How Can we Build on the CB Experimental Work Done Earlier

  • 641 Views
  • Last Post 04 February 2019
John Alexander posted this 12 November 2018

I transplanted this from another thread to start a thread on this subject.

John

---------------------------

Rici Yakima wrote:

If it is not written down and published on paper, it is lost forever!

Write articles for The Fouling Shot. Tom Grey has done several, but folks don't seem to remember to go back and look at them. They want instant electronic access to everything and no research.

 

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
John Alexander posted this 12 November 2018

You are right Ric. But it is even worse than that.  There is a ton of good information in past Fouling shots (Along with a lot of misinformation of course) but it is relatively hard to find and seldom used.

Ken is working on an indexing and search system that could change that if he is successful.

Joe Brennan had made a major contribution by producing his books (which we sell) and which are also available on-line. In addition to the parts he wrote himself there are articles from knowledgeable CB shooter on every aspect of casting and shooting cast bullets.

Another problem is when most of us write an article partially based on previous work we seldom reference the earlier work so readers can refer back to it and as time goes on the earlier work is lost.

I'm sure we would all be shooting better with less time wasted going down blind alleys and reinventing the wheel if we systematically tackled this issue.

John

Attached Files

Ross Smith posted this 12 November 2018

As a sorta new shooter of cast bullets, we all start blind. I was given some cast bullets to try and after about 20 years I figured it was either try em' or make round balls out of em'. They worked! It's been trial and error ever since(not complaining here). I've read everything I could find on general and specific topics old and new. I even bought Matthews books. But till you try it in your rifle you never know. It's easier in the J-bullet world but the same is true, each rifle seems to be an individual. Buying a really exceptional rifle and mold to fit is no guarantee either, such as my John Ardito 40x. IT's still work to make it perform to capability. In fact all 4 of my target rifles are the most finicky ones that I have.

I have relied on this forum heavily to get me where I am now and I appreciate the advice I have received. We are going to have to continue to coach newbies along.

Ross

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 12 November 2018

About 20 years ago when I began working for the State, they had a program that you digitized text and it would save it and make it searchable. I would think they would have stuff even better now? I watched the clerks doing it, a legal sized page every three seconds.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
Brodie posted this 14 November 2018

John,

You asked how we can build and improve on what has been done in the field of cast bullets.  The answer is simple:  Read as much as you can or find out as much as you can about previous work.  Sit down and think about that work, and what needs to be done to advance the field.  Formulate a theory.  Make it as concise and clear as possible.  We are taking little bites here.  Design an experiment or test , whichever you want to call it, to either prove or disprove your theory.  Perform the experiment paying as much attention to detail as possible and being as objective as possible.  Write the whole thing up and publish it so others can learn from what you did; either good or bad.  Lick wounds.  Start over.

We have been doing it this way for hundreds of years in the Sciences, and it works.

Oh while you are at it you can we can all quit whining about stuff.  That does nobody any good..

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
Ross Smith posted this 14 November 2018

Just a suggestion: perhaps each of us could work on a single aspect rather than try to set up a complicated experiment(if that's possible). Lots of little things can add up to something much bigger.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
John Alexander posted this 14 November 2018

Old Coot,

You have come up with a pretty good description of the scientific method. I know the term "scientific" turns some folks off.  But what it amounts to is what workers in a lot of different fields have figured out over time as the best way to find the truth about almost anything except the supernatural. How can anybody be against that?

Ross,

I think you are right especially if a bunch of interested shooters (volunteers) are going to do the work. One part of the scientific method is when an experimenter discovers something new, especially if it is counter to what is believed up until then,  other interested experimenters will duplicate the experiment used by the first guy and see if the results come out the same as the first.  This may either confirm the new outcome or cast doubt on the outcome. Eventually the results of experimenters is overwhelming one way or the other and open minded folks either reject the results or it becomes the the accepted truth until new evidence comes along to overturn it. Of course, even if the evidence becomes overwhelming there are always deniers who would rather stick with "belief" than facts but we can't solve that problem.

Confirming or denying the results of earlier experiments/studies may be the place to encourage CB shooters to start. Gerry Bottiger ran an experiment and reported in the Fouling Shot that "proved" that shot to shot variation in case neck tension has no effect on either accuracy or even muzzle velocity.  In spite of the excellence of the experiment the results apparently have been ignored (lost) and the subject still comes up on this and other forums and shooters continue to zealously clean inside case necks to reduce the variation in neck tension.

Another question for modern confirmation or rejection is Dr. Mann's excellent proof 115 years ago that it is nearly impossible to damage a crown enough to affect accuracy.  Yet since then, millions of dollars of gunsmithing have been spent on recrowning rifle barrel probably for no good reason.

Who is interested in trying to confirm or refute that very bad crowns shoot just as well as perfect ones?

