What makes you think so?

[Molly]

Hi guys,

Well, every so often I give in to the impulse to get on my soap box, and this is as good a time as any. We get a _lot_ of good posts here, and I've always been told I have to take the bad with the good, but ... Why in the world won't some folks actually test their notions before posting them to confuse new shooters?

A very early ballistic theory considered gunpowder a key to the gates of Hell . . . literally! There could be no question that the exploding powder pushed the infernal gates open for an instant. Why, you could see the puff of infernal flame and soot, and smell the burning brimstone for yourself! While the infernal gates were open, a tiny demon escaped through the flame, and rode the bullet out of Hades to attack the enemies of evil, who were good, honest, God-fearing soldiers like themselves (of course). The whine of a bullet passing near was the demonic passenger’s scream of frustration and rage because he'd missed! A larger, more malevolent demon could ride on the larger bullets, and burning more powder opened the gates of Hades a trifle wider, emitting more flame to push the bullet out a bit harder. That's why bigger guns were more powerful. The unpredictability of a musket ball in flight was obviously due to the chaotic nature of evil itself, and undersized balls in roughly cut and unrifled bores weren't even a consideration.

Go ahead and laugh. As pathetic as that theory may seem today, the men who conceived and believed it were neither foolish nor stupid! In the context of their time and culture, and within the limits of their knowledge, it was a perfectly reasonable explanation! It was in complete accord with their understanding of the world. It accounted for everything they saw and experienced, all tied up in a neat, logical and self-consistent theory. It was very reasonable. And it was totally wrong! Unfortunately, we still have the (spiritual) descendants of those men with us today, as evidenced by some of the posts I've seen on several cast bullet boards.

In their day, old wives tales that said leading was caused by lead rubbing off on rough bores, bullets ran out of lube due to too high velocity, tin floated to the top of a melt and dozens of similar notions were all so 'reasonable' that everybody believed them. Such fantasies have held cast bullet technology back for generations. And it's all because nobody seems to understand the importance of putting ideas to the test! They not only won't subject their glorious new insight to the humiliation of an actual test, they won't even consider common knowledge information that doesn't agree with it. Someone will come up with a 'reasonable' explanation for what he's seen, and posts it as THE explanation, where it seemingly resides forever to confuse new shooters, despite the little problem that it's in total disagreement with a full generation or more of reliable progress that IS proven by test.

And it would all be so easily avoided. Do you think that leading is caused by poor lubrication? OK, let's see you test it before you post it as gospel. Try different lubricants to see if you can scrape any lead off on a steel plate. Try them at different speeds. Try them at different temperatures. THEN post your results. NOT before.

Why do two different lubricants give such different accuracy with the same load, when both lubes do a fine job of preventing leading? Do you think you know? Then TEST IT before you let everyone know what you think.

OK, nearly at the end of my rant. I just get so tired of reading posts by people who obviously haven't even bothered to read results by well known, experienced, knowledgeable, careful, and sober testers like Col Harrison (and a few others I won't embarrass by mentioning names of living shooters). But they still feel so superior to such men that they are justified in posting half baked notions as real explanations, despite the total lack of any shred of supporting tests or evidence.

Yeah, maybe you DO intuitively know more than anyone else has ever known about shooting. But you'll improve your chances of a serious hearing with a bit of test data, and a coherent explanation of why previous theories were wrong. At the very least, you'll avoid being the subject of raucous laughter wherever serious and knowledgable shooters gather.

"Mankind has never been rational creature.
Mankind is merely a rationalizing creature."

OK, end of rant. Your turn. Anyone agree . . . or wanna take me to task?

Molly

[JSnover]

You're not wrong, Molly.
But human nature hasn't changed since the first identifiable humans developed the ability to share information. Sorry, but all we can do is try harder.[smilie=1:

[Molly]

But human nature hasn't changed since the first identifiable humans developed the ability to share information. [smilie=1:

Hmmm. There's a bad joke hidding in there ... something about descendants of monkeys wanting nothing but to make more monkeys out of themselves, but I can't quite pull it out.

Oh, and so's not to generate rants about evolution vs creation ... for those who can't tell, that was a joke in itself. I'm an ardent Dunker myself.

Molly

[Lead melter]

Molly,

I just got a chance to read your post. Very thought provoking and very well written "rant".

I do believe that some knowledge handed down from one to the next IS true, although it may never have been exposed to a standardized testing system. It has just been proven true time and time againin actual usage.

On the other hand, some information passed along is unsubstantiated and , in my opinion, should be subjected to a proper test procedure. Unfortunately, this may be a bit more than some can encompass given time and financial limitations.

This is not to say that all should accept it on face value simply because we may not have the resources to prove or disprove a theory. We should do what we can to prove or disprove the theory to ourselves and then possibly to others.

Personally, I am conducting some tests concerning how fast a pure lead boolit can be driven and still achieve a standard degree of accuracy. All factors cannot be considered in my tests, as the amount of different possibilities to test increases factorially with each additional variable. But I am doing what I can.

Once again, for the majority of your points I agree and would like to that you for your statements.

P.S. Check out my sig line. This could be changed a bit to fit what you said.

[Molly]

Hi Melter,

Thanks for your kind response. It's not that I would require absolute proof of every post: That would be impractical at best, and as you point out, there would be some folks who are simply not suited or trained to make tests.

But I DO believe that if someone has an idea that would explain why something happens, they owe it to the others to either post it as a point of discussion (Could it be that ...?) or to run a simple test or two to see if there could be anything to their notion. I'm not saying that they should have an industrial laboratory in their basement. Experiments don't take a BS degree to conduct. If you put a different grease on the ball bearings of your kids bike to see if it will roll more smoothly, you've just conducted an experiment. It doesn't take a bolt of lightening or a stroke of genius. It only takes some common sense. You won't 'prove' what a wonderful grease it is if you don't put it on the bearings. Put it on the bearings, for the lova Pete! THEN tell me how wonderful it is, if it outperforms all the other greases you have on hand.

An idea doesn't need to be "proven" to the nth degree. It only needs to have a simple test or two to see if there is anything to it at all. "Hey, this new grease worked wonders in my lawn mower, so I tried it on my kids bike, and it worked great there too. It's good enough that maybe we should take a look at it in a few other places too." That's all I'm looking for: some sort of test of the information offered. Just "We should look at this new grease" isn't enough. WHY should we bother? WHAT did you see that makes you think it's worthwhile? HOW did you test it to see if it is any better than the run of the mill?

If someone has an idea that he thinks will prevent leading and give MOA accuracy from pure lead cast bullets at 3000 FPS, that's great. But don't bother me with your speculation unless you've shot some pure lead at or near 3000 fps. Give me some evidence that you aren't pulling your ideas out of your ... nostrils. Anyone can get MOA at 3000 fps from pure lead. That does't impress me. What impresses me is when they still get those results after they've set down and pulled the trigger a few times over a chronograph, and they can repeat their results. THEN I want to listen to what he has to say.

When I developed COW loads, I tested the idea in different rifles and in different calibers, with different power levels and got near identical results over the entire spectrum before I published my results. But I'm a bit more particular than most folks about stuff like that. But if someone else came up with it today, I'd expect him to reproduce his results a few times using the same rifle, at the very least. Anyone who just announces that "I poured some COW in a load and didn't get any leading. This proves that ..." would richly deserve the scorn that I would hope would be his lot.

Your point that "I do believe that some knowledge handed down from one to the next IS true, although it may never have been exposed to a standardized testing system. It has just been proven true time and time again in actual usage." seems both true and false to me.

There is a lot of information and practices that have been established by prior usage, but the explanations given were often nonsense that would have never made it through the simplist actual testing. I'm old enough to remember when cast bullets simply couldn't be driven over about 1400 to 1600 FPS, because they were too soft, or because they ran out of lube, or because they didn't have gas checks, or because because because. Sometimes there was a kernel of truth: In those days, most cast bullets WERE too soft. But nobody actually TESTED it before Col. Harrison. We just assumed that bullets that looked so nice should shoot equally well. If they didn't, then they were obviously stripping the rifling ... But nobody tested the explanations! We just took it for granted that any logical explanation simply HAD to be correct, even if it conflicted with othre logical explanations. We must have had at least a dozen logical explanations for leading, but I'm ashamed to say NOBODY TESTED THEM! And there seems to be quite a few of us who still cling to that sort of folly.

OK, rant switch off again.
(BG)
Molly

[JSnover]

Hmmm. There's a bad joke hidding in there ... something about descendants of monkeys wanting nothing but to make more monkeys out of themselves, but I can't quite pull it out.

Oh, and so's not to generate rants about evolution vs creation ... for those who can't tell, that was a joke in itself. I'm an ardent Dunker myself.

Molly

Ha! I thought the same thing but decided not to go for it.

Anyway, it's easy to confuse facts with conventional wisdom, which is basically what you were getting at.
I think Mark Twain once said that just because you know something doesn't mean it's true.
I have a theory about quenching for consistency but without a proper thermometer and a hardness tester the experiments and the commentary won't be worth a hill of beans.

[45nut]

test..

