of info there that exists nowhere else in the handloading world, and for damned sure, NONE of it came from "published sources". I can also point to some fairly-extensive personal developmental work with the .404 Jeffery and .416 Rigby cartridges, which also have suffered from an almost-total dearth of cast-bullet data. My campaigns have helped reduce the level of ignorance concerning both big .40s when used with cast bullets, because the data is available HERE, at Cast Boolits, for the free use of anyone. And, how about the cast softpoints?

The above info was developed carefully and with NO SAFETY BREACHES of any kind.
There were no compromises in the normal safe working-up of the loads.

We are all, as individuals, "captains of our own destinies" when it comes to what loads and procedures we adopt. There's assuredly nothing wrong with adopting a personal approach that only uses, or recognizes as valid, data with the blessings of Speer, or Lyman, or Accurate, or Alliant. No one is going to take anyone to task for refusing to consider loads developed by individuals. I will state, though, that there are people ON THIS BOARD with MORE knowledge about the use of cast bullets than the technicians at Speer, or Lyman, or Accurate, or Alliant.

HOWEVER....those of us who DO choose to experiment and push the boundaries in new directions should be granted the same freedom of action that we extend to the "book" handloaders. After four decades of handloading and casting, I have a keen sense for my own self-preservation, and still have all my body parts firmly attached. To try to censor the experimental approach is to stifle those who are moving the hobby in new directions. Adopt the new info, or don't adopt the new info...but leave us alone to follow our own stars, as we leave you alone.

If anyone here cannot abide the idea of knowledgeable casters developing information on their own, perhaps they might consider either opening their minds to some degree, or finding a Board where they'd be more comfortable with people who load by rote and never look over the fence or down the road ahead.

For such folks to request CENSORSHIP in an experimental activity is unacceptable.

[Blammer]

I agree!

[dromia]

Wholeheartedly!

The reason I found this board was because of the lack of suitable published data, before coming here I felt that gap keenly, but now with the internet and boards like this the reliance on published data is no longer and we are all the better for it as is our hobby.

A responsible person will treat any info source with care, an irresponsible person will treat any source in a cavalier fashion. In a pastime such as ours when has the potential to be deadly its the individuals responsibility to be safe. Regardless of the data source.

[MT Gianni]

When published information includes such as Speer #11, and Bob Hagels "Practical Ballistics for the American Hunter" and "The Game Rifle"without carerfully working up will probably result in stuck bolts before reaching the book "max loads". I have those and use them as rescources but agree with Bruce that all the info isn't out there. When you have a board that is as fond of surplus powders as we are sticking to published data would be the equivelent of purchasing factory for all our use. Gianni.

[IcerUSA]

WTG Bruce, I'll second that. :castmine: so I can:Fire:

[rhead]

If nothing was ever tried that wasn't already in a book the the book would be filled with blank pages wouldn't it? Knowledge cannot be gained from a book. It can only be transfered. The ONLY way to gain knowledge is through careful experimentation and complete records.

Without experimentation the cavemen would still bestanding outside of the cave discusing how dark it was inside.

[NVcurmudgeon]

Good thoughts, Bruce. The world would be without seamless two-alloy soft point hunting cast boolits, annealed gas checks, Beagled moulds, "out of place" (by the makers) use of moulds giving sensational results, much data for surplus powders, etc. ad infinitum.

Anyone who does not work carefully up to loading information found here, or IN THE LATEST BOOK PREPARED BY THE "ANOINTED" STAFF OF A MANUFACTERER, should not be loading.

[bishopgrandpa]

I've tried many things by way of casting and shooting my own and will be the first to say I've used ideas from this board and am still learning. My many years protect me because I am knowledgeable about the craft and don't go off half cocked. No pun intended. Conversely some things I have learned here have cautioned me to not make foolish mistakes. I applaud this boards efforts and those who are not afraid to put their knowledge to work for the betterment and safety of the rest. Thank you, Frank.

