Ammo manufacturers have to check the pressures of their lots of ammunition, and they do this by buying very expensive test barrels whose every tolerance is checked to the nth degree to ensure that the pressure readings are accurate. This enables them to hold their pressures within a certain range from lot to lot. All are held to a standard set by SAAMI or CIP for safety reasons. This works in the favour of the shooter as he knows both ammo and rifle companies are using industry standards in terms of chambers and bore dimensions. Even though there are tolerances within the standard, it has the safety of the individual shooter in mind.

Some SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute) members include .... A-Square Company, Olin-Winchester, Federal, USRAC, Ruger, Sig/Sauer, Remington, Weatherby, Mossberg, Browning, Hornady-Frontier, Alliant, Olin-St. Marks Powder, and Colt. A-Square is proud of its membership to SAAMI .... read more about it here:

http://a-squareco.com/SAAMI.html

Warrior

Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris,
Given that you have problems with multiple concepts, I am going to do this one thing at a time.

quote:

Warrior said:
"you claim I said ... "CIP maximum is absolute and cannot be exceeded." This is wrong, I never said that"

Your exact words were:
20 and 22 May - "Quickload indicates a gross over stepping of the CIP spec"
2 Feb - "it is not just about reaching the maximum velocity out of a rifle with super hot loads, but rather about reaching a "maximum safe velocity" staying inside the CIP spec, being the industry standard."
2 Feb - "I certainly would not push my K98 action beyond CIP max pressure"
2 Feb - "Without pressure testing one will never know if one is under or over the CIP max. In this case the max velocity of 2,800 fps is too high for a 230 gr bullet from a 9,3x62 mm and I would regard it as an unsafe velocity limit."
3 Feb - "that is the concern, especially if they were to exceed the CIP spec, which is the industry standard."
4 Feb - "they want to stay inside the CIP specification at all costs. I think it is better advice to stay inside the specification than to overstepping it"
4 Feb - You cackled happily about bad data posted by Alf (he misread the type of powder and the load data). It "proved" your point that CIP max must not be exceeded. After Alf partially corrected his mistake, you were very quiet, as usual when you have egg on your face.
17 Feb - "but it would put us far beyond the CIP maximum pressure."
5 March - "You will find that there was a valid reason if you go into it why the CIP max is 56,500 psi"
22 March - Your maximum safe load is over the CIP maximum pressure.

In the light of the above it is clear that your position is that CIP maximum is absolute and cannot be exceeded. That is how I paraphrased it. Your denial is false and you know it.

Once your position on this is clear, and only then, will we move on to the next item.

Gerard,

You are chasing your tail, boet! Rather define what is a "Maverick-load" and what is not; that is the essence of this discussion. I cannot endorse your max "safe" load, as it is a silly position to propagate. You do not seem to understand that standards have to do with PRUDENCE. If you want to put yourself outside the industry standards then it is fine with me, but then the non-suspecting public must know this, so they can take their own decisions. I refer here to the duty of care.

I am still curious to know how all these other people that supposedly achieve 2,800 fps, how they do it? (Or those that chipped-in in support of this velocity, and how they know it)

Warrior

Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris,

quote:

Warrior said:
"you claim I said ... "CIP maximum is absolute and cannot be exceeded." This is wrong, I never said that"

Once your position on this is clear, and only then, will we move on to the next item.

Gerard,

The question I asked you repeatedly, which you refused repeatedly is ... how did you arrive at this "safe" max load of 2,800 fps? Did you experiment in various rifles, or did you have it pressure tested by a Lab, or did you go with an estimate?

I think the onus is on you to answer this question to the public and the readers of AR. Don't let anything hold you back to answer this question. Forget completely what I said, or what I did not say, or how you interpreted what I said, however skew your perception might be as to what I really said, it might just get you into a knot. Just concentrate on your own thinking.

In clarification of the above question, I wish to make it even clearer so there is no misunderstanding. Even if we ignore the pressure issue of exceeding a particular level, be it CIP P-max or whatever, how do we achieve a safe max velocity of 2,800 fps? Following that, I need to know how you determined your margin of safety and the quantification thereof - I am beginning to believe it would not be in psi, but if it is, then you can state it for us either in absolute terms or in relative terms of so many percent below what "something" you hold as an upper limit.

Warrior

Hey Warrior,
You strongly deny that you said CIP is absolute and cannot be exceeded. Then you must be ok with the fact that CIP is not absolute and may be exceeded. You change your mind so frequently it is difficult to keep up. Probably your opinion is the flavor of the day that suits your mood of the day and how you want to discredit GScustom that day.


I checked your posts going back to your Truvelo period. It is incredible to see your ongoing attacks on Gerard and the GScustom bullets and how you defend other bullets that have actual flaws and shortcomings. It is also very obvious that you do not use GScustom bullets and use and experiment with other bullets that are nowhere near the quality and then sing the praises. There can only be some other motive and it is not about quality and performance hey. Who is paying you for this?

Rat Motor,
He says he has no ties with any other manufacturer. That is his story and he is sticking with it.

Also understand that he will duck and dive about this "absolute CIP" issue because he is trying to decide which strategy suits his agenda best, absolute CIP or not. In the meantime, he will make mistakes and tell lies faster than what one can deal with them. This has been the pattern for more than six years, no reason to think it will change now.

It is absolutely INCREDIBLE how this issue under discussion is being avoided and derailed by throwing these INCREDIBLE smoke bombs. We live in an INCREDIBLE world and that includes INCREDIBLE velocities, especially at 34° South. More so, the perpetuation of the myth of INCREDIBLE velocities is the stunning thing to me, considering no personal experience by Rat Motor and that after it was made an issue, one would think it needs careful confirmation of what velocity is possible that could be recommended as a safe maximum, allowing for a margin of safety.

Then the INCREDIBLE attacks started on me after I raised this issue. It is truly INCREDIBLE to see the curve ball of how another manufacturer is drawn into our discussion. Then the INCREDIBLE accusation of ..... "There can only be some other motive and it is not about quality and performance hey. Who is paying you for this?" The real question is continually obscured and frustrated over 7 pages - a fruitless endeavour.

The issue here is a very basic one; a reloading issue about safe reloading methods and doctrines. I think it is INCREDIBLY SILLY to put a "bad" load behind a "good" bullet. If pressure testing is a futile endeavour to establish a datum line, then I confess that visual case inspection on its own is better than reading tea leaves. Then ammo making companies and reloading manuals could only focus on the "case", and as such no loads need to be published - the reloader can start with say a 75% case fill and work his way up till case failure and then back off somewhat.

Could it be that the 2,800 fps comes from reading tea leaves?



Warrior

You are such an idiot. Completely incapable of original thought and completely transparent. No wonder people are poking fun at you.

1. Velocity results - 230 gr HV bullet:

Powder: S335
Load: 59 gr
Case: Remington
Primer: Magnum CCI250
AOL = 83.47 mm
Barrel: 21 inch hunting rifle
Velocity: 2,630 fps
Pressure: No signs of pressure on brass or flat primer, etc. (No pressure labs in bush!)

This just as a matter of interest - may shed some light on Warrior's BS story.

Note the following:
Seating depth - ± 1.53mm deeper than the 85.0mm AOL Warrior claims - yet powder not compressed in the least.

Barrel length - 3 inches less than 24" - yet velocity only 170fps below 2800fps.

This load has been reloaded in the same cases 4 times already and still not the slightest sign of excessive pressure on brass cases or any other indications like tight bolt lift, etc.

This is reality, not thumb sucks or skew lab tests twisted to fit some agenda.

I knew