[Blammer]

But that would be no fun!

You know everyone is an expert in their own mind! Don't go mudding the waters with facts and test data, cause anyone knows I can test and get the results I want. Now I got proof! You gonna believe me anymore now?

[calsite]

I believe the role of a mentor is to guide, I almost feel discouraged to post any thing else now unless I have some kinda documented proof that I can stand-by. I'm very thankful for all the guidance that I've received from (who I refer to as experts) like 45nut, felix, lumpie and such. Thanks. P.S. What casued this huge post in the first place?

[45nut]

Calsite,
If you are referring to my escapades of this morning.....

I was trying to "guide" actually, sometimes the connection between my mind and my mouse gets confused and the software doesn't interpret what I had intended.

I was merely trying to mind the true intent of this forum and making sure the above average content of the threads was upheld when the lock went on. my bad.

Molly's thread has some real potential once the discussions and mind tingling thoughts get a fair shake.

Back to topic.

[Molly]

... What casued this huge post in the first place?

Guilty as charged sir. But the detonator was recently reading some absolutely moronic 'wisdom' that was given as reliable information to 'guide' a new caster. And it wasn't the first such I've come across, and I can hardly monitor all new posts: the amount of garbage out there is remarkable. Granted, there are some real gems too, but for the new guys, it can be kinda like looking for momma's wedding ring in the bottom of the septic tank.

I'm old enough that I've seen enough ... garbage ... that I can pretty well tell where the smell is coming from, but the new guys - by definition - can't do anything except stroll down the primrose path. They have no experience to guide them except ours, and I fear we do not always acquit that responsibility with any credit. This is EXACTLY the sort of misinformation that Howard Thomas and I created the Cast Bullet Association to prevent: We wanted to provide solid, reliable information so new shooters wouldn't have to go through the same decades-long learning curves that Howard and I did.

Regards,
Molly

[Molly]

> You know everyone is an expert in their own mind! Don't go mudding the waters with facts and test data, cause anyone knows I can test and get the results I want. Now I got proof! You gonna believe me anymore now?

Well, I've seen enough 'predetermined results' to know it can and has been done. But the advantage of requiring a test report is to enable others to come right back and say "Yer fulla hooey (or sumthin'). I tried it and it didn't work at all."

Some folks are so desperate for recognition, praise and acclaim that they will do and say almost anything to get it. A recent post on this website claimed some rather remarkable results for cast bullets that was well beyond what lot of skilled and experienced shooters have been able to achieve. But it was noteworthy that when a few shooters requested / demanded a lot of specific details regarding the load, how it was assembled, the rifle it was used in, etc, the poster simply evaporated. I'm trying to encourage and motivate other responsible cast boolit shooters here (and elsewhere) to make others justify their claims as well. It'd sure cut down on the stuff we have to wade through to find Momma's ring.

Point made?

Molly

[Molly]

> Thanks for the great inputs, Molly. You must be a sister to a lady named Pat in my town - you sure think alike! She's a shooter who has put many an "expert" to shame, rebutting their "expert" opinions.

Ahem! My wife would be most disturbed to learn that I am Pat's sister, though she does sound like the kind of sister to have.

FWIW, 'Molly' is a nickmane derived from my family name, and - despite appearances - isn't indicitive of gender. It's rather like a lady named - say Sarah Harrison - getting the nickname of 'Harry'.

(ROFLMAO! I don't get one like that very often. But on reflection, it's such a natural mistake that I was careful to omit the sender's name, so's to avoid embarrasement. The REALLY funny thing is that when I was born, I was initialy named Patricia June. 'Tis the absolute truth, and no joke. But it was an accident caused by World War II - looonng story!)

Hmm. You know, my parents named my sister Patricia June, so I have to confess that Pat really IS my sister. (This just gets better and better!)

Maybe I'll change my signature to "Mr. Molly" - nah, this is too much fun.

Molly

[racepres]

P.S. What casued this huge post in the first place?

Been watchin it for a time.... I think that Molly sure can type lots better than me!!! MV

[grumpy one]

Molly, I agree that a lot of things that get posted don't sound correct to me. However that is about as likely to be because I'm wrong, as because the poster is. More likely than either, the case hasn't been set out clearly enough for us to be evaluating the same proposition.

When you ask people to accompany any post with some halfway decent proof, I think you set the bar too high. There are people who are either unwilling or unable to conduct experiments who nevertheless happen to be right. A fairly famous automotive engineer and inventor by the name of Charles F. Kettering once said, "There are these people who have experience, and sometimes it's surprising how much they know." (That doesn't mean they are able to offer proof though - sometimes that is a separate chore from gaining the clue itself).

What I think we can each strive to do, is to state whether we are offering an opinion/ personal conclusion or alternatively, we have specific observations to report, and we believe they suggest that something or other may be a fact. Our opinions are often wrong, and our inferences from evidence are sometimes wrong too. We should be ready to discuss our evidence, and only assert that we "know" what we physically saw and did. Observations are, hopefully, fact. Conclusions are much more prone to error.

[Molly]

... When you ask people to accompany any post with some halfway decent proof, I think you set the bar too high. There are people who are either unwilling or unable to conduct experiments who nevertheless happen to be right. ...

What I think we can each strive to do, is to state whether we are offering an opinion/ personal conclusion or alternatively, we have specific observations to report, and we believe they suggest that something or other may be a fact. Our opinions are often wrong, and our inferences from evidence are sometimes wrong too. We should be ready to discuss our evidence, and only assert that we "know" what we physically saw and did. Observations are, hopefully, fact. Conclusions are much more prone to error.

You make good points Grumpy. Yeah, even a blind hog finds an ocassional acorn, but people 'who are unable or unwilling' to test their notions should refrain from posting the same as as established fact. Otherwise, I think you are really restating my own position in different words. "What makes you think so?" isn't a demand for peer reviewed Einsteinian unshakable proof. It's a simple request for some evidence to support the view you have just put forth. It's a request for some reason not to file your views alongside 'the moon is made of green cheese'.

I'm making an admittedly weak and probably futile effort to imporve the quality of information fed to the new guys. If something is sheer speculation, that fine, but call it SPECULATION! If you've made a number of experimental observations that suggest a new and different understanding, that's better, but call it OBSERVATIONS. And if you've checked that new understanding in several tests and found that it really works, that's best of all, but call it TEST RRESULTS. I'm trying to prevent confusion between the tested and confirmed info and the speculation. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people "who are either unwilling or unable to conduct experiments" but still feel they have the right to put forth their half baked and unconfirmed notions as reliable facts.

No matter how sure someone might be to the contrary, the moon is NOT made of green cheese! And while they have the right to speculate in the face of all known evidence to the contrary, and while they have the right of free speech to present their speculations and convictions, that conviction does not justify presenting speculation as fact.

Molly

[Molly]

Been watchin it for a time.... I think that Molly sure can type lots better than me!!! MV

God Bless grammar and spelling checkers!

(VBG)

Molly

[calsite]

Wasn't sure what prompted the very lengthy thread of Molly. But had to rest my eyes a little after I got done reading it and all the attached discussions.

[JSnover]

What it boils down to is that we'll do each other a big favor by posting information that is true (tested!), accurate and safe. It's not wrong to question the Gurus (self-appointed or otherwise) and it's also not wrong to correct someone else or stand corrected by others.
Dynamite 'sweats' when it gets old or frozen. Years ago, one means of salvaging sweaty dynamite was to warm it in an conventional oven (I'll post some background on that when I get home, don't have the book with me right now) and the practice was not uncommon.
A lot of houses were blown up by people who "knew" it was safe to pre-heat their explosives for clearing stumps, etc.
Go figure......

[danski26]

If I may chime in also. The experienced shooters who constitute the majority here sniff the outrageous claims of the few on this board out very well. I have seen some of the well-known BS artists going unchallenged recently. I believe this may be for two reasons. We are tired of pointing out the transgressions and for "board harmony".

Furthermore, a poorly designed experiment or an erroneous interpretation of a test result is just as bad as offering untested theories as fact.

Gentleman, as a service to all new casters, of which I am one, please continue offering valid, germane theories and properly tested and analyzed conclusions.

P.S.
Everyone knows the moon is made of BLUE cheese! ;-)

[jhalcott]

Many times I will read some thing that I FEEL IS wrong but rather than get into a PEEing contest I allow other SANER and better communicators correct the errors. This IS better for the board AND ME. As I have a short temper.

[405]

Molly,
While I agree with the general premise of your rant.... there are limits as to the scientific method that any of us have at our disposal. There is a limit to how much of that can be or should be regurgitated as a qualifier to each post written. To think that the wheel has to be re-invented each time something is stated seems a little over the top. Many eyes here glaze over after about ten words and three short paragraphs of explanation.

I don't think Einstein re-invented the math tool of the calculus or the basic laws of physics as composed by Newton and many others to come up with his theories of relativity. He used the accepted basis and tools and worked with those foundations. He did extrapolate and interpret. Then.... built mathematical models based on both his original work and the work of many, many others before.