[Bret4207]

While I'm hardly what I would consider an experimenter or in any way treading on the leading edge of anything, I think there's a place for conservative experimentation here. As has been noted before, we've put to bed many old wives tales related to cast boolits and shooting in general. I've used many of the ideas I found here and never had a problem that I recall. Anytime I've had pierced primers, blooper loads, hard extraction,. etc. I could trace the fault either to myself and an obvious mistake I made, or to faulty equipment or supplies. My few experiments have turned out to be flops or I've found that someone else had the same idea months or even decades before me.

While I don't mean to inflate anyones ego, there are some folks here who I consider the equals of Naramore, Whelen, Mattern, Dr Mann, Nieder, Ackley, Skeeter, O'Connor, Page and yes, even the sainted Elmer. Prying the knowledge out of them is frustrating at times, but rewarding too. I just consider myself lucky to be able to share in that knowledge and benefit from it. I'll never recall everything I read here. I'll never have time to try all the tricks I hear about. Thats ok by me. I never would have believed I could speed up my casting before Bruce B's casting technique, that I wasn't the only one using straight WW and having good results, or that a guy could break some other "rules" and still get good accuracy.

The biggest surprise is that a board with 3500 members form multiple nations and walks of life could be this civil, friendly and helpful. When I had a crappy day I can usually come here and vent a bit. I guess this is family to me. I hope it remains the way it is.

[Lloyd Smale]

this is one of the only boards on the internet where i actually feel comfortable posting specific loads. For the most part the people here are a notch above most other boards in reloading knowlege. Its also about the only place that i actually pick up knowlege myself and i thank the people here who have shared there hard earned knowlege with me and thats the differnce here. Most other places you get a bunch of idiots that just pass on what theyve heard somewhere else. Here for the most part people talk about things theyve actually done THEMSELVES!!!

[VTDW]

"...This Board is BY FAR the most-active and vital source of cast-bullet information on the Internet..."

A hearty amen to that!! I am new to casting and take my data from this board and have never had a question posted here go unanswered.

The .308MX (Marlin Express) being brand new has to have some folks willing to see what performance they can wring out of the thing as there is absolutely no published data. I am one of those pulling the trigger on reloads. Pray for me.:mrgreen:

Dave

[Bass Ackward]

There are two extremes at work here that determine the success of how this board will be judged.

First extreme is the guy in search of information or solutions to a problem. He may be an experimenter, a competitor, or interested in hunting performance. He is focused and expects detailed responses loaded with what his knowledge base rationalizes as facts. Go beyond what his level of expertise is prepared to comprehend and the information risks falling into the category of BS. If he feels thus, or is not satisfied, he may be aggressive or contrite. This attitude is bound to surface in his posts.

The second extreme is the guy that is comfortable in his knowledge base. He has progressed to where he simply uses casting and or shooting as a relaxing hobby. He is satisfied and he seeks out companionship amongst those that will understand him. He is courteous and civil and expects others to be the same. He pays this price by passing on what he has learned for the benefit of others. He tends to have written it all before, time and time again, and assumes that everyone understands this. So the response may not be detailed.

Guys that represent these two extremes may not understand each other but they have to learn. As members of this board, we constantly vacillate and gravitate between these two extremes depending on where our interests lie at the time. Nobody knows (or remembers :grin:) everything, so sometimes the teacher .... and sometimes the student.

As long as we, the membership, keep the focus on the message, and not the messenger, then both extremes should eventually get what they want and the success of this board continue.

[kodiak1]

How did the information get into the books in the first place (the stuff that is there)? By someone stepping out and testing it and trying and writing down his findings. Where would reloading or anything be if everytime something new was wanted to be tried or was tried that the results got censered?
If you read or see results that you think are false you aren't going to try them, and if you do censership is not going to help you.
Leave this forum for what it is informing and educating people that want to learn.
If you don't want to learn maybe go to one of the proven reloading websites.
Ken.

[Char-Gar]

Amen to Bruce... I had been fumbling around in the dark with cast bullets since 1959. I read what published material there was, but much of it didn't work. then in 1998 I stumbled on the the old Shooter.com cast bullet board and I learned more in the following six months that I had in the previous 49 years.

