The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading Case head expansion..how much is too much??Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Case head expansion..how much is too much?? | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
Bullshit, I do scientific measurements on a everyday basis - I make my living at it. If I want to know the REAL PSI (the accurate PSI), I must be able to correct for BIAS. Reproducibility means you're reproducing the BIAS accurately, if you don't correct for it. How do you correct for your bias? In my business we test for bias and shifts every day by running KNOWN high, low, and normal internal controls. If the data for these controls doesn't fit within a specified range, we got a serious measurement problem and correct it. I can't afford to make mistakes. Finally, you got a serious problem and MYSTERIOUS UNEXPLAINED SECONDAY PEAKS. If you understand your system so damn well, explain those weird seconds. And, don't give me some more BS. | |||
|
| one of us |
LOL! You're getting a little intense over this, aren't you? Sure, bias is an issue. Never said it wasn't. What I said was that the test that I did apply measured repeatability. You start by doing this for two good reasons: First, if a system isn't repeatable, there is no point in checking anything else. Second, testing repeatability does not require anything that is hard to get...you just test the system against itself. That is what I did. CHE flunked. Strain gages passed. If you want more information on the test used, I suggest you try "Evaluating the Measurement System" by Wheeler, who is one of the world's best. You can get his book at http://www.spcpress.com. Generate your own data, and do your own math, if you don't like mine. Physics obeys everyone equally. I don't know why you think the "secondary spikes" are any kind of issue to repeatability at all. I do have a test figured out to gather additional information, using a much more cumbersome, but flexible system. Until then, about all we know is that they represent some kind of real event that can remove the last inch or so of barrel from a rifle (three known cases), and that they do not interfere with the gathering of peak pressure data. Remember your scientific training, Luke: Opinion bows to logic, logic bows to data, and data bows only to the quality of the measurement system. Before you start an experiment, you test your measurement system. That is what I have done, as far as circumstances allow. Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
one of us |
I'm in the measurement business...large scale petrochemical fluid measurement to be exact. Mistakes are counted in the millions of $$$ per year. Each mistake. Bias, offset, whatever. Denton is perfectly correct that repeatable measurements are required of any good measurement system. He left off a second requirement...sensitivity. The system has to be able to measure a reasonably small change in the input. That value is unique to the system being measured. In our hero's case (the reloader) a difference of a few thousand PSI is good enough sensitivity to keep all the body parts intact. In both PRE measurements and strain gauges factory ammo can be used as a reference. THE EXACT PRESSURE OF THIS AMMO IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE KNOWN! If you do not exceed this measurement by comparison against your reloaded ammo, you are fairly certain to be in the safe range with a modern firearm. This is the fundamental basis for PRE/CHE measurements. It works just fine with strain gauges too. The big difference is that the repeatability and sensitivity of properly implemented strain gauge systems are MUCH better than properly implemented PRE/CHE. No system requires direct calibration against a known standard. This has been expounded ad-nauseum in these arguments. Indirect calibration is quite acceptable and in many cases required by the nature of the system. As for secondary peaks, well, mysterious and unexplained is a reasonable description, but maybe strain gauges are simply the first instruments good enough to detect them. It would be FAR from the first time a new measurement system revealed actual, unusual, unexpected, and unexplained things! lighten up...like the one posters signature says: Remember, this is all for fun! Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Just more BS. | |||
|
| Moderator |
Can you explain why you say that? This is not a dig, I'm genuinely interested and trying to learn something from this thread. Denton If you load a batch on exceptionally uniform ammo and have half measured for pressure at some balistic facility, could you not use the other half to "calibrate" or at least set a "base line" for your strain gauge? Regards, Pete | |||