You have apparently worked quite a bit with filler over powder. Did you use absolute scientific method? Did you use real time pressure testing equipment? Did you employ high speed photography, thermography? Did you do enough tests to statistically resolve to 95% or 98% or 99% error? Did you multi-variate statististically test each variable? Did you present a complete paper to a certified peer review panel of ballisticians?

I use dacron filler once in a while. I use over powder wads for most all BPCR loads. I think I understand the basic physics of the internal ballistics involved in their use. Will I load and feel 100% comfortable in extrapolating your findings into my slightly different load?- Not in my lifetime. Will I try to extrapolate or interpolate a suitable COW load for use in an over bore or sharp shoulder angle bottle neck cartridge?- Not in my lifetime. Will I do the required very expensive destructive testing with the best available test equipment so I could feel 100% comfortable in "pushing the envelope" with previously unpublished, untested filler/COW/wad loads?- No.

I really admire your mastery of the language but your bar seems a little high. Also, the top is usually not a very secure place to be

[wiljen]

While I agree that we all have an obligation to be as certain as possible of what we are posting and not just forward what we have heard, I tend to agree with 405 that testing every possible theorem is neither possible or practical. Some tests require equipment well beyond the range of the average person here. Others require that so many factors be accounted for and in the proper sequence in a multivariate analysis so as to make it impossible. Lets take testing a bullet lube as our example.

If I test lube, I am assuming that each primer, powder charge, case, and bullet are exactly the same, and I strive to make that true within the confines of my equipment.

Each primer may be slightly different as the only testing I can do is to weigh them and even then I'm limited to the precision of my scales. The same goes for powder charge.

Cases can be measured and weighed, but differences in wall thickness at different points are possible.

Bullets can be measured, weighed, and tested for runout, again within the scope of my ability and the precision of my equipment.

Bullets will also weigh slightly different amounts depending on what lube is installed. Is the variation seen due to difference in weight or the content of the lube?

We assume the lube being tested is homogeneous and thus behaves exactly the same way every shot. The only way to prove this is to remove the lube from all the bullets and test it. The testing destroys the lube before it can be re-applied to the bullets and fired thus rendering the experiment useless.

How do you test primers? Once tested - how do you re-use them in your lube testing?

When all of this is done, I am still left with making the assumption that these elements are "close enough" that the differences viewed in testing can be attributed to the lube and not to some imperfection in my technique or my equipment.

Asking others to repeat the test serves to introduce other variations in technique, equipment, and components.

With all the variables we simply cannot control adequately to prove a theory, we are left with best effort and the preponderance of the evidence available to us.

[grumpy one]

Wiljen, I think there are conventional ways to manage most of the risks you mentioned. For example, if we randomly assign primers to cartridges, over a large enough experimental sample it becomes moderately unlikely that primers are then a source of bias between groups of tests. To keep the overall variance from swamping what we are looking for, we try to minimise the variance by being consistent: we only use one brand of primer and we take them all from the same batch, for a single experiment. However if we were to use primers sequentially and run tests sequentially, we would indeed have experimental bias rather than excessive variance. We manage that risk by priming cartridges with randomly selected primers from all of the trays we are going to use, and carrying out our series of tests in random sequence rather than, say, in the sequence of which bullet is involved, or which powder charge, or whatever. Then, when we examine the results and suspect we see a regularity, we posit that regularity as a hypothesis, and set about testing it in a focused way. We also pass on the hypothesis to our colleagues as a hypothesis, and we hope that some of them will seek to test in in completely different ways from the way we tested it. Most likely, others will also try to replicate our own tests. If all that is done, we may end up with a hypothesis that has been extensively tested and has not been falsified so far. Like Newtonian physics, hypotheses that cannot yet be falsified and seem to provide accurate guidance, are useful tools for us to use until we can acquire better ones.

[Molly]

> ... there are limits as to the scientific method that any of us have at our disposal.

I hope you won't take offense if I disagree, at least in principle. Einstein had NO laboratory and essentially no money as a minor clerk in Geneva. But like all of us, he had a brain. He conducted what he referred to as 'thought experiments'; Hmmm. What would happen if ...' We may vary in the potency of the ammo at our disposal, but nobody with the native wit to assemble munitions can be described as completely unarmed in that respect.

But I think you've missed the thrust of this thread, which is a simple request that postings be represented honestly, and with whatever supporting evidence that the poster may be able to summon. If there is no evidence to hand, that fine, but a cautionary note of "I think it might be that ..." is appropriate. Don't post it as "That's because ...." unless you have at least SOME evidence to back it up, even if it's only what others have posted that seem to support the explanation.

> You have apparently worked quite a bit with filler over powder. Did you use absolute scientific method? Did you use real time pressure testing equipment? Did you employ high speed photography, thermography? Did you do enough tests to statistically resolve to 95% or 98% or 99% error? Did you multi-variate statististically test each variable? Did you present a complete paper to a certified peer review panel of ballisticians?

No, nor did I pretend to. I made an accidental observtion, which led to some speculation, which in turn led to some reasonable experiments to detremine if there was any validity. When it appeared so, I then expanded the testing to include a variety of calibers, case designs, rifles, etc to see if there were any gross limitations to it. I tried greater and lesser amounts of COW, and in low, medium and high power loads. When it appeared that the technique applied over a wide range of guns, powders, charges, bullets and calibers, I then published exactly what I'd done, and the results I'd gotten - the 'supporting evidence - if you will.

I don't ask - or expect - that level of dilligence from the fellow who casts a few bullets in the evening so's he can go shooting on Saturday. But I DO expect - or at least hope for - him to notice when something unusual or unexpected happens, and to wonder why. If his time, resources and inclinations enable him to follow up, that's great. If not, there's nothing wrong with him posting a note that says he saw something he doesn't understand, and wonders if anyone can explain it. But I have a problem with him jumping to an unsupported conclusion - often in conflict with well established principles - and posting it as a grand new insight.

> ...your bar seems a little high. Also, the top is usually not a very secure place to be

"My" bar for postings is nothing but common, ordinary honesty, integrity and refrainment from misrepresenting what was noticed or done. I hardly see how it could possibly be lowered without destroying the value of the posting.

As for being at 'the top', you do indeed misperceive me: I am nowhere near "the top", which is the elevated residence of men like Dr. Mann, Col Harrison, Phil Sharpe, Elmer Keith, Ned Roberts, Harry Pope, Townsend Whelen and their like. Their reputations and achievements were due to lifetimes of dedication and hard work. My modest achievements may not be without interest and value, but they really fall into the 'blind hog and acorns' classification, and were never represented to the contrary. They were more by accident than design, and don't qualify me to move in next door to any of these gentlemen.

Molly

[felix]

Molly, you can live next door to me if you like. I can sure use someone like yourself with the gift of communication. It is difficult to transform ideas, and most especially math which represents them, to the average person's ability to comprehend. However, it is much easier to relay the relevant physicals and emotions, using a smattering of intelligence and spiritualism in that order. In real life, however, the order works backwards: Wasn't it Julius Verne (20K leagues below sea) who came up with the idea of nuclear energy? Then maybe Niels Bohr (sp) with the idea of bringing it up through the math stage with a little help from somebody named Hamilton who had to create a new mathematical operation to make it happen? And, then checking with Alfred Einstein about the philosophy of using the new fangled math? Finally, wasn't it Oppenheimer who was selected to put it all together after he understood (finally) for a live test? ... felix

[wiljen]

I think there are conventional ways to manage most of the risks you mentioned. <SNIP> If all that is done, we may end up with a hypothesis that has been extensively tested and has not been falsified so far. Like Newtonian physics, hypotheses that cannot yet be falsified and seem to provide accurate guidance, are useful tools for us to use until we can acquire better ones.

I agree there are ways to manage and minimize risk. That is different than removing the risk which is exactly what I was trying to point out. We minimize the things we don't want to contribute, but we cannot guarantee they are eliminated entirely. Changes from one experiment to the next can be attributed to multiple factors. For example, you reproduce my experiment with a different lot of primers (same brand) and a different lot of powder. Is the velocity variation observed, if we both use the same charge weight, caused by hotter primers or a different burn rate? How could this be determined within the confines of the experiment?

[Bass Ackward]

Show me a fact in the shooting world today?

We all know levers aren't accurate. Or at least aren't as accurate as bolt guns. But we have guys turning in groups with LLA for lube over 2000 fps that would not have them come in last place in a bench rest competition with bolt rifles that cost many times the price. Does that mean all levers are bench guns? All loads? No. But someone had the gumption to try and succeeded. And I for one am glad they did.

The history of successful shooting is based on statistics. Good and bad. Every time you pull the trigger, you may believe that you are protected by mathematics and fact, but it is a collection of .... facts called statistics that establish safety.

Somewhere out there is a guy who is on his soap box because he is shooting reduced loads with his favorite cast bullet powder, H-110 and saying that all these reports of problems with it are crap because he has fired thousands of rounds in multiple cartridges and his testing has never produced a single problem.

Elmer said there was no place for bullets heavier than 280 grains in 44 caliber. He recanted that one about 30 years later admitting he missed the boat. But too bad, it was already a published record. Should he have waited for .......... the facts?