For the first time, the Internet allowed people to communicate and learn from each other. In the process myths were dispelled indeed the art and craft of cast bullets took a quantum leap forward.

This board is indeed different and should not have it's hand's tied to establish books that have been left in the dust years ago by this board.

This IS where it is at!! At least as far as cast bullets are concerned.

New folks would be well advised to listen and learn, and they will find out much of what they thought they knew really was myth and misinformation.

[45 2.1]

Ahhh, well, there is little new under the sun, provided you know where to look. A lot of what Bruce has done was published 40 or more years ago. All valid information in books and magazines that are long out of print and not available to the larger part of us.

[crazy mark]

I have reloading books from the 30's thru the 90's. A lot of the older books talk about powder that is no longer available or very anemic loads by todays standards. Some cartridges we now use weren't available back then. This board is a very good place for information. Before I found this site I did cause a little damage to a rifle and blew a few primers. I did have a cast reloading mentor and he always reloaded his rounds in the 1400-1700 fps range for rifles. For hunting I wanted a little hotter loads so I would have a better range. I have learned so much from this and the original shooters site that it's hard to remember it all. I would hope we can continue to share information. I don't see anybody forcing anybody to use loads that are published here. If I publish a load I always give the standard warning to start a little lower and work your way up. We can all learn as NOBODY has all the answers. I may tell the wife that but I know better. Mark

[waksupi]

I'm sure glad SOMEONE is looking into the stuff that was "KNOWN" 40 years ago! We have found much of it was full of shinola! That's why we are here!

[beemer]

The sharing of information, knowledge and experience is the foundation of this board, any restrictions would be a great loss. I am responsible for my actions and don't use information I am uncomfortable with.

beemer

[keeper89]

All I feel I need to add to this thread is that when I came here I had been casting for well over twenty years and in the couple of years since I have been a member I have become a much more successful caster than I would have ever dreamed possible. While I have not thanked everyone who has posted a tip that has helped me out (I don't think it would be possible) I do appreciate it and have not been shy about sharing information with my local casting friends. Proud to be a member of such an informative and mostly civil board!

[armoredman]

Amen to OP. I would never have even started casting if not for the extremely helpful, polite, enthusiastic and knowledgable people here. This board does tend towards the better informed on all aspects of handloading, as many a causal loader will shy away from casting - I did for years.
One needs to stretch the wings in order to fly. And today I fired my first ever handloads with my very own cast boolits. Dagnabbit, I may never spell that word right again!:castmine: :Fire:

[Jim]

Bruce,
Excellent writing, Sir! Well done!

[Bass Ackward]

Ahhh, well, there is little new under the sun, provided you know where to look. A lot of what Bruce has done was published 40 or more years ago. All valid information in books and magazines that are long out of print and not available to the larger part of us.


I would say that Bob is correct here. After I go back and re- read, I find that not much is new. In Lyman's manual of 1958 (?) guys talk of using Loverins at 2700 fps in 30 caliber. Just not how they did it.

But I would add that most guys wrote either in abstract as their cast knowledge grew or they wrote on narrow techniques based upon focused or limited research. And these guys were few. Very few, faced with an industry that was rapidly moving away from them with new guns, calibers, and bullets. We were passing into history. Now were coming back is all.



1. When I started with cast, every thing I had read at that time lead me to believe that there was a right way and a wrong way to make, load, and shoot a cast bullet. This is a major impediment to experimentation.

2. Coming from the first issue, cast bullets have limits of accuracy and velocity and we must accept what they are.

The real value of this board to me is not found in a guys results. It's found in the options and methods he used to obtain those results. These options offer hope.

That's why I don't like 1422 rules, or velocity ranges, RPM levels, or sizing standards, or ........... and the list goes on. Because if something stated can be found to have just ONE exception, then it is just a technique or guideline, just like everything else that I have experienced so far. Guidelines are good for beginners to get them shooting, but fail everyone in the end if they get accepted as fact.