|
| one of us |
Well, OK. Whatever. Pete, what you suggest could indeed be done, and might be somewhat useful. The problem is that commercial pressure barrels are cut to minimum dimensions, and routinely produce higher pressures and MV's than average guns. We don't know what the offset is... probably only 2-3,000 PSI, and about 70 fps, but still, that's 3-5%... The other approach is that some commercial ammunition manufacturers will give you the test pressure information if you tell them the lot of your ammunition. That suffers from the same problem. My approach has been to follow the NIST procedure. Pressure can be mathematically written in terms of gage factor, barrel ID and OD, steel properties, and a few other terms. We know pressure as well as we know those terms, and all of them are available to at least two digits, and some to three. It's fair to assume that we know pressure to about the accuracy we know the worst of those, so my estimate is that the strain gage is good to a couple of percent, and that's good enough. I've seen the same load in two different books by commercial labs differ by 10%. CDH is absolutely correct in his statement that you can use commercial ammo, and stay below that. The only problem is that a lot of the commercial ammo is a little below spec... and that's not a big problem, because you should be, too. All of those approaches have their merits. As long as you understand what you are doing, I have no problem with any of them. In fact, if you use my approach, you should also use CDH's approach at least a few times on every system you set up, as a check. Every commercial round I have tested has been right where you would expect... Federal High Energy right at the spec limit, for example. Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
| one of us |
Was that addressed at my post or Denton's? Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. | |||
|
| one of us |
 | |||
|
| one of us |
Yeah, I do, and companies are delighted to pay me $2,500 a day for it. I make a good living in about 100 days per year. Right now, I'm in the middle of bidding a large military contract. Your rate is....? Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Strain gauge users need to get some standardized ammo - like the piezo guys do - and run them as internal standards and/or use them to calibarate your strain gauges. Quit making excuses for not doing it. It can't be that difficult. Muzzle velocity could be used to help correct for mild barrel/chamber differnces. If and when you did get this ammo, an unbiased technician needs to run the PSI tests. Bias can cloud minds. | |||
|
| one of us |
Re-read preceding posts, and/or Wheeler's book. I make no excuse. My initial test is exactly the test you should start with. For now, that is the data I have. Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
| one of us |
Well, there you are, you caught him skewing the facts as usual. The biggest mistake a person can make in reading anything denton posts is thinking he is trying to be open-minded to both sides of a discussion or that he doesn't have a (poorly) hidden agenda. It is also totally incorrect to think he is able to deal with factual reality. As a reference to prove the above observations, and since you are in a reading mood, take a look at: The World’s Most Ignorant Reloading Suggestion: https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2511043/m/322108091 --- A non-calibrated HSGS = Reloaders Pyrite (aka Fools Gold) Good old CHE & PRE are still the best Pressure Indicators available to the Reloader. Inexpensive, tools easily calibrated  , easy to learn by (most) anyone, completely repeatable measurements, doesn't hose up your firearm with a Strain Gauge "glued to it" and done using Controlled Standards as References .No doubt at all a properly Calibrated to Controlled Standards, Strain Gauge System used on a barrel that has been dimensionally measured with a CAD/CAM machine is an excellent tool for a Ballistics Lab. If any of those elements are missing, it is simply an expensive, misleading product which data may be dead on the nose, way high, or way low - no way to know. | |||
|
| one of us |
That requires standardized barrels (and powder, and bullets, and...and...and) to eliminate BIAS. One can chase their tail all day with this argument. The trick is to determine when the data is good enough for the application at hand. Everyone's personal standards are just that, their own. PRE/CHE is the GO-NO GO gauge of the pressure measuring methods. It's just that simple.