Elmer said that there was no place for a GCs on handguns bullets based upon his testing. I guess the proliferation of GCs that eventually went on to become full length jackets meant that others saw things differently from him.

In fact, a person believing in the fact of the superiority of jacketed bullets would question the sanity of all of us for even trying to shoot lead. So by nature, we are swimmers up stream.

People here report what they see when they see it. If there is one single exemption to the crowd or rule, then it ain't fact. If someone else betters something, isn't it better to understand what logic that person used to go in that direction in the first place? Consider this: If poor Elmer was alive today and tried to post that 11 BHN mix at 34,000 psi load of his, someone on this board would pull out a factual Lead Hardness Chart and call him a liar. Even if that load failed for everyone else, would that make Elmer wrong for posting it?

I can read the party line in a Lyman manual. And everyone should start there. But even there, facts change from manual to manual.

[Molly]

> Molly, you can live next door to me if you like.

Thanks for the offer Felix. Might be fun, but I suspect moving costs would ruin me. (BG)

> ... In real life, however, the order works backwards: Wasn't it Julius Verne (20K leagues below sea) who came up with the idea of nuclear energy? Then maybe Niels Bohr (sp) with the idea of bringing it up through the math stage with a little help from somebody named Hamilton who had to create a new mathematical operation to make it happen? And, then checking with Alfred Einstein about the philosophy of using the new fangled math? Finally, wasn't it Oppenheimer who was selected to put it all together after he understood (finally) for a live test?

Yeah, we all build on the achievements of those who have gone before us. Did you see the PBS series 'Connections' of a few years back. Maybe a couple of decades back by now. Time flies when you get old ...

Molly

[pjh421]

FWIW,I'm with Kent.

Paul

[Molly]

Bass Ackward;

I don't quite understand how it happened, but I seem to have give some folks the impression that I'm calling for absolute academic proof of any statement in a posting. Please let me correct that and re-emphasize that I'm calling for absolute HONESTY of any statement in a posting. IOW, don't say that something is true, if you don't have some evidence that it IS true. And if it's something not generally accepted, GIVE THE EVIDENCE why you think so. (Refer to the topic of this thread!)

Do you want to claim that lever actions are accurate? Fine. But report what makes you think so, and since accuracy is a relative term, it would be nice if you could quantify your claim a bit.

Do you want to claim that H-110 is fine in rifles? OK, do it. But tell us the loads that make you think so, and perhaps do a little speculating on why they are different from the H-110 loads that others have had problems with.

> People here report what they see when they see it. If there is one single exemption to the crowd or rule, then it ain't fact.

True, but be careful in deciding that something is an exception instead of a clue to the next genertion of cast bullet technology: Ten thousand loads with powder X may give the same result, except for the 10,001st shot. That one does something else. Now is that really an exception that proves the first 10,000 lied to us, or did the last shot have something different about it? A little greater jump to the throat, perhaps, or a new lot of primers that vary every so slightly from those used before. If you notice a difference, try to figure out what might have happened, and test your notions! Who knows, maybe you'll provide the next step forward in Cast Bullets.

Molly

[Molly]

While I agree that we all have an obligation to be as certain as possible of what we are posting and not just forward what we have heard, I tend to agree with 405 that testing every possible theorem is neither possible or practical. ... With all the variables ..., we are left with best effort and the preponderance of the evidence available to us.

Wiljin,

This is getting a bit out of hand. I've never said - and have repeatedly denied - that every possible nuance of every possible variation should be exhaustively explored before results are posted here. All I've said (in summary) is that postings which differ notably from accepted practices and beliefs should contain the information that makes the poster believe that what they say is true.

It isn't enough to say that the moon is made of green cheese. You need to say that you've been there and tasted it. :mrgreen: Otherwise, just say that the moon MIGHT be made of green cheese, because your brother-in-law told you so.

Sheesh!!

Molly

[Dale53]

In all of this thread, one thing has been overlooked. There are those of us who have done our "proving" in the arena of competition for many years. I have shot in front of my peers over this country in many areas - smallbore, bigbore, BPCR Silhouette, Muzzleloaders, and Pistol, both NRA and IPSC as well as competitive trapshooting, at local, Regional, States (plural) and International levels. When I write about something, you can rest assured that I HAVE DONE IT and done it where people can see (and LOTS of them). Or, as the man said, "In front of God and everybody". So, I don't have to prove anything else to anyone. I offer my experience (and qualify it if necessary) and then they can use it or not.

Just another viewpoint.

However, having said that, Molly is NOT necessarily wrong in his comments.

Dale53

[danski26]

Blue Cheese!!!!!

[Molly]

In all of this thread, one thing has been overlooked. There are those of us who have done our "proving" in the arena of competition for many years. ... When I write about something, you can rest assured that I HAVE DONE IT ... I offer my experience (and qualify it if necessary) and then they can use it or not. ...
Dale53

Dale,

Folks like you are not the type who are going to mislead new guys with unproven off-the-wall notions that have no foundation. So you aren't the problem I was trying to address. The simple fact that you recognize the need to qualify a response from time to time shows that you understand the need to keep your answers reasonably accurate and authoritative.

I was trying to address those who mislead new folks, who are essentially defenseless: When they find some jerk who informs them that tin, being lighter than lead, will float to the top of a melt, and needs to be stirred back in from time to time, they can be led astray very easily. They have little experience to guide them, and they tend to rely heavily on what they find posted here and elsewhere. On the other hand, there are still folks who can make legitimate unexpected advances that the rest of us don't know about yet, despite our experience. In trying to limit the damage by the former, I sure don't want to hinder the advances of the latter.

The simple questions like "What makes you think that? What do you think caused that?" are both inoffensive and their answers give the information needed to divide the two types of posters.

Molly

[rhead]

Some of the information is emperical evidence. If I am getting 2 inch groups with my hornet and change the oven temp that I heat treat the bullets at and the group shrinks to 1.25 inch it does not mean that this will be THE TEMP for heat treating all bullets. It didn't even work for my alloy in my 270!
At the present time I do not have the ability or the time to determine the why.
About the only thing that I know for a fact is that you should only change one thing at the time , keep good notes, and a good sense of humor.
The problem usually arises when people see their experiences and decide that it is a universal fact. The ones who just make up something is another matter, I can't stop them, I think that I can usually spot them.
Note to newbies. Take all internet data with a grain of salt. Even if something worked for someone else it may not be the solution for your problem. Check it out first for safety before trying it.

[Molly]

> Some of the information is emperical evidence. If I am getting 2 inch groups with my hornet and change the oven temp that I heat treat the bullets at and the group shrinks to 1.25 inch it does not mean that this will be THE TEMP for heat treating all bullets. It didn't even work for my alloy in my 270!

That's a perfectly valid posting. Not a thing wrong with it. You told what you did and what happened as a result. Then you tried to expand on that, and found it wasn't universal. Nothing wrong with that either. It doesn't HAVE to be a universal result. It COULD mean that quench temperature optimum is different for different calibers. It COULD mean nothing more than your Hornet and your 270 loads were at different pressures. It COULD mean that the rifles have different throat geometries. But you didn't jump to a conclusion and post it as gospel. Ya done good!

> The problem usually arises when people see their experiences and decide that it is a universal fact.

Yes, and that is from the guys who do so in good faith. There are a lot of well-intentioned fellows who would - in all good faith - post that he'd discovered the perfect quench temperature. And I'm afraid I know some - reasonably knowledgable - individuals whose operating principle seems to be self-aggrandizement.

Molly

[JSnover]

That's the advantage of a group like this. None of us knows everything but everyone knows something.
If it doesn't add up, question it. If you've been there and done that, add another post to the thread.
People who don't know enough to question the data can take it as gospel and waste a lot of time and money getting mediocre results. Worst case; they could get hurt.
If no one ever questioned a "known fact" once in a while we'd still live in caves.........

[rhead]

[If no one ever questioned a "known fact" once in a while we'd still live in caves.........

[smilie=1:Everybody knows that them holes in the mountians is dark and damp. Don't go in there. stay outside. Dont't eat that meat either. It's been burend by that fire stuff.:-D

[Dale53]

Molly;
NO offense, I understand your position and frankly, mostly, you are correct. I, with a bit of a "red face" remember myself and a friend, both with considerable mechanical ability, trying to properly adjust a new Remington Automatic trap at the local gun club. We had "pondered and pondered" and were not having much luck getting exactly what we wanted out of the trap. A green kid of about 19 years of age with absolutely NO experience with these traps was standing looking over our shoulders. He made a suggestion, I examined what he had to say, and he absolutely had the answer. We made the necessary adjustment he pointed out and the trap started behaving nicely! That old phrase, "Out of the mouth of babes" came to mind.

That punctured my personal arrogance just a bit and I often think of that when I get a little "too important" from time to time. Incidentally, that "kid" has been a friend of mine for about forty years, pretty much starting on that day behind the trap:-D.