There are no rules or limits for cast bullets. And this board prooves it every day.

[dubber123]

Last year I did some experimenting with an oddball cartridge/gun combo, and posted my findings on Graybeards. I had a busy schedule fending off attacks by people who seemed to think that because it wasn't easily found in printed word, it simply shouldn't be attempted. I post the same thing here, and I get questions and respectful comments. Quite a difference, and that is the reason I am here, and not at a site full of know it all loudmouths. Thanks guys.

[45nut]

The respect most of you mention is not a recent phenomenon, rather it was the spark behind my not wanting to lose the knowledge available to me via the crew posting in the cb room at shooters. Fond memories aside the topics were just as varied, from people confessing to self inflicted gun shot wounds to the acquisition of various and sundry firearms and the need to remove them from wall hanger status.
Unless truly flawed most arms relegated to the WHS are purely from the lack of ammo at the local marts. With careful application of the grey matter residing in the member rolls I daresay any gun can be supplied with suitable combustibles.
With a world wide reach the membership has resources of an amazing capability.
Every nation has acquired arms, some domestically and some from purchases from more capable nations. All of those arms were meant to be supplied with rather prodigious amounts of ammunition. A lot of those arms are available to many of us and we simply must shoot them.
If it were not for the imagination and creativity of men represented here we would be stripped of the use of many arms and that simply is wrong.
I certainly have many reasons to thank the membership in my own pursuits.
Thinking outside the box and respecting the efforts of our predecessors while determining our own path is paramount in the craft we represent.
Not willing to merely sit back and accept no for an answer we feel compelled to reach out and explore. Our use of surplus powders alone shows our determination .Blasting the old tales of woe and destruction with careful applications of the sharp minds and practical experience everyday, cast and glocks anyone?
Gluelits, another shining beacon of breaking the safe borders.

I look here for many reasons well beyond the humble boolit, I once again acknowledge the membership for sharing their experience, the friendship and the generosity shown everyday. A simple address on the www does not make a community, people do. Thanks to all of you.

[45 2.1]

I'm sure glad SOMEONE is looking into the stuff that was "KNOWN" 40 years ago! We have found much of it was full of shinola! That's why we are here!

I wouldn't call the writings of George Nonte or the Camp Perry long range match shooters from the 30's thru the 60's shinola. It all depends on what you were exposed to. They're the ones who kept the cast boolit tradition alive between us and the Scheutzen guys.

Thank You John!

[Bret4207]

I wouldn't call the writings of George Nonte or the Camp Perry long range match shooters from the 30's thru the 60's shinola. It all depends on what you were exposed to. They're the ones who kept the cast boolit tradition alive between us and the Scheutzen guys.

Thank You John!


I don't believe anyone here is intending to hold that everything written back then was garbage or gold. Same with no one writer always being right or wrong. Men like Nonte, Ned Roberts, Harold Mac Farland, Crossman, Loverin, Juras, Hagel, Ackley, etc, etc, etc gave us insight into what to look for. IMO the gist of what we're saying here is that we're re-discovering knowledge thats been forgotten and testing so called rules that have been passed down. Sometimes we find that those rules are pretty much dead on, other times they are in fact, so much bunk. There's no disrespect intended towards our predecessors. In fact I think most of us here would love to have the opportunity to read the old timers findings and opinions.

[trk]

I co-moderate a forum (on Blackpowder Mortars and Cannons) where we have gravitated to 4 simple rules: 1. Safety (no one is going to post if they're dead); 2. Legal (same reason but from jail); 3. FUN (that keeps folks attention); and 4. Polite (we don't want to drive folks off).

In the last 3-1/2 years we've only had to handcuff one or two individuals. I make it a personal challange to welcome EVERY first time poster - which has caught on to the extent that there are 8 or 10 folks who do the same.

That seems to generally be the atmosphere here; which is why I, for one, haunt this board.

With that said, I'm going off now to load a few for my "new" Martini Cadet in 30-30 and see if I can get get some right-much small groups.

