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.

[Molly]

But human nature hasn't changed since the first identifiable humans developed the ability to share information.

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!