Using velocity to correct for chamber variation only adds another uncertainty (BIAS) into the equation...never good in any measurement system. You should know that if you make your living as you say. And yes, if you want high precision data, it is that difficult. Just look at the variances in published manuals...those guys take great measures for accurate data and they still differ by a significant amount! Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Why are you stain-gauge guys AFRAID? Your FEAR is very suspicious. If your system is unequivocally good, then you should jump at the chance to prove it. I understand the you can buy standardized ammo - that is, maybe the same source the piezo guys use. Moreover, much of the piezo data is published by Hodgdon, Alliant, Lyman, etc. in their reloading manuals. Certainly, one could duplicate some of those loads as closely as possible and test them. Unfortunately, at this point in the discussion, you guys (DENTON and CDH) are so emotionally locked into your system, I don't trust you to be unbiased and honest. You've got your EGOs too wrapped in this. I'd like to see some decent and believable data - i.e., a valid unbiased comparison between the strain gauge and piezo systems. | |||
|
| one of us |
Of course, maybe we have been getting such good results, for so long, that we are simply not very worried about the issues you raised. If it really bothers you, do your own dang experiment. Go get some data. I'm following my agenda, not yours. If you want your agenda followed, roll up your sleeves and get off your butt. Have you noticed that the guys with exactly zero experience with strain gages are lecturing those of who have experience on what we ought to be doing? We are as far along as we are far along. We understand some things, but do not understand all things. Later, we will understand more things. The things we now understand have ruled PRE and CHE out as precise measurement systems. So far, the data have raised no such barrier for CUP, piezo, or strain. Which, of course, confirms the reasons that manufacturers and publishers switched. Tomorrow, we may find yet a better way, and switch again. I hope so. That would be exciting. Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
| one of us |
Bingo!! Most of what I'm interested in requires only differences. If there is a bias, it appears on both sides of the equation, and vanishes in the math, without effect. So, for that, I couldn't care less about bias. Only repeatability matters. When I'm working up a load, then I worry a little about bias. But all evidence points to the existing bias being smaller than any number I care about. In a lot of cases, 10 degrees F is 2,000 PSI peak. Do you lie awake worrying about that? All evidence is that the absolute calibration of a good strain gage system is little, if any, worse than that. Absent evidence of a disease, I have little enthusiasm for funding the effort to find a cure. Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Why, that's more than I pay Mrs. Howell! | |||
|
| one of us |
And about $2,500 more than what he is worth since as denton says: Just about the ONLY thing I've ever seen him put in print that I agree with. Oh yes, just to be fair to denton, the quote does not contain his normal (poorly) hidden agenda. | |||
|
| one of us |
You are calling me emotionally wrapped up!?!? EGO!?!?!? You are the one getting all pissy, and you don't know jack about me except what I have chosen to share on this forum, so take your judgements and put 'em where the rest of your head is. Now you can call me emotional. For someone who claims to make scientific measurements for a living, you seem to know just about zero about basic measurement theory. Sorta telling...IMO. I do recall that someone with experience in a ballistics lab reported that they had used a SG system and found the data to be as good or slightly better than piezo. Ballisticians tend to be a conservative lot though, so I don't expect wholesald movement to SG's anytime soon. A few phone calls to the helpful folks at Nosler, Sierra, and such might be educational. Try doing your own research sometime, you might discover that you like it! ...nuff said, gotta go earn a living. Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have been calculating the errors from gain and offsets in measurement systems as part of the desgin process, and they are paying $600/ day. I have worked every day for a year. Bfore that, it was spotty. Before the dotcom bust, in 2000 I charged $760 a day, and I felt like a robber. How can Denton be worth 4 times as much as me? I don't think he can push the buttons on a caclulator better than me, he must be handsome, charming, famous, charasmatic, or some other intangable. | |||
|
| one of us |
I'm probably not. I'm just lucky enough to work in a high-demand area. And it's not just me they are paying for... we supply a considerable amount of IP with our products. By the client's accounting, we saved one company $50,000,000 the first year. Another major manufacturer cut their entire factory scrap and rework by 50% over the course of a year, working with us. When your previous clients will confirm numbers like that to your prosepective clients, what we charge is peanuts, and they are glad to pay it. Of course, I could always accept "handsome" if you like, but that would hard to support with data. Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
| one of us |
Hot Core posted:
If you are going to quote me, at least quote accurately. The correct quote is:
Nice little twist on the facts, Hot Core. Don't you ever get tired of pissing on your shoes in public that way? Manifestly not. Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Denton, your UNWILLINGNESS to do something that should be VERY EASY is making you look VERY BAD. I can't figure out why you're so adamantly against testing some outside standards and/or comparing some of your data against a piezo system. Why is this prospect so painful for you - in fact, this reaction suggests you're HIDING SOMETHING, or (worse) unbelievably ARROGANT. If I had this attitude in my profession, I’d be FIRED. To shy away from a reasonable request to TEST YOUR SYSTEM against outside standards is tantamount to admitting CHARLATANISM. Should you change your mind, the comparison should be done in a DOUBLE-BLIND fashion and the results tabulated and published by an unbiased (indifferent) referee. I'm sorry to say this so STRONGLY but this is exactly how you're looking. | |||
