Just saw the article in Handloader magazine.
Our own NOE's moulds are well represented with the 311299 design!
I thought it was a good article!
Anyone else seen it?
Printable View
Just saw the article in Handloader magazine.
Our own NOE's moulds are well represented with the 311299 design!
I thought it was a good article!
Anyone else seen it?
YES! I saw it and was surprised. Handloader hardly ever acknowledges that there are any molds available except Lyman or RCBS and some others much less frequently. Venturino mentions a specialty mold maker(can't remember offhand) that caters to the BPCR market.
NOE also has an ad on a page in that magazine too!
NOE deserves all the attention, too! It's about time they were recognized nationally! Thanks Blammer!
They've had an add for at least the past few issues. Al has taken to much of my money as of late :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blammer
I don't think the staff of Handloader is current in bullet casting.
It takes too much time to know what you are doing in order to write a good article.
I think it is a case of you can write articles or you can cast and shoot but it is difficult to find time to do both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blammer
Both situations are probably related. Handloader/Rifle is famous for "heavy" ad placement.
that is why NOE was mentioned in the magazine, has it made mention of Miha, Accurate, Mountain Moulds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blammer
Seen the mention of NOE in the magazine but don't recall seeing any others beside RCBS & Lyman.
Dang - and all this time I thought it was good marketing on my part!
Wait until your see our write up in the next issue!
Bullet maker, maker
Al Nelson
Geez, now in addition to buying molds - I have to go to the magazine stand.
Your cutting into my P-64 money Al
Excellent "product placement" Al :-P
Next up, the cover of the Rolling Stone!
Funny thing- I scanned more than read that article, but I was most interested in what the red lube was in all of the bullets. I didn't see it identified. I'm sure it was some sort of commercial stuff but when I first saw a mention of NOE I thought the lube might be Ben's Red.
to be fair, Handloader magazine was originally financed by the owners of RCBS, Hornady and Speer. I t worked out well for everyone involved I think.
I just wish they'd have mentioned Blammers GC's. :) :D
Congratulations!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedeNelson
The articles in all magazines operate on the same principal as all of our economy, you pay money to buy space.
I've always enjoyed the writings of Mike Venturino when he was writing about BP powder shooting. He does the same as all writers and includes those items that are either donated to him or used to sponsor his shooting articles. That is no different than any other things in our lives. Take television that collects millions in advertising fees. It's how the world rotates. If a powder company was to give you all the powder you needed to load all of your shooting, would they be named in any thing you may print?
Noe paid for advertising space and for that they receive a mention by a staff writer, simple economics, that is not a put down on our system as it gives a lot of people a good living style. Later David
Agreed, Cajun shooter. Ads are a necessary part of most media formats. OTOH I have quit renewing subscriptions for mags that obviously put more resources and page space into ads than articles. Most gunwriters know virtually nada about casting, a few even have trouble grasping the basics of loading so I don't subscribe to gun rags anymore.
Glad to see Al & co getting some good press, hope his ad brings him lots of new customers.
Although I did not read the article on NOE moulds to which you refer, I did read the article in the August 15, 2015 issue of Handloader Magazine on the NOE 453 210 RF mould. In addition to reading that article, I also read the one by Mike Venturino on 9mm Luger Ball and I was a bit surprised by some of the information offered in each of these articles. For example, in John Haviland's review of NOE moulds, he apparently used straight WW alloy which dropped boolits at 0.453" but then, stating that he was going to shoot them in a .45 Auto Colt Gold Cup National Match, he sized them down to 0.451" while lubing them. While I may be mistaken, it's my impression that most of us size our .45 ACP boolits to at least 0.452" unless we've slugged the barrel in question and have confirmed that the bore diameter is no greater than 0.450". Perhaps a minor point but that sizing may have contributed to John's 2 and 3 inch groups at 25 yards, groups that while respectable might well have been tighter if a slightly larger diameter boolit had been used. A further example of what I, for one, would consider to be somewhat misleading information occurred in Mike's article when he used Linotype to cast his 9mm lead alloy boolits, stating that they dropped from the mould at 0.357" and were then lubed and sized in a die of that diameter. He then reported that he saw tumbling with these boolits and determined from this result that cast lead alloy boolits would not be suitable 'across the board' for loading a variety of 9mm handguns. Again, while I may be mistaken, it's my impression that most of us would not choose Linotype to cast 9mm boolits but rather we would go with an alloy no harder than a Lyman #2 or Taracorp Magnum (Hardball) alloy for this caliber. My guess is that even though Mike's boolits might well have been sized appropriately, again depending on bore diameter of the barrel in question, they might well have been too hard to obturate properly thus leading to the observed tumbling. These were my thoughts as I read these two articles but when I submitted these comments to Handloader Magazine I received a biting, dismissive reply from Dave Scovill in which he gave me an extended review of his casting credentials including all the moulds he had designed and how I was acting as if I 'knew it all' and that since they'd been writing about these things for many years, I really wasn't in a position to question them. He even went so far as to say that Mike was being 'frugal, i.e. cheap', his words not mine, by using Linotype, a statement that I pointed out in a return email was patently false since Linotype is the most expensive cast boolit alloy commercially available today, at least if one goes by Rotometals, Inc., price list. Anyway, the upshot of reading these articles and my email exchange with Dave Scovill is that I will definitely not choose to purchase that magazine again, especially if I'm interested in finding knowledgeable information related to casting lead alloy boolits or shooting the same. Far better information is available on this excellent forum and indeed, it was information gleaned from this forum that I used to back up my comments to Handloader Magazine on the original articles. As I said to Dave Scovill in my return email, for which I've received no reply as yet, perhaps the two gentlemen who wrote these articles ought to spend more time studying the posts to this forum and less time writing articles that often go against generally well accepted lead alloy boolit casting and shooting principles.
sleeper1428