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