|
| one of us |
If you want that data, get off your lazy, whiney ass and go get it for yourself. You make scientific measurements everyday, so you have the ability. What in the world makes you think I am going to go get it for you? Do you think calling me names is going to make me want to help you? Figure the odds. It's NOT "my" system. I own two different brands of strain gage systems. I use them to investigate the things that interest me, not the things that interest you. Of course, if you want to write me a check for a couple of days of work, and buy the equipment, then I might feel like answering your question. Either get out your checkbook, or go get your own data. That's what I have to do...often both. Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Denton, you're pissed, because YOU'RE EXPOSED FOR WHAT YOU ARE - a bullshitting CHARLATAN! You can't stand up to challenge, because you know you'll FAIL. It's time someone beside CDH exposed you and your BS. LOL. | |||
|
| one of us |
I understand that 0 case head expansion is good, but I have never had any trouble with .005 and have read many articles in Reloader etc. where consideralby more was accepted by the authors....Mostly I go for the point of accuracy below .005..... Ray Atkinson Atkinson Hunting Adventures 10 Ward Lane, Filer, Idaho, 83328 208-731-4120 rayatkinsonhunting@gmail.com | |||
|
| one of us |
AIU, you have just come up to a nearly complete stranger, who owes you absolutely nothing, and who has no financial interest in any strain gage product, who pursues pressure measurements strictly as a hobby, and have demanded that he spend time and money answering a question that you think is important. It is bad enough that I cast my pearls before swine, but now the swine are complaining about the quality of the pearls. Go get yourself checked for narcisssistic personality disorder. Or run for President, as a Democrat. If you want the data, get off your lazy, whiney ass and go get it for yourself. If the data show a problem, then you get to publish, and show I was wrong. Of course, you don't dare, because you know you would FAIL! Your BS is EXPOSED!! Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
one of us |
I find it unreasonable to suggest that some standardized or SAAMI test ammunition is worth much to calibrate any kind of system of pressure measurement or "indication" in a factory rifle. SAAMI has verified the average pressure of such ammunition in a SAAMI test barrel. Most factory rifle barrels do not have chambers as tight as a SAAMI test barrel and such ammunition will necessarily produce less pressure in them. So for those who think one is going to "calibrate" any pressure measurement device with such ammunition without also using a similar SAAMI test barrel is delusional. I don't even know if there is any documentation regarding how to "calibrate" a strain gauge using standardized or SAAMI test ammunition. Haven't seen it, if it exists please someone tell us where to find it. Ultimately, the fact being is that the strain gauge does not require calibration beyond that which is accepted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Those standards do not involve the use of SAAMI test ammunition. Further, the strain gauge works just fine due to our understanding of electrical current and the properties of steel (or other materials of interest), facts which are well documented and that result in strain gauge use in many applications other than measuring chamber pressure in firearms. I also find it interesting that one person will say that a case head or pressure ring measurement of .0005" indicates maximum pressure has been exceeded whereas others have said that measurements of .003" or even .005" are acceptable. Also dubious is CHE or PRE used with factory ammunition to claim the determination of a maximum load in a given rifle, given that such ammunition is likely not maximum in most rifles to begin with, but that exhibits an average pressure suitable for use in firearms of a wide range of configurations and conditions. So even if CHE or PRE measurements are repeatable and reliable in that context, one is not discovering a maximum for that rifle, they would only be determining the point at which they are producing conditions with their ammunition in their rifle which are similar to the conditions produced by factory ammunition in their rifle. One may accept that as a "maximum" but it doesn't necessarily make it a maximum load for that rifle. In addition, I remember reading in my Lyman manual that Lyman tested measuring cases against their pressure testing equipment and found that measuring cases was unreliable, sometimes not detecting dangerous pressure and other times indicating excessive pressure when the actual pressure was far below that level. You learn something new everyday whether you want to or not. | |||
|
one of us |
Is this too difficult? Remington says that their factory load "X" produces "Y" average pressure in their test barrel. You buy Rem "X" ammo and shoot it in your rifle and it gives you an average of "Z" strain gage reading. Doesn't that give you an indirect calibration of "Z" strain gage reading = "Y" test barrel pressure? Frank "I don't know what there is about buffalo that frightens me so.....He looks like he hates you personally. He looks like you owe him money." - Robert Ruark, Horn of the Hunter, 1953 NRA Life, SAF Life, CRPA Life, DRSS lite | |||
|
| one of us |