I occasionally come up with something original, but most of what I know has been passed on down from countless others. One thing my Daddy taught me (and he was extremely firm about it) that it is a sin to not share with others. He was a precision tool maker by profession and he had to learn practically EVERYTHING he knew on his own. During his days in the shops, old workers would NOT share anything with a new young man. They considered it "Job Security" and just would not share. It left him with a STRONG lasting impression. My personal strength, if I have any at all, is evaluating what works and what doesn't and trying to correlate suggestions or directions from others into a workable whole.

I have been rather lucky in my shooting, seeming to find what works rather easily by extensive reading and evaluating (and personal contact with successful practitioners). I had to smile when you mentioned Elmer Keith, Townsend Whelan, E.H. Harrison, and others. I, too, had them as my mentors through their writing and feel privileged to have met a few of them.

My pet peeve on the forums is the near automatic trashing of people who have made extensive contributions in their writings to the shooting sports. Yes, even E.H. Harrison, with all of his selfless efforts on behalf of the cast bullet community (heck, his work BUILT the successful cast bullet fraternity). Also, a lot of modern writers who have given much have been hung with the tag of "gun writer trash" or worse. One thing that I have learned over the years is that criticism is easy. Doing, well that is something else altogether...

So Molly, thanks for a thought provoking thread.

Dale53

[Molly]

Dale53,

Thanks for your understanding. I think your father and I would have been good friends. Hope so anyhow. And you are dead right about Col Harrison's work being the foundation of modern cast bullet shooting. Sure wish a few more of the newer guys had / would read his work: concise, accurate, with supporting evidence and descriptions of test methods and results. And a trace of wry humor too. I don't think I'll ever forget his "Economy is a worthwhile objective, but when it leads you to select materials that guarantee failure, you might want to reassess your system of values." (maybe a _slight_ mis-quote, but should be pretty accurate.)

Now for another suggestion: I'm not sure I've seen anything really new posted here for a while, and I'm reminded of the advice to the novice violinist: "Start at the beginning, go through the middle, and stop when you come to the end." Are we at the (useful) end of this thread? Should we ask the monitors to wrap this one up? Your thoughts and comments please.

Regards,
Molly

[Dale53]

I would like to make one more comment by way of a "story". Some years ago, when I first started in BPCR Silhouette shooting (I was pretty much "brand new") I met a gentleman ( who later became a good friend) who was a local Champion shooter in the sport. In fact, as I got to know him better,I learned that his skill would have placed him at the top Nationally had he shot the circuit. At any rate, he showed me how to produce my own Emmert's Home Mix lubricant for Black Powder. I tried it and found that it was very similar to the much more expensive SPG by actual tests. I was using it (still kind of new to the sport) with some success, and was discussing BP lube with a mutual acquaintance. Emmert's is 50% pure natural beeswax, 40% Crisco Shortening, and 10% Canola Oil. This mutual acquaintance told me that Emmert's wasn't worth S*** as a bullet lube. "He had tried it and it didn't work". Keep in mind that this mutual acquaintance was spotting for the Champion friend who was setting new records locally using Emmert's! I asked the acquaintance what he used in "his" Emmert's. He told me the three constituents he was using and two of the three were totally different!! In effect, in spite of the shooting example right in front of him, he ignored the specific instructions and made a completely different product THAT DIDN'T WORK! Then, he badmouthed the REAL product...

Sure makes one wonder...

Incidentally, I used Emmert's for fifteen years and had excellent results with this. One of my most notable efforts was a ten shot group at 500 yards of 8". I got caught by a 180 degree shift in the wind on two shots - 8 shots were in 6". This was done with a Browning Highwall in 40/65 with 100% black powder. It was done in front of witnesses. I have also shot a good number of 1.0" groups (five shots) at 100 yards with this rifle. These were done with scopes. At the beginning I could do about as well with iron sights (all of the competition was done with iron) but as I got older, and older I lost some of my iron sight ability due to Glaucoma and cataracts.

My part in the thread is over...

Dale53

[JSnover]

Now for another suggestion: I'm not sure I've seen anything really new posted here for a while, and I'm reminded of the advice to the novice violinist: "Start at the beginning, go through the middle, and stop when you come to the end." Are we at the (useful) end of this thread? Should we ask the monitors to wrap this one up? Your thoughts and comments please.

Regards,
Molly

I'd say the point has been made pretty clearly, Molly. Thanks for opening the dialog and for expressing it so well.

I'm out.

[HollandNut]

I think Molly's point is spot on .. if you're gonna put something up , have some basis to your comments ..

The good Colonel Harrison and Elmer were my heroes .. :drinks:

[gon2shoot]

Don't try to confuse me with the facts, my minds made up :roll::-D:-D

[357maximum]

Don't try to confuse me with the facts, my minds made up :roll::-D:-D

Hi this is Mike from the federal gov'ment, we are scouting for potential employees and we think you have what it takes to become one of US. We will need you to pass a few tests and interviews first but you seem like a highly qualified candidate. If hired we will need you to do some studies on a few issues that have come up recently, the work should be fairly simple, the hours are short, and we already have the results for you to include in your reports at the conclusion of each "STUDY"..


sin sorely

Michael
lead recruiter U.S B.S Facts and Truths Beer-o



P.S

JFK was not shot, he fell off a moss covered log while hiking, the rest we made up to save some indignity and maintain respect for the office....and we feel pretty proud of the quality of our work, making him move in that car sure was tricky............whew I have just been dying to tell someone that.

[leftiye]

I think Molly's point is spot on .. if you're gonna put something up , have some basis to your comments ..

The good Colonel Harrison and Elmer were my heroes .. :drinks:

Holland Nut, that which follows is not pointed at you (truely).

I understand the sentiment that opinions without data may (I'd say - should) be suspect. BUT that's okay, they can be viewed as simply "food for thought", concepts offered as fuel for an intellectual discussion and one SHOULD consider them, they MIGHT enlighten you!. People who refuse to consider concepts (which in many cases are pretty much a priori, and will stand by themselves) without test results p!$$ me off. It's just them saying "I'm right, and I'm so right that I won't even answer that" (or actually don't want to answer it at all, it's just something that would prove me wrong). If you doubt it YOU can test it for yerself if you want to! If you can't figger it out for yerself, then take the word of someone who can.

Just being the devil's advocate here. I'd rather acquire some facts too, but I also think that I can figger many things out very well thank you without doing a double blind test. Also, there's a basis for other thangs than scienticic results - which themselves, as has already been pointed out, can be suspect - "See, my test proves MY hypothesis," (like you'd let it prove you wrong)!

[Molly]

...I understand the sentiment that opinions without data may (I'd say - should) be suspect. BUT that's okay, they can be viewed as simply "food for thought", concepts offered as fuel for an intellectual discussion and one SHOULD consider them, they MIGHT enlighten you!. ...
I also think that I can figger many things out very well thank you without doing a double blind test. Also, there's a basis for other thangs than scienticic results - ...

Leftiye, I think you've misunderstood the point, or perhaps I didn't state it clearly. I, of all people, have no problem with speculation so long as it is identified as such. Most progress is actually made by someone speculating that something MIGHT be true, and if it is, that means that ___ should happen when you do ____.

My problem with speculation comes when someone draws a 'reasonable' conclusion from speculation, and then presents it as proven fact without bothering to do anything to find out whether it's true. That's how we get utterly false 'old wives tales' like bore leading being due to filings scraped off the passing bullet by rough bores. It seems so reasonable, but there's not a speck of truth in it. And all the new guys are (used to be) presented with it as factual. How can they (or anyone) make progress if their work is based on false data?

No, I don't think that every statement requires a ten year double blind study, but if it's presented as fact, there should be SOMETHING behind it.

As for a basis other than scientific results, you and I will simply have to disagree. All examinations of physical phenomenon are, by their nature, scientific. It doesn't require a university degree to ask yourself "What would happen if I ...", and then testing to find out what happens. That's all it takes to be a scientist: Someone with the curiosity to wonder, and the initiative to try to find the answer. It doesn't take a degree, and it doesn't take a laboratory.

Molly

[leftiye]

So you wouldn't accept anything not accompanied by some sort of test? I know you didn't say that. I'm just kinda confused about you and I supposedly disagreeing on there being anything else but a scientific basis that is acceptable. I agree about how easy some sort of test is to perform. Most of our new trial reloads fall into that category if I understand you correctly. They certainly result in changes to out understanding, and are empirical. Why then isn't the understanding so obtained to be accepted? I'd say it's worse to say "my test proved this" when it didn't, than to say "I've found such and such to be the case" and not provide proof. The latter may only be an opinion based on 40 years of studying guns in all of their aspects. Not worth much?