[454PB]

Seems to me there are very few handloading/casting/shooting enthusiasts that are not eager to share what they have learned over the years.

I only wish a source like this was available 36 years ago when I cast my first boolits. There was precious little printed information, and a lot of what there was was inaccurate or highly opinionated.

My signature line expresses my thoughts on developing information and testing accepted methods and procedures. We are never too old to learn....one way or another.

[VTDW]

Seems to me there are very few handloading/casting/shooting enthusiasts that are not eager to share what they have learned over the years.

I only wish a source like this was available 36 years ago when I cast my first boolits. There was precious little printed information, and a lot of what there was was inaccurate or highly opinionated.

My signature line expresses my thoughts on developing information and testing accepted methods and procedures. We are never too old to learn....one way or another.

That is why you and those like you are so valuable to newbies like me.

Thanks,

Dave

[mike in co]

lets see, he can shoot, he can cast, he can do load development, puts up with crazy cast boolit shooters nearly every year!
.........and then out of the blue,
the man can put more than two words together in an EXCELLENT comentary.

well done

mike in co

[BOOM BOOM]

HI,
I HAD BEEN RELOADING & CASTING OVER 30 YRS. WHEN I FOUND THIS BOARD!
I started learning & remebering old forgoten info. immeitly(sp).
WELL SAID & TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN.
I have had 2 gun let go with LYMAN BOOK PUBLISHED LOADS the results of SEE.
SO EVERYTHING IN PUBLISHED MANUALS ISN'T ALL WAYS SAFE!

[Wayne Smith]

I come from a somewhat different perspective. The first bullet (ball) I ever cast was with encouragment and advice from Shooters.com. They helped me through my first cast boolit rifle (40-70BN) and then it went on from there. I had no experience other than condom reloading for the previous twenty plus years. I didn't know all the 'rules' until you folks proved them wrong. I thought it 'normal' to shoot rifle loads with rifle powders! BruceB's successful experiments with soft nose cast boolits were just part of my learning curve.

It wasn't until I purchased the CD verson of the Handloader Cast archive and started reading those articles that I began to realize how a great a resource this site, and Shooters.com is and was. Yes, some of you guys are the equal of those writers, in some ways their masters. I don't know that anyone outside of the ammo companies are experimenting as comprehensively as Dr. Mann did, and that means no one using cast boolits as far as I know. I do know that, without this site and some others, those using old cartridges would all be re-inventing the wheel over and over.

Thank You!!

[Buckshot]

...............Apropo of nothing whatsoever, I have Earl Naramores tome. Most of it is pretty interesting stuff from a bygone era. Most is still valid. One point that I found very hilarious (and it is because of hindsight only) his remarks vis a vis the US 30 M1 carbine and it's cartridge.

Basicly he says to not waste any time on it as it's a pretty worthless cartridge. He states that he doubts that it will ever enjoy much popularity, and continues in a similar vein for a paragraph or so detailing his reasons.

Actually his reasons are valid and were written before surplus carbines had been released to the public through the DCM and NRA, etc. Obviously he just really didnt have a handle on 'fun guns' :-)

................Buckshot

[Char-Gar]

I have read the bulk of the cast bullet literature from the end of WWII. There is lots of good information and some perpetuated myths as well. My problem with much (but not all) of this older stuff is the "gold and the garbage" were pretty well mixed together. It was hard to seperate what worked from what didn't work.

Also, there was not enough discussion of "why", but lots of statements as to "how". It was hard to discern principals that could be applied to cast bullet shooting in general.

In the past few months I have been re-reading the articles by Guy Loverine on cast bullets that ran in the American Rifleman back in the late 40's and early 50's. I find lots of good stuff there that I had missed before, because I didn't understand the principals when I read it the first time.

Without the knowedge I have gain on this board, the early writings would still be somewhat cryptic to me. As is, with the years on this board under my belt, I can get far more out of those early writings that I did the first time.