Yes it does. The problem is the differences between the test barrel and your barrel. If you want to find out what reading in your barrel will give XYZ pressure in a test barrel, that is what you do. Make sense...??? The assumption used by everyone (including the testers at balllistic labs) is that a minimum spec test barrel will give pressures higher than your factory barrel (virtually guaranteed to be at greater than min. spec). That's a pretty good assumption, but not an absolute. Of course the pursuers of absolutes lead VERY frustrated lives...especially when reloading and checking pressure.  If you use factory ammo as a 'sanity check' of your strain gauge, you are pretty sure to be below SAMMI max when your strain gauge gives the same reading. All the above pre-supposes that one has properly executed the installation and configuration of everyting involved...and that's the key argument our buddy Hot Core expounds upon. But that's another argument altogether! This is kinda the private joke of mine with all the PRE vs. strain gauge arguments. They both measure the same thing and the same factory ammo can be used with reasonable safety as a reference (note, NOT calibration, reference only) to insure safety. Both measure the stretch of barrel/receiver steel to infer pressure. One does it with a brass artifact, one does it with a strain gauge. The rest of the argument gets lost in the vageries of resolution and repeatability... Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. | |||
|
| one of us |
What you've suggested is an excellent idea. It's very much like the approach that CDH favors, and that I think ought to be used as a check any time you use the approach I favor. The issue is that the pressure barrel chambers are cut to minimum dimensions, and give higher pressures than most firearms do. You end up having to take a SWAG at what the offset is. After you have tested umpteen commercial rounds, and they are all right where they're 'spose to be, you get bored and quit worrying about it. Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
| one of us |
Maybe and maybe not. The problem with using Off-the-Shelf ammo "in an attempt" to Calibrate a HSGS is you really don't know what the Pressure is from the Factory. You have all the variables associated with the Cartridge(Case, Primer, Powder and Bullet) plus the high potential to hose-up the Strain Gauge installation and worst of all trying to get an "accurate" dimensional measurement of the barrel. One guy in another thread had Factory Ammo in a 308Win showing Pressures (I believe) in the 20k psi range on his HSGS. (CDH correct me if I remembered those numbers wrong.) Using PRE, it doesn't matter what the Pressure is, because it is a Relative Comparison. --- Hey CDH, You did so good right up to there. Perhaps it is just a choice of words, but I would say one is done using the Case which provides excellent First-Hand Pressure Indications and in this application the other uses a Second-Hand Pressure Indicator - strain gauge. Sure is no fun when you are making good sense. I NEVER anticipate that being the situation with denton. | |||
|
| one of us |
If you are going to quote me, at least quote accurately. The correct quote is: Nope folks, mine is a direct quote as copied from something else denton posted about. Won't work with denton trying to clinton his way out of it at all. I can joke about things as well as the next guy, but my quote was a direct quote. However it does seem that denton has claimed being "unburdened with any direct knowledge" more times than I saw it. I can see where it would be appropriate for denton to use it as his Signature line. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Denton SAYS, "It is bad enough that I cast my pearls before swine, but now the swine are complaining about the quality of the pearls." Wasn't it Jesus Christ who underscored this comment (maybe even the first to say it)? Denton, you ain't no Jesus Christ - sorry - although you obviously think you're the Jesus Christ of reloading with all those "pearls" you cast. I just can't wait for the next one. Now, guys, all of us "swine" should bow and pray to Denton - the self anointed Jesus Christ of reloading. Denton the great man who deigns to grace us with reloading "pearls." LOL. Denton SAYS, "Go get yourself checked for narcisssistic [misspelled] personality disorder." Hey, Denton you're the one casting "pearls" implying your likeness to Jesus Christ - not me! I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. LOL. Again, I just CAN'T WAIT for the next "Denton SAYS." LOL. | |||
|
| one of us |
It's actually from the Sermon on the Mount, counsel Christ gave to His disciples. I your haste to accuse, you pissed on your shoes. Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Denton, you're loosen it MAN and goin' down in flames. It's a pathetic thing to watch, when those with the BIG EGOs get a dose of reality. But, those folks with the REALLY BIG EGOS - like Denton - fall very easily. Goodbye Denton. P.S. But I just can't wait until the next "Denton SAYS PEARL!" It's so BIG of you to keep all us "swine" educated. LOL. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Denton, you're really, really PISSED - it's obvious, you're working really, really hard at this game. Yet, why did you post the two quotes above? - that is, your statments don't go along with your actions. But, I know why - you're out-of-control, especially because no one (especially a "swine") should show disrespect for the GREAT DENTON - the self-anoited Jesus Christ of reloading. LOL even more than before. Man you were easy to bring down, but then the BIG EGOs always are. | |||
|
| one of us |
Denton... Christ... Did I say that, or did you? I'm pretty sure it was you. HAVE you been to a psychiatrist? Do you have any proof that you don't have NPD? Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Denton, I won't let you get away with deleting your silly angry post - you know you did the wrong thing and made yourself look stupid. But, you see, I'd already copied it; and unfortunately for you, my response to your last post is below. Maybe I'll delete my reponse later - I'll think about it. Denton, I'm sorry to point out what an angry loser you are, but I can't help myself (I know, it's a vice I have) - besides you threw down the guantlet and your ego and arrogance are too tempting and easy to pick at. Such fun you're providing.
