What makes you think so?

[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with the best available test equipment so I could feel 100% comfortable in "pushing the envelope" with previously unpublished, untested filler/COW/wad loads?- No.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. 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.........

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.

[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.

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