What makes you think so?

[unclebill]

hi all,
i am a new kid here that doesn't know beans about cast boolits.
when i ask a basic question i get told the basics.
i have gotten p.m.'s and phone calls from members explaining things that i have trouble with.
when i ask what i consider to be a semi intelligent question .
i read all the responses and go with what the majority seems to agree on and that gives me something to go with.
so thank you very much everybody!
bill

[Molly]

> Well, I stand in full support of Molly's position.

> And of course nobody is demanding that every post be thoroughly documented and filled with citations. The request is simply for "full disclosure": ... It's the folks presenting second, third, ??? hand information -- or worse, pure unadulterated opinion -- as cast-iron fact that are the trouble.

Thanks. You said it well.

> The bottom line is that it's okay to keep your yap shut if you don't have anything worthwhile to say.

That one left me ROFL! When I'd complain about something like that, my pap would always come back with "You're old enough to know better than to think the world is gonna be reasonable or play fair!"

Also reminds me about the tacturn old fellow who had a couple of talkative guests. Finally, one of them noticed that the old guy wasn't saying much, and asked him why. He paused, took his pipe out of his mouth, and said "We have a sort of gentlemens agreement 'round hyar. Before we say somthin', we study to see if'n it'll be an improvement on the silence ."

(Would that _I_ could always do that!)

Regards,
Molly

[Alvin in AZ]

Molly your original post (rant) was really cool! :)

But.

A thread is what we build to together. :)
(now all hold hands and hum;)

"out of the mouths of babes"

No kidding, some of the -best threads ever- contain some of the dumbest crap
which spurred-on intelligent posts to be added. The thread as a whole is the
complete answer.

A thread is an exploration of facts and ideas. :)
Not just cold hard "accepted" facts. :/

Limiting free speech (and limiting stupid ideas) is a bad idea IMO.

Let 'em talk. :)
It's up to all of us to not let the dumb stuff "stand" unanswered.
Not erased or prevented from existing.

Let the reader of the whole thread decide for themselves what's real and what's
fantasy, like only a free person can. Later they can change their mind. :)

Alvin in AZ (an unmoderated newsgroup junkie!)

[jjamna]

Well said Alvin

[Edubya]

I know that this thread is over a year old but I wanted to give it a bump.
I feel guilty of some some of the transgressions that's in OP, and ask forgiveness.
I wish that there was some way to make this whole thread a mandatory reading, before becoming an authorized poster. It not only expresses an expectation of standards and decorums but demonstrates disagreement without conflict.
I want to thank every single contributor for their mature and seemingly honest feeling expressed here without anyone showing the egoistic retorts that are so often seen on some of the forums.
You fellas are leading by example.
EW

[stephen perry]

I can agree with most of your speel Moly as long as your not expounding on moly on cast bullets.

Cast bullets need not lead if you one has the gumption to Cast and load for each particular barrel. Each barrel has a lead level and if you exceed it the lead will show that is why the Lewis Lead remover sold well. No grease, oil, lube can get past the leading level and every barrel has a leading level.

Can't explain how I feel this way maybe from shooting, reading , and studying ftom the Masters like Pope, Mann, Sharpe and their laters.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR

[leftiye]

Kinda like the RPM barrier?

[Wayne Smith]

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.

But .. but.. I know I have something to say, I .. I .. I thought it through, I saw it happen, I even tried it once!

We are asking for transparency from those who may well be sure of themselves at the time, awareness of self limitations of those who are truly ignorant and don't know it yet, a rigorous application of critical thought of those who have been taught to think lazy by our school system.

If we were a group of college educated scientists and engineers this may be reality. As it is, it is the responsibility of those of us who do know better to a) establish this as a model in our posts and b) be ready to correct that which is in error in the same thread that the error occurred. Education is an ongoing and never ending task.

[stephen perry]

Students today have one advantage we didn't have. They can look at our mistakes and learn from them.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR

[gary0529]

Molly,
You are wondering why we get postings with outright falsehoods and misconceptions?
52% of the voters went with "Hope and Change"
In the words of the Gene Wilder to Cleavon Little in "Blazing Saddles"-and I will try to get the exact phrasing correct-"don't be too hard on the townfolk,they are just simple people, you know, idiots"
Today the internet offers anonymity to those very same idiots - I fear that you will be as Sisyphus, condemned to repeat your readings of garbage posted by the unknowing and unwilling to learn or change .