Soooo.... number 1 would be showing up to a forum, with no data, or applicable knowledge, and expecting to be recognized as an authority. [Denton, to you, you're the only guy here with data or experience. Moreover, you claim to have data supporting how fancy you PSI system is, telling us CHE is bullshit, etc. But,where's your comparison data between strain gauge and piezo measures or data on known standards. You don't, and YOU'VE fabricated data trying to look like an expert. But, you're exposed now and pissed off, and I understand.] And we have an obvious number 3....[Denton, you haven't a clue who I am, where I work, or what institutions I may be associated with. I've never said. Yet, we know all about your $2500.00 per day consultation fees. I'm really, really impressed.] And expecting a complete stranger to immediately "hop to" and deliver the information you want is a clear number 5... [No one here has said "hop to" - just suggested obtaining said comparison data, if you want to be credible in you claims. Otherwise, expect yourself to be ignored by many.] Number 6 looks good... trying to manipulate or humiliate someone into gathering your data for you... [Denton, I don't want you to gather and analyze the data - I'd hope an unbiased, indifferent observer (someone different than you, who I might actually trust) would gather and analyze the data. If I believed all your trash, I might invest and do the studies, but you've lost all credibility with me. In fact, I think you actually fudge data, trying to look good - you know, dry lab data.] And number 9 is very clear indeed. [Denton, in your mind, all who disagree with you is showing arrogant haughty behavior. Why? Because you're the MAN CASTING PEARLS TO SWINE - JC himself, and who would dare to disagree with JC.] No diagnosis of course, just an observation. [Denton, you claim to know physics and math (maybe) - are you now also claiming now to be a competent psychiatrist? Is there no limit to your EGO? But, admittedly not a problem for JC himself.] So, have you been to a psychiatrist? [You'd best take some of you own advice there, Denton. I'm just a human being with interests in reloading. I don't claim to be the JC of reloading THE MAN WHO CAST PEARLS TO SWINE.] Has he done a double blind study to guarantee that you do not have NPD? [No, Denton, I haven't done a "double-blind" study, but I think you have as a self-anointed psychiatrist. LOL.] If he hasn't how can we trust your word that you don't have NPD? [Denton, the sentense above doesn't make any sense to me. Cool down, don't worry, be happy. Once your brain begins to function a bit, reframe the sentense. I'll respond.] Are you AFRAID to see a counselor? [Why would I want to see a counselor? Have you? You can and tell me what it's like. It'll give you a chance to cool down.] If you don't go see a counselor, you must be a CHARLATAN. It is such an EASY TO DO and REASONABLE thing that if you don't, I'm afraid we'll all have to believe that's your problem. [What do charlatans and counselors have in common - I don't get it.] I can play your silly game as well as you can. I just choose not to, except for a short demonstration. [Short demonstration? - give me a break.] Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. [Denton, take you're own advice. LOL] | |||
|
| one of us |
Brass artifact==cartridge case. Just a little backhand humor attempt...I'm bad about that.
I don't remember the exact numbers either, but it is just a classic case of why one always does a 'sanity check' on any such procedure. Like my signature says... Unfortunately common sense is becoming as rare as good manners...especially from anonymous people on internet forums and flooded cities. Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading Case head expansion..how much is too much??
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