[badgeredd]

Molly,
Thank you.
I'm a newbie here, and with cast boolits. I appreciate what you are saying after having read a heck of a lot of posts. I am amazed by how helpful some are and how ridiculously ignorant of well intentioned questions others are.
I am not a professional gunsmith, but I've built many rifles from ex-military actions and a few from commercial actions. I am not an expert, but have come across a few posts that I have felt were downright dangerous with the mis-information that was given as fact.:(
When it comes to shooting cast lead, I am an idiot. I'm trying to learn. One thing I appreciate from some of the posts is the inclusion of a book title and it's author. THEN I can read it and learn from it too. There a a few members here that I have felt comfortable with to the point, that I have asked for their opinion via a PM. They have shared their OPINION with me and stated it as such. I believe this is what you have said you'd like to see. BTW, the reason I asked via PM is I felt the individuals would give me an honest answer, even if it was "I don't know".
I for one hope to be an asset to this forum in the future, through the passing on of known, provable, and documented (if only in my own limited experience....and so stated) facts.
THANKS for the thread.:drinks::-D

[Molly]

So you wouldn't accept anything not accompanied by some sort of test? I know you didn't say that. I'm just kinda confused about you and I supposedly disagreeing on there being anything else but a scientific basis that is acceptable. I agree about how easy some sort of test is to perform. Most of our new trial reloads fall into that category if I understand you correctly. They certainly result in changes to out understanding, and are empirical. Why then isn't the understanding so obtained to be accepted? ...

No, I didn't say that, and hope you carried a bit more away for our discussion. Let me try it a different way: There's a concept usually expressed as "Extraordinary statements require extraordinary proofs." For example, a statement of well established rules or results don't require any evidence. "Flu vaccine has been shown effective in preventing many respiratory infections." requires no further comment. On the other hand, "Flu vaccines have been shown to cause cancer and syphilis." will require overwhelming and compelling evidence.

If you want to make an astonishing statement on the basis of a reload test, you need to be prepared for some rather sharp questioning. And no, I don't consider the results of a typical reload as a scientific test. It may be correct. It may be quite interesting. It may also be valid and important. That could make it a discovery, but it is not a scientific test because you aren't testing anything. You are simply assembling components and checking accuracy. Nothing wrong with that, but it should be reported as such: "You know, I was firforming some cases with COW, and the bore was clean and bright when I was done."

A scientific test begins with a speculation: "Gee, I wonder what would happen if I loaded some COW with cast bullets?" Or "I wonder if COW would stop leading." Then you work out a way to test that speculation. "You know, I could check that by just ____." And when you post the results, tell what and how you tested, the results you got, and what you think they mean.

Better now?
Molly

[Molly]

Molly,
Thank you.
I'm a newbie here, and with cast boolits. I appreciate what you are saying after having read a heck of a lot of posts. I am amazed by how helpful some are and how ridiculously ignorant of well intentioned questions others are.
... I am not an expert, but have come across a few posts that I have felt were downright dangerous with the mis-information that was given as fact.:(
... THANKS for the thread.:drinks::-D

No, thank YOU badgeredd. That's exactly what I was seeing, and trying to point out with this thread. New guys are NOT well served by loading them up with nonsense about how tin floats to the top of a melt, or any other old wives tales.

I'm not saying that some might not have a trace of truth, but if you want to pass them along to the new guys, you have to tell why you think it is still valid information. Or if you advise them not to follow the latest technology, you need to say why you don't think it's true.

Too many of us (and I've been guilty too) have passed along the same old stories without thinking. Something sounds logical, and we assume it must be true: "Leading is caused when bits of lead are filed off the bullet by a rough bore, and are melted by the hot gas from the buring gunpowder." Horse pucky. Logical it may be. True, it bloody sure isn't. There is so much that isn't intuitive! Adding 10% more powder SHOULD result in 10% more pressure - if logic is to be believed. I suggest you don't believe it, unless you have guns and eyeballs to spare.

Molly

[leftiye]

First let me say that my first post here was not aimed at you either Molly. It was aimed at a more general concept "you."

I like your response to Badgeredd much better than I do your last one to me. I can accept what is said there. It sounded to me that you, as others here are trying to do, were limiting acceptable statements (what would be listened to and dealt with) to those that were presented along with some sort of scientific proof. From that last post I can see more clearly what you are actually advocating.

Let me say again that I have no problem with facts, or data, or information (whatever you may want to call this). Facts may confuse us, but we need them. I agree that our reloading experiences are not tests, but they're not meant to be. However, the data derived is just as valid as a controlled test if interpreted accurately. And valid should count. Experience is after all reality, and though we see reality through our perceptive filters, and not totally accurately, much of what we know that is valid comes from our experiences with reality. After that, then we maybe should test.

All I was taking exception to was that though the state of the art may be flawed (will be until some time after hell freezes over), it is non functional to try to only deal with scientific results. You have to start with the "latest technology" (as you put it) is all that I'm saying. And that basis has to be accepted without test results types of proof. As I said, the generally known latest technology may be flawed, but reality is where the advancement of civilization has gotten to at any given moment, and that is the only place where you can start on any given issue. Others here would seem to want to set themselves above the "latest technology" or the "commonly accepted concepts" and dismiss it if it doesn't suit their needs or agree with them (no test results).

[Molly]

First let me say that my first post here was not aimed at you either Molly. It was aimed at a more general concept "you."

I like your response to Badgeredd much better than I do your last one to me. I can accept what is said there. It sounded to me that you, as others here are trying to do, were limiting acceptable statements (what would be listened to and dealt with) to those that were presented along with some sort of scientific proof. From that last post I can see more clearly what you are actually advocating.

Let me say again that I have no problem with facts, or data, or information (whatever you may want to call this). Facts may confuse us, but we need them. I agree that our reloading experiences are not tests, but they're not meant to be. However, the data derived is just as valid as a controlled test if interpreted accurately. And valid should count. Experience is after all reality, and though we see reality through our perceptive filters, and not totally accurately, much of what we know that is valid comes from our experiences with reality. After that, then we maybe should test.

All I was taking exception to was that though the state of the art may be flawed (will be until some time after hell freezes over), it is non functional to try to only deal with scientific results. You have to start with the "latest technology" (as you put it) is all that I'm saying. And that basis has to be accepted without test results types of proof. As I said, the generally known latest technology may be flawed, but reality is where the advancement of civilization has gotten to at any given moment, and that is the only place where you can start on any given issue. Others here would seem to want to set themselves above the "latest technology" or the "commonly accepted concepts" and dismiss it if it doesn't suit their needs or agree with them (no test results).

We're getting closer Leftiye, but I don't think you read my post carefully. I never said that reloading experiences didn't give valid data. In fact, I said quite the opposite: 'I don't consider the results of a typical reload as a scientific test. It may be correct. It may be quite interesting. It may also be valid and important. '

However, data and conclusions are two entirely different things. It's the conclusions that I'm trying to deal with. You may have thousands of pages of data, but if you can't find any consistent patterns in it, you can't come to any valid conclusions.

The validity of any given conclusion, theory, hypothesis, or whatever you want to call it is determined by one thing, and one thing alone: The ability to predict subsequent results. For example: COW prevented leading in this rifle, with this bullet, even without bullet lube. I predict that it will also be beneficial in a different rifle with a different unlubricated bullet. Hey! It worked! This test shows that my conclusion was correct!

Before that time, if I'd just announced that COW was the answer to leading problems, there would be no way for anyone to tell if I'd made the discovery of the year, or if I was crazy as a bedbug. I went from a casual observation (data) to a speculative hypothesis (might work somewhere else) to a confirmed theory with data to back it up (Hey, it works in every gun I have!). But until I showed why I thought it was right, it was nothing but speculation, and worthless except as food for thought. Speculation is good: It exercises the brain, and sometimes leads to real discoveries. But you would be very ill advised to rely on it in your reloading. I've seen a lot of posts that didn't distinguish between logical speculation and valid, confirmed conclusions. They may have been from sincere, well intentioned folks, but that can get the inexperienced in a lot of trouble. The whole point of this thread is to try to minimize endangering - or at least misleading - the new guys.

Molly

[ASM826]

A very early ballistic theory considered gunpowder a key to the gates of Hell . . . literally! There could be no question that the exploding powder pushed the infernal gates open for an instant.

Molly,

They may have been onto something. If you put Catholic holy water or blessed oils in with powder and/or primers, those demons don't get out. It just keeps that gate sealed. You don't have to believe me, you can test it for yourself. Make up some of your favorite load, then fill the case with holy water before seating the bullets.

[Molly]

Molly,

They may have been onto something. If you put Catholic holy water or blessed oils in with powder and/or primers, those demons don't get out. It just keeps that gate sealed. You don't have to believe me, you can test it for yourself. Make up some of your favorite load, then fill the case with holy water before seating the bullets.

ROFLMAO! You know, I haven't actually tested it myself, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you're right! But it's your contribution, and I wouldn't want to take credit for your ideas. Why don't you load a few thousand rounds to test it out and report back on the results? (VBG)

Molly

[Ricochet]

How many sci-fi thrillers have been based on that scenario with nukes blasting open a gateway to Hell, or "another dimension," with demonic beasts coming through? Old plot.