I'm out.

Gary

[Molly]

Molly,
You are wondering why we get postings with outright falsehoods and misconceptions?
52% of the voters went with "Hope and Change"
Gary

Yes, and they now spend their time wondering when Obama is going to come to their rescue with the money from increased taxes, while screaming about higher taxation.

Dunno who said it (Ben Franklin?), but there's a world of wisdom in the expression that "Experience keeps a dear (expensive) school, but fools will learn in no other!"

[steg]

I know this is an old post, and I just got done reading the whole thing, I agree with MOLLY, and being a newbie here, and casting since the 70's, If I ever make a post on something that I "discovered" It would start out by me saying heres what I did, and end in Thats what happened, allowing the reader to make his own decisions on what to do. Their are so many variables in what we do, I think it's impossible to give someone advise and call it factual.

Tomorrow if it dosen't rain I'll be out hunting the elusive beer cans with a 500gr spire point I just bought for my 45/70................LOL...............steg

[Beekeeper]

Today I read a post that Molly wrote in 2008.
I must say I agree with him on its entire contents.
I only wish This forum and people like Molly and Many others I have met here had existed 45 years ago when Due to having to choose between Family or guns I chose Family.
It was the right chiose then and I still think it was the right choise.
I wish I had known about the excellent books mentioned here as they would have made good reading during the long south Pacific cruises I took complements of the Federal Government.
During that time any reading material was coveted.
Unfortunately I missed out on most of the books Molly suggests as required reading and they are no longer available.

I am what is considered to be partially stupid when it comes to computers ( to hear daughter and son speak) so being able to turn it on and find this forum is quite a feat.
Doing a search requires you to have some idea of what the OP posted and how.
Kind of hard sometimes when you were not around the first time.

I wish to thank all of those who over the last year have gone out of their way to help me to learn and not make an ash of myself in the process of doing something.
That is something I did not have 45 years ago and it would have made a great difference then.
So after 45 years I have returned to something I love, Restoring and building guns.
I am not an avid shooter altho I enjoy seeing something I brought back to life roar once more and avidly proof shoot everything I work on.
Not in the since of high pressure proofing just seeing it shoot once again

So to Molly I say well done and I look forward to more good posts here.

May you have a fair wind and a following sea.


Jim

[Molly]

>So to Molly I say well done and I look forward to more good posts here.

Well Beekeeper,

I appreciate the sentiments, but I fear it's all in vain: Just this week I encountered a fellow here who thinks that friction makes cases from an autoloader hotter than from a bolt. When I suggested a few ways of testing this notion, he became upset that anyone would question his obviously correct analysis. (Sigh)

[deerslayer]

Molly, and others great posts even if most are a year old. As always I am thankful to have the many opinions and great ideas and the vast experience you get from here.

As a NOOB I just have to question why another NOOB would take x powder behind z bullet in an amount Joe Miscealaneous on the internet told him to. Even as a NOOB I read 4 or 5 books and understood them fairly well before even attempting to reload ammunition. Sure I have asked for recomended loads and pet loads but if I can't back it up with at least 1 reloading manual and a call to a powder manufacturer's techline (its amazing they sell it and support it who knew) than I am not trying it. Now if we meet at the range and you being a well respected reloader show me a load that I am not familiar with and demonstate it in your gun several times I am still gonna look in every book I have and call the manufacturer if necessary.

I think that if a NOOB ask's a question he should evaluate all answers and take the general consensus from the well respected members. Hang around a while and pay attention use your own judgement, constantly ask yourself does that make sense and is that building on what I thought I knew or is it contrary and if so then why? If you ask a question hoping for an answer usually that is the answer you will find so keep your mind open and be prepared to accept what you were thinking may or may not be right.

Molly, also you mention the lead tin seperation as a myth up until reading this thread I had seen that enough I thought it was true. I am guessing from your posts it is not??

By the way no disrespect is meant to any of the members I just feel that for me all loads need to be double checked. I know many of the pedigrees here are as fine as they come and we all appreciate your willingness to share your experience. I have had several senior reloaders (no age reference just experience) mentor me through posts, pm's and emails and for that I am grateful.

[Thecyberguy]

Deerslayer...fully agreed and well said. I hope the New people to reloading take heed.