There are plenty of other experimental results that challenge the conventional wisdom about various procedures that most CB shooters believe firmly in that could be either confirmed or discredited.  One thing for sure rejecting the results of experimental work because it disagrees with your opinion which is supported only by others believing the same thing won't get better accuracy.

Of course there is one unspoken important question -- do we really want to run the risk of finding out that some of our our "beliefs" (things that we "know" without evidence) are false?  Or would we rather stay in a state of comfortable ignorance? After all there is some strong evidence that some CB shooters would rather cling to the beliefs handed down and ignore new evidence that they have been wrong all along.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
  • Ross Smith
Brodie posted this 14 November 2018

John,

I left one very important point out:  the experiment and results have to be repeatable.  Somebody else must be able to come along, follow your methodology and get the same or at least comparable results.  Without that the whole thing falls apart.  If results can not be duplicated then your premise must be wrong.

As to dearly held beliefs: I attended a meeting where a you man in partial requirement for his Doctorate had proved that the "Dance of the Honey Bees" was not an attempt on the part of the bees to communicate direction to the nectar source, but instead allowed the other workers to acquire the particular scent of the flowers.  He had proved this beyond a doubt, but could not get the paper published because it showed that the "Father of Modern Animal Behavior" Conrad Lorenz was wrong, and a graduate student just could not do that.  It was impossible and unheard of, and just not done.  I am certain that cast bullet shooters are just as hide bound and arrogant.  Ok some CB shooters.

Then there are those like me who just want to shoot, play and have fun.  We aren't serious competitors.  All I want is to get a good load in a particular rifle that shoots well enough for my purposes: be it hunting, plinking, self defense against charging tin cans or what ever.

Remember, if it is not repeatable it might as well not have happened.  As Joe Brennan has shown many times and the variation within and around the norm.  You can't be like CNN and cherry pick what you report. 

 

 

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
Brodie posted this 14 November 2018

Nope.  You can't dry lab it either.  Just try to be honest, and don't lie with the statistics.

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

cove posted this 14 November 2018

Since we are on the subject of work done earlier, how is the digitizing of the early Fouling Shots coming along?  There is a wealth of information out there I am very anxious to get hold of. Cove

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 14 November 2018

From John Alexander;

"One thing for sure rejecting the results of experimental work because it disagrees with your opinion which is supported only by others believing the same thing won't get better accuracy.

Of course there is one unspoken important question -- do we really want to run the risk of finding out that some of our our "beliefs" (things that we "know" without evidence) are false?  Or would we rather stay in a state of comfortable ignorance? After all there is some strong evidence that some CB shooters would rather cling to the beliefs handed down and ignore new evidence that they have been wrong all along."

From old coot;

"I left one very important point out:  the experiment and results have to be repeatable.  Somebody else must be able to come along, follow your methodology and get the same or at least comparable results.  Without that the whole thing falls apart.  If results can not be duplicated then your premise must be wrong.............I am certain that cast bullet shooters are just as hide bound and arrogant.  Ok some CB shooters....... if it is not repeatable it might as well not have happened.  As Joe Brennan has shown many times and the variation within and around the norm."

Based on my experiences posting here and on other forums these comments are very insightful indeed........

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
  • Maven
M3 Mitch posted this 15 November 2018

Nope.  You can't dry lab it either.  Just try to be honest, and don't lie with the statistics.

 

And it's possible to "lie with statistics" without any bad intent.  If you don't do a statistical analysis (and maybe this should be made available on here, where a shooter who is not that into math could upload group sizes and # of shots, and get an answer as to if "load A " really does shoot a tighter group with statistical significance than "load B").  If you just shoot a few 3 shot groups, you can come to the wrong conclusion just due to luck.  I should know, I have done that a few times.  I have not cranked through the math, but have read and I think it was on here, that a 7 shot group gives the most information per shot fired. 

My point is, that if you shoot a couple of 3-shot groups averaging 1.5 inches under one condition, and then shoot a couple more averaging say 1.75 under a different condition, and I may be wrong on particulars here but I doubt it - you have not proved that the condition that made the 1.5 inch groups is actually superior to the one that made the 1.75 inch ones. 

Shooting groups like this off the bench and then doing some math starts to look more like work than like fun.  At least to many people.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Maven
John Alexander posted this 15 November 2018

Old Coot,

I agree completely with your first paragraph. That's is exactly what I was hammering on in my first paragraph. It was also what I suggested as two excellent projects for someone wanting to work. Seeing if Mann's and Bottigers work was repeatable.

Your story about the bee study is a sad commentary on the open mindedness of scientists but not unique. scientists understand they should be open minded but are human.

One of the most notorious examples is the stonewalling of papers from Alfred Wegener who described the theory of tectonic plates and their movements in 1912 and his work was scorned by the scientific establishment until impossible to do so in the 1950s.  Without that understanding we can't understand earthquakes, volcanos, and where mountains came from etc.

Of course scientists  themselves aren't the worst roadblocks to learning the truth. That trophy goes to organized religions of all stripes.  From Galilio to the present one religions or another can be relied on to fight the advancement of knowledge. 

Nothing wrong with your attitude towards shooting. Different strokes for --------.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
John Alexander posted this 15 November 2018

cove,

I have a call in to Robert Olson the person working on that project asking for a progress report. 

John

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 15 November 2018

 

i like to philossipheye about truth in nature ... here is where i have advanced ::

" it is what it is " 

*******************

using that approach, i have decoded entirely wimmin critters . ( i could tell you but then you would shoot yourself ) .

one of my pastimes is watching all the you-tubes on quantum theory ... i like the part where the professors admit they don't understand it either ....  they are now on their 2nd hundred years of collecting data ... a breakthrough is imminent ...

all the above is in preparation for trying to understand cast bullets, the tougher challenge ....

even rule #1 (  bullet should be snug in the throat ) needs more verification .

****************

sometimes i think we have peaked out, but we need more data to support that .  

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

i often think about technical progress over the last hundred thousand years or so ... all evidence is that we were just as * intelligent * some 50 thousand years ago ... but were still in the copper age 3000 years ago ... and didn't really improve the general welfare until 300 years ago ... and cripes stand back at the current possibilities if we can get out of our own way ...   ( my favorite dream is fusion in a bean can ... )

real progress is due to passing on what was previously learned ... so as above posts mentioned, 

dream, then verify .  pass on what you find .  do not mix directly WHAT happened with WHY you think it happened.

and most of all, have fun doing it ... even goofy results may mean something especially if they are found to repeat themselves ...

ken

Attached Files

Brodie posted this 16 November 2018

The basic problem arises when people get ego involved with their pet theories, and can't admit that there has been a break through because it would mean that they were wrong, or missed something or made an error.  The phrase: "I can't do that so he couldn't either." .  Is so much BS that it makes a feed lot look and smell like roses not what makes em grow.  All advances, not just break-throughs, happen because someone did or saw something that you didn't.  If you had you would have been famous not the other guy.

And John, the man in the street is invariably more stubborn, short sighted, opinionated (especially about stuff he or she knows nothing about), and just down right stupid than those Scientists you talked about.  They were in the street as well, and we will all have to get into the street to get to the range.  Try to keep an open mind.  It is amazing what you can learn when you do.  Brodie

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Maven
Ross Smith posted this 16 November 2018

Do I need stats for proof. To #1 I would add : The bullet needs to fit the throat and the case neck and the case neck needs to fit the chamber correctly. I just remedied this in my wildcat cartridge and I'm not gonna go shoot any more of my poorly made cases just for stats.

Attached Files

harleyrock posted this 03 January 2019

From John Alexander:

You are right Ric. But it is even worse than that.  There is a ton of good information in past Fouling shots (Along with a lot of misinformation of course) but it is relatively hard to find and seldom used.

Ken is working on an indexing and search system that could change that if he is successful.

 

I have been assembling my own library of cherry picked articles and posts from various sources and grouping them together by subject and storing them in "Documents" on my computer for reference  so that I don't have to go to the index and dig through the chaff to get to the kernel every time want to study a subject of interest.

"The Fouling Shot" is the greatest source of material on the subject of cast bullets. I get the digitized version of TFS but it is worthless to my project because if is in .pdf format .  You cannot copy and paste or otherwise alter a .pdf document.

If the index of TFS article subject matter were hyperlinked it would make reference work so much easier.

 

Lifetime NRA since 1956, NRA Benefactor, USN Member, CBA Member

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
dbosman posted this 01 February 2019

Digitizing is easy. I have access to high speed sheet fed scanners that can do double sided pages at 90 pages per minute.

The problem is the output is .TIF, .JPG, or .PDF. No index, no search, no meta data. Meta data - information about what is in the scan has to be done manually. Pure text PDFs can be run through Optical Character Recognizing software, but titles, sub titles, ads, pictures, all slow the process and have to be handled manually.

Don

Attached Files

GWarden posted this 02 February 2019

Lots of good info being shared here. It has been touched on that when  good test  results shoot down a long time thought that has been repeated over time, you may really catch it for challenging the concept. A fellow that was a long time member and contributor and I both did a twin experiment one summer relating to a long held concept. We were very concise and kept meticulous data. When we put the result of our test out we got lambasted by a vocal person on the site. Needless to say, one tends to stop sharing what one thought was good information from a twin run valid test. So not to start a "range war", I have not mentioned the test that was run, as I would probably get lambasted again by the same person.

bob

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • wd-30/40
Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 02 February 2019

....   someone once mentioned to me that

"" you can always identify the pioneers ... they are the ones with the arrows in their backs  ... ""

*****************

ken

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • wd-30/40
Show More Posts
Close