[Echo]

SOmeone a lot smarter than I said there were three ways to deal with observable phenomena - rationalization, faith, and empiricism - and they all have there place. But. Empiricism is the only method that holds water.
Rationalization (thinking about it) generates concepts and algorithms. Faith keeps us from having to perform tests ourselves, given that we choose to accept somone else's algorithm or findings. But empiricism has us performing the experiment ourselves to determine what's Right. This is much more difficult than rationalization or blind faith. but is the way to find the true state of nature.
The example I use is:

Suppose we are at a Big Band concert, and notice some cigarette smoke rising from the trumpet section. Hmmm. Why does smoke rise, I ask myself. I think and think, and come up with a reason - It goes Up because it Belongs Up! Rationalization! Got it, and I feel pretty smart. My son, next to me, says Dad, how come that smoke is going Up, and I answer 'Because it Belongs Up! Being my son, he believes me. Faith. His buddy, next to him says Tell me - Why does smoke go Up? and son says Because it Belongs Up. Buddy says Wow. More faith.
My wife, smarter than the rest, wants to check this out, so when we get home she goes into the lab and checks it out, and finds that that which we call smoke is nothing more than ash and unburned byproducts of combustion entrained in the hot gas given off by the combustion process, and being lighter than the air around it, the gas floats up carrying the ash and other stuff up with it. Smoke doesn't go up because it belongs up, but as the result of the process of combustion obeying the laws of physics. Empiricism.

We can't do all the testing that needs doing, by ourselves - we have to rely on the empiricism of others we trust. And I am Here To Tell You, I trust the findings of the folks on this Board! If I do some testing of my own that I feel worthy of reporting to this august group, I will report that here, and accept whatever criticizism falls out.

EayEd the Pedant

[Molly]

Yeah, EasyEd, What you said! Ya done good!
Molly

[.38 Special]

Well, I stand in full support of Molly's position. I have been giving a lot of thought to making the exact same kind of thread over at The High Road, where I post a great deal. The primary, IMO, problem with that place is that it has a very large population of folks who post about things they obviously have no experience with. Not only is this pretty irritating, it's a real disservice to people who may not realize they are reading total horse doo.

And of course nobody is demanding that every post be thoroughly documented and filled with citations. The request is simply for "full disclosure": either "I did this and this is what happened", or "I read an article written about this by ___ ___", or even "I have no clue and am just posting a WAG". It's the folks presenting second, third, ??? hand information -- or worse, pure unadulterated opinion -- as cast-iron fact that are the trouble.

The bottom line is that it's okay to keep your yap shut if you don't have anything worthwhile to say. :-)

[unclebill]

hi all,
i am a new kid here that doesn't know beans about cast boolits.
when i ask a basic question i get told the basics.
i have gotten p.m.'s and phone calls from members explaining things that i have trouble with.
when i ask what i consider to be a semi intelligent question .
i read all the responses and go with what the majority seems to agree on and that gives me something to go with.
so thank you very much everybody!
bill

[Molly]

> Well, I stand in full support of Molly's position.

> And of course nobody is demanding that every post be thoroughly documented and filled with citations. The request is simply for "full disclosure": ... It's the folks presenting second, third, ??? hand information -- or worse, pure unadulterated opinion -- as cast-iron fact that are the trouble.

Thanks. You said it well.

> The bottom line is that it's okay to keep your yap shut if you don't have anything worthwhile to say.

That one left me ROFL! When I'd complain about something like that, my pap would always come back with "You're old enough to know better than to think the world is gonna be reasonable or play fair!"

Also reminds me about the tacturn old fellow who had a couple of talkative guests. Finally, one of them noticed that the old guy wasn't saying much, and asked him why. He paused, took his pipe out of his mouth, and said "We have a sort of gentlemens agreement 'round hyar. Before we say somthin', we study to see if'n it'll be an improvement on the silence ."

(Would that _I_ could always do that!):-D

Regards,
Molly

[Alvin in AZ]

Molly your original post (rant) was really cool! :)

But.

A thread is what we build to together. :)
(now all hold hands and hum;)

"out of the mouths of babes"

No kidding, some of the -best threads ever- contain some of the dumbest crap
which spurred-on intelligent posts to be added. The thread as a whole is the
complete answer.

A thread is an exploration of facts and ideas. :)
Not just cold hard "accepted" facts. :/

Limiting free speech (and limiting stupid ideas) is a bad idea IMO.

Let 'em talk. :)
It's up to all of us to not let the dumb stuff "stand" unanswered.
Not erased or prevented from existing.

Let the reader of the whole thread decide for themselves what's real and what's
fantasy, like only a free person can. Later they can change their mind. :)

Alvin in AZ (an unmoderated newsgroup junkie!)

[jjamna]

Well said Alvin

[Edubya]

I know that this thread is over a year old but I wanted to give it a bump.
I feel guilty of some some of the transgressions that's in OP, and ask forgiveness.
I wish that there was some way to make this whole thread a mandatory reading, before becoming an authorized poster. It not only expresses an expectation of standards and decorums but demonstrates disagreement without conflict.
I want to thank every single contributor for their mature and seemingly honest feeling expressed here without anyone showing the egoistic retorts that are so often seen on some of the forums.
You fellas are leading by example.
EW

[stephen perry]

I can agree with most of your speel Moly as long as your not expounding on moly on cast bullets.

Cast bullets need not lead if you one has the gumption to Cast and load for each particular barrel. Each barrel has a lead level and if you exceed it the lead will show that is why the Lewis Lead remover sold well. No grease, oil, lube can get past the leading level and every barrel has a leading level.

Can't explain how I feel this way maybe from shooting, reading , and studying ftom the Masters like Pope, Mann, Sharpe and their laters.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR :brokenima

[leftiye]

Kinda like the RPM barrier?

[Wayne Smith]

Well, I stand in full support of Molly's position. I have been giving a lot of thought to making the exact same kind of thread over at The High Road, where I post a great deal. The primary, IMO, problem with that place is that it has a very large population of folks who post about things they obviously have no experience with. Not only is this pretty irritating, it's a real disservice to people who may not realize they are reading total horse doo.

And of course nobody is demanding that every post be thoroughly documented and filled with citations. The request is simply for "full disclosure": either "I did this and this is what happened", or "I read an article written about this by ___ ___", or even "I have no clue and am just posting a WAG". It's the folks presenting second, third, ??? hand information -- or worse, pure unadulterated opinion -- as cast-iron fact that are the trouble.

The bottom line is that it's okay to keep your yap shut if you don't have anything worthwhile to say. :-)

But .. but.. I know I have something to say, I .. I .. I thought it through, I saw it happen, I even tried it once!

We are asking for transparency from those who may well be sure of themselves at the time, awareness of self limitations of those who are truly ignorant and don't know it yet, a rigorous application of critical thought of those who have been taught to think lazy by our school system.

If we were a group of college educated scientists and engineers this may be reality. As it is, it is the responsibility of those of us who do know better to a) establish this as a model in our posts and b) be ready to correct that which is in error in the same thread that the error occurred. Education is an ongoing and never ending task.

[stephen perry]

Students today have one advantage we didn't have. They can look at our mistakes and learn from them.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR :holysheep

[gary0529]

Molly,
You are wondering why we get postings with outright falsehoods and misconceptions?
52% of the voters went with "Hope and Change"
In the words of the Gene Wilder to Cleavon Little in "Blazing Saddles"-and I will try to get the exact phrasing correct-"don't be too hard on the townfolk,they are just simple people, you know, idiots"
Today the internet offers anonymity to those very same idiots - I fear that you will be as Sisyphus, condemned to repeat your readings of garbage posted by the unknowing and unwilling to learn or change .

I'm out.

Gary

[Molly]

Molly,
You are wondering why we get postings with outright falsehoods and misconceptions?
52% of the voters went with "Hope and Change"
Gary

Yes, and they now spend their time wondering when Obama is going to come to their rescue with the money from increased taxes, while screaming about higher taxation.

Dunno who said it (Ben Franklin?), but there's a world of wisdom in the expression that "Experience keeps a dear (expensive) school, but fools will learn in no other!"

[steg]

I know this is an old post, and I just got done reading the whole thing, I agree with MOLLY, and being a newbie here, and casting since the 70's, If I ever make a post on something that I "discovered" It would start out by me saying heres what I did, and end in Thats what happened, allowing the reader to make his own decisions on what to do. Their are so many variables in what we do, I think it's impossible to give someone advise and call it factual.

Tomorrow if it dosen't rain I'll be out hunting the elusive beer cans with a 500gr spire point I just bought for my 45/70................LOL...............steg

[Beekeeper]

Today I read a post that Molly wrote in 2008.
I must say I agree with him on its entire contents.
I only wish This forum and people like Molly and Many others I have met here had existed 45 years ago when Due to having to choose between Family or guns I chose Family.
It was the right chiose then and I still think it was the right choise.
I wish I had known about the excellent books mentioned here as they would have made good reading during the long south Pacific cruises I took complements of the Federal Government.
During that time any reading material was coveted.
Unfortunately I missed out on most of the books Molly suggests as required reading and they are no longer available.

I am what is considered to be partially stupid when it comes to computers ( to hear daughter and son speak) so being able to turn it on and find this forum is quite a feat.
Doing a search requires you to have some idea of what the OP posted and how.
Kind of hard sometimes when you were not around the first time.