When I ask for a load , I am usually asking what load a person is using in a particular rifle.
Such as I asked a while back about loads that would be low recoil and still cycle an M1 Garand.
Have a good 'un, Guy

[deerslayer]

Absolutely, cyber guy we all will ask from time to time about loads for a particular gun, function, accuracy or other desired output. But if you load what you are told without some type of verification or practical knowledge you are asking for trouble.

[Molly]

Molly, also you mention the lead tin seperation as a myth up until reading this thread I had seen that enough I thought it was true. I am guessing from your posts it is not??

Hi Deerslayer,

Sad to say, the separation of tin from a melt is just another old wives tale that's logical, but totally false. The logic is that wood floats because it's lighter than water, so tin must float because it's lighter than lead.

Trouble is, wood and water don't form a solution like lead and tin. Solutions generally don't separate except for a few rare and highly specialized instances like sugar crystalizing from syrup. Even in solution, tin will form what is called an intermetallic alloy with antimony, and when it does crystalize out because it has cooled, it crystalizes out in the intermetallic form.

Deerslayer, you illustrate the entire point of this thread perfectly: A new guy wanting to learn about cast bullets, but being thrown for a loss by some reasonable and logical old wife's tale that doesn't have a shred of truth to it.

No, lead and tin do NOT separate in the melt because they are different in density. That sort of thing can and will happen if the two liquids are insoluble in one another, like oil and water. Then the lighter (least dense) will float to the top. But soluble solutions will remain fully mixed forever, just like water and antifreeze. Also like the water and alcohol in your whisky. Lead and tin form a soluble solution, and will not gravity separate.


Hope this helps.

[noylj]

Most people do not understand science. Many scientists don't understand the proper design of an experiment. People do what they think is best and then it gives them a good result, so they must be correct and they must try an correct everyone else. It is just being helpful.
Let's just look at testing a bullet lube. What are variables you need to test?
1) types of lubricant
2) methods of applying lubricant
3) applying different amounts of lubricant
4) Different designs of lubrication grooves, while maintaining the same ogive and meplate
5) Hardness of bullet
6) Fit to groove diameter
7) Various pressures of loads
8) related to above, various velocities of loads
9) Different powders
10) Probably many more
What are the results you want to measure?
1) accuracy and simultaneous velocities, probably 5-shot groups at 50 or 200 yards (pistol or rifle), with 20 groups (100 rounds) for each condition, to determine "ultimate" accuracy of gun/bullet/powder and whether there is degradation over time (will need statistical analysis). All firing must be done with machine rest and must determine if sighting for each shot or simply lock the machine rest produces more repeatable results.
2) Determine amount of lead in barrel after 100 rounds at each condition
3) Retrieve bullets and inspect for stripping and other "failure" during passage down the barrel and condition of the bullet base
4) Amount of lube still on bullet
5) Measurement of smoke in the air
6) Inspection and measurement of barrel erosion and condition of throat and chamber
As part of this testing, the people doing the shooting and measurements must not know what any of the test sets consist of so there is no intentional or unintentional bias to the results.
Now any good company, such as Alliant, has more than enough people who know how to conduct the experiments, but who wants to or can afford to or will be able to make it pay off?
Thus, all we have are apocryphal and here-say stories to go on. I can say that based on my testing, sizing a cast bullet almost always hurts accuracy and LLA applied to the whole bullet (except for HBWCs) has significantly decreased leading in my guns and has improved accuracy. However, I can not give a complete statistical analysis as I just haven't done that much shooting and most of the time what we are after is acceptable, not optimum, accuracy as we are more the weak-link than the bullet lube or cast bullet.

[dicko]

the amount of garbage out there is remarkable. Molly

Ain't that the truth! I've been amazed at the **** that surfaces on this and other forums from guys I expected would know better. I hope I'm not guilty of same. I tend to be fairly uncompromising, maybe I should modify that slightly, but at least what I say comes out of hard experience.

However, I have some sympathy with the "can't test everything" guys, because that's true. But sure, if empirical experience indicates something, better to say exactly that before claiming it as proof.

While this is maybe not the place to get into specifics, if there's one item that stands out as BS it is the "can't shoot cast bullets in Glocks". I am a commercial caster, so the info I can provide is of the sort for which I have plenty empirical evidence but is not proved by testing. I supply bullets to a number of Glock shooters in all calibres. Some of these guys shoot a lot. So far not one Glock has shown abnormal leading or anything to indicate that Glocks are different from other guns. That's what I'd call the absence of proof, but evidence so overwhelming that it is as good as proof.