Perhaps others broke the code on these older writings long before me. My education and work has been in the areas of liberal arts, fine arts, humanities, theology and social sciences with nothing in the mechanical and technical fields.
My mind cannot break these hard science codes, others have to take me by the hand and lead me through those mazes. When these hard science and deep technical threads start, I just sit on the side and try to learn something as I have nothing to contribute.

For me, at least, this board has seperated the garbage from the gold, and made the gold understandable. Even so, this board has moved the craft much beyond where it was even ten or fifteen years ago.

[Andy_P]

It's true that there's very little new under the sun, and many "discoveries" can be found in the literature of years gone by. There also exists certain falsehoods in gun folklore and one refutes it at their peril.

To this day, all it takes is one person to suggest, for example, that a certain firearm (e.g. the Carcano) is inherently dangerous because they "know someone who heard of a guy that had one blow up on them", and it can take legs. A guy I know has taken to conduct "Proof Testing" on various allegedly weak firearms, and has been banned from several other boards and called a nut, despite his various caveats and warnings, and obvious scientific approach. Prophets of past like Gibbs and Ackley made some wild claims, but one dare not question them for fear of heresy. Some people will just cling to their beliefs, and will not let a few facts get in the way and sway them.

We can do a lot to keep things straight, and it will serve us well if we allow the experimenters and "Myth Busters" to air their research. Of course there wil be no shortage of critics to keep them honest.

[shooter575]

As BruceB said,This BB is diffrent from all the others.It is the closest thing to the old Shooters board on the web.[in some ways maybe better]I still look into a few others once in a while.On the whole they do not hold up to the standards I have come to love here. 45 nut has done the whole cast/reloading world a great service by draging us from home to home to keep the the great bunch here togther.Thank you buddy.
As we have expanded to our huge membership numbers there will be a few more problems comming up from time to time.I have faith that the [old dawgs] here will keep it to the standards we have come to expect.
Thanks to all of ya!

[45nut]

Jim,
It is I that is indebted to the membership, any efforts of mine would be quite pointless without the great minds that contribute daily to the board.

I do thank you for the compliment however. It is nice to be thought of as an asset to the further knowledge we can gain and for the progress we have made.
:cbpour:

I would like to point out The Gunloads connection has a great deal of kudo's due for the extremely generous hosting offered to us. We were languishing in obscurity at our former address and the move here was seamless, and quite successful. Since our move here we have nearly quadrupled our rolls and the down time is measured in milliseconds of our time on board the gunloads domain.
The continuing success of our board is in no small part credited to Willy's efforts and contributions.
Thank You Willy! :drinks:

[Bret4207]

It's true that there's very little new under the sun, and many "discoveries" can be found in the literature of years gone by. There also exists certain falsehoods in gun folklore and one refutes it at their peril.

To this day, all it takes is one person to suggest, for example, that a certain firearm (e.g. the Carcano) is inherently dangerous because they "know someone who heard of a guy that had one blow up on them", and it can take legs. A guy I know has taken to conduct "Proof Testing" on various allegedly weak firearms, and has been banned from several other boards and called a nut, despite his various caveats and warnings, and obvious scientific approach. Prophets of past like Gibbs and Ackley made some wild claims, but one dare not question them for fear of heresy. Some people will just cling to their beliefs, and will not let a few facts get in the way and sway them.

We can do a lot to keep things straight, and it will serve us well if we allow the experimenters and "Myth Busters" to air their research. Of course there wil be no shortage of critics to keep them honest.

Excellent point. There are a lot of guys who make assumptions based on hearsay or a gun mag article form 20 years ago. I've done it myself and seen my beliefs proven wrong. I kind of think it's reassuring that an old dog like me can still learn a few new tricks.

[VTDW]

Chargar,

Very astute and well written sir. These good folks are dragging me along also.:mrgreen:

Dave

[454PB]

A guy I know has taken to conduct "Proof Testing" on various allegedly weak firearms, and has been banned from several other boards and called a nut, despite his various caveats and warnings, and obvious scientific approach.


Would his name be Clark?