I wish to thank all of those who over the last year have gone out of their way to help me to learn and not make an ash of myself in the process of doing something.
That is something I did not have 45 years ago and it would have made a great difference then.
So after 45 years I have returned to something I love, Restoring and building guns.
I am not an avid shooter altho I enjoy seeing something I brought back to life roar once more and avidly proof shoot everything I work on.
Not in the since of high pressure proofing just seeing it shoot once again

So to Molly I say well done and I look forward to more good posts here.

May you have a fair wind and a following sea.


Jim

[Molly]

>So to Molly I say well done and I look forward to more good posts here.

Well Beekeeper,

I appreciate the sentiments, but I fear it's all in vain: Just this week I encountered a fellow here who thinks that friction makes cases from an autoloader hotter than from a bolt. When I suggested a few ways of testing this notion, he became upset that anyone would question his obviously correct analysis. (Sigh)

[deerslayer]

Molly, and others great posts even if most are a year old. As always I am thankful to have the many opinions and great ideas and the vast experience you get from here.

As a NOOB I just have to question why another NOOB would take x powder behind z bullet in an amount Joe Miscealaneous on the internet told him to. Even as a NOOB I read 4 or 5 books and understood them fairly well before even attempting to reload ammunition. Sure I have asked for recomended loads and pet loads but if I can't back it up with at least 1 reloading manual and a call to a powder manufacturer's techline (its amazing they sell it and support it who knew) than I am not trying it. Now if we meet at the range and you being a well respected reloader show me a load that I am not familiar with and demonstate it in your gun several times I am still gonna look in every book I have and call the manufacturer if necessary.

I think that if a NOOB ask's a question he should evaluate all answers and take the general consensus from the well respected members. Hang around a while and pay attention use your own judgement, constantly ask yourself does that make sense and is that building on what I thought I knew or is it contrary and if so then why? If you ask a question hoping for an answer usually that is the answer you will find so keep your mind open and be prepared to accept what you were thinking may or may not be right.

Molly, also you mention the lead tin seperation as a myth up until reading this thread I had seen that enough I thought it was true. I am guessing from your posts it is not??

By the way no disrespect is meant to any of the members I just feel that for me all loads need to be double checked. I know many of the pedigrees here are as fine as they come and we all appreciate your willingness to share your experience. I have had several senior reloaders (no age reference just experience) mentor me through posts, pm's and emails and for that I am grateful.

[Thecyberguy]

Deerslayer...fully agreed and well said. I hope the New people to reloading take heed.

When I ask for a load , I am usually asking what load a person is using in a particular rifle.
Such as I asked a while back about loads that would be low recoil and still cycle an M1 Garand.
Have a good 'un, Guy

[deerslayer]

Absolutely, cyber guy we all will ask from time to time about loads for a particular gun, function, accuracy or other desired output. But if you load what you are told without some type of verification or practical knowledge you are asking for trouble.

[Molly]

Molly, also you mention the lead tin seperation as a myth up until reading this thread I had seen that enough I thought it was true. I am guessing from your posts it is not??

Hi Deerslayer,

Sad to say, the separation of tin from a melt is just another old wives tale that's logical, but totally false. The logic is that wood floats because it's lighter than water, so tin must float because it's lighter than lead.

Trouble is, wood and water don't form a solution like lead and tin. Solutions generally don't separate except for a few rare and highly specialized instances like sugar crystalizing from syrup. Even in solution, tin will form what is called an intermetallic alloy with antimony, and when it does crystalize out because it has cooled, it crystalizes out in the intermetallic form.

Deerslayer, you illustrate the entire point of this thread perfectly: A new guy wanting to learn about cast bullets, but being thrown for a loss by some reasonable and logical old wife's tale that doesn't have a shred of truth to it.

No, lead and tin do NOT separate in the melt because they are different in density. That sort of thing can and will happen if the two liquids are insoluble in one another, like oil and water. Then the lighter (least dense) will float to the top. But soluble solutions will remain fully mixed forever, just like water and antifreeze. Also like the water and alcohol in your whisky. Lead and tin form a soluble solution, and will not gravity separate.


Hope this helps.

[noylj]

Most people do not understand science. Many scientists don't understand the proper design of an experiment. People do what they think is best and then it gives them a good result, so they must be correct and they must try an correct everyone else. It is just being helpful.
Let's just look at testing a bullet lube. What are variables you need to test?
1) types of lubricant
2) methods of applying lubricant
3) applying different amounts of lubricant
4) Different designs of lubrication grooves, while maintaining the same ogive and meplate
5) Hardness of bullet
6) Fit to groove diameter
7) Various pressures of loads
8) related to above, various velocities of loads
9) Different powders
10) Probably many more
What are the results you want to measure?
1) accuracy and simultaneous velocities, probably 5-shot groups at 50 or 200 yards (pistol or rifle), with 20 groups (100 rounds) for each condition, to determine "ultimate" accuracy of gun/bullet/powder and whether there is degradation over time (will need statistical analysis). All firing must be done with machine rest and must determine if sighting for each shot or simply lock the machine rest produces more repeatable results.
2) Determine amount of lead in barrel after 100 rounds at each condition
3) Retrieve bullets and inspect for stripping and other "failure" during passage down the barrel and condition of the bullet base
4) Amount of lube still on bullet
5) Measurement of smoke in the air
6) Inspection and measurement of barrel erosion and condition of throat and chamber
As part of this testing, the people doing the shooting and measurements must not know what any of the test sets consist of so there is no intentional or unintentional bias to the results.
Now any good company, such as Alliant, has more than enough people who know how to conduct the experiments, but who wants to or can afford to or will be able to make it pay off?
Thus, all we have are apocryphal and here-say stories to go on. I can say that based on my testing, sizing a cast bullet almost always hurts accuracy and LLA applied to the whole bullet (except for HBWCs) has significantly decreased leading in my guns and has improved accuracy. However, I can not give a complete statistical analysis as I just haven't done that much shooting and most of the time what we are after is acceptable, not optimum, accuracy as we are more the weak-link than the bullet lube or cast bullet.

[dicko]

the amount of garbage out there is remarkable. Molly

Ain't that the truth! I've been amazed at the **** that surfaces on this and other forums from guys I expected would know better. I hope I'm not guilty of same. I tend to be fairly uncompromising, maybe I should modify that slightly, but at least what I say comes out of hard experience.

However, I have some sympathy with the "can't test everything" guys, because that's true. But sure, if empirical experience indicates something, better to say exactly that before claiming it as proof.

While this is maybe not the place to get into specifics, if there's one item that stands out as BS it is the "can't shoot cast bullets in Glocks". I am a commercial caster, so the info I can provide is of the sort for which I have plenty empirical evidence but is not proved by testing. I supply bullets to a number of Glock shooters in all calibres. Some of these guys shoot a lot. So far not one Glock has shown abnormal leading or anything to indicate that Glocks are different from other guns. That's what I'd call the absence of proof, but evidence so overwhelming that it is as good as proof.

[felix]

A commercial caster is not necessarily a commercial shooter. Your statement would have much more credence if you were situated within the latter category. ... felix

[Molly]

Ain't that the truth! I've been amazed at the **** that surfaces on this and other forums from guys I expected would know better. I hope I'm not guilty of same. I tend to be fairly uncompromising, maybe I should modify that slightly, but at least what I say comes out of hard experience.
...
So far not one Glock has shown abnormal leading or anything to indicate that Glocks are different from other guns. That's what I'd call the absence of proof, but evidence so overwhelming that it is as good as proof.

Hi Dicko,

You've just done exactly what I would wish everyone would do: Jump in with their experiences, and let everyone know what results you've seen. After all, what you've done, you've done, and what happened as a result, happened. There's not a thing in the world wrong with relating that.

My problem arises when people try to explain WHY it happened. Some guys don't have the logical skills or background to really understand what is behind their results, and they can come up with the most absurd 'explanations' you ever saw, and they will defend them to the death. And in so doing, they can misinform and mislead new shooters dreadfully.

Even on this forum, I've still seen absurdities perpetuated that have been disproven years ago. Cast bullets do not fail at high velocities because they "run out of lube", tin does not float to the top of a melt because it's less dense than lead, and leading is not caused by the bullet rubbing against the bore. Cast bullets have been handicapped by such old wives tales for far too long as it is.

All I asked for is that shooters who want to post an explanation of their results also post the reasons they think their explanation is correct, so that others have some basis for judging the accuracy of their explanation. Some of the most incredible things are really true IF you know WHY.

I once had a pot of molten lead literally explode with the violence of an M-80, spraying molten lead all over me, the room, and even extending to the far wall of an adjacent room, leaving the formerly full pot completely emptied. On this grounds, some people would would ignore hundreds of years of contrary experience and announce that they'd discovered that lead was a high explosive! In my case, I learned tht the explosion occurred because I was dumb enough to drop a lead ingot into the melt that was covered with sweat, and what I got was not a lead explosion, but a steam explosion.

So if you think your bullet trajectory is a corkscrew, at least tell us that you learned it is so because the moon is made of green cheese. You won't mislead us old hands, but it will at least give the new guys a chance to decide on whether to believe you or not.

Sorry to be so long winded, but this is a topic that I feel rather strongly about.