What makes you think so?

[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 ..

[gon2shoot]

Don't try to confuse me with the facts, my minds made up

[357maximum]

Don't try to confuse me with the facts, my minds made up

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 ..

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.

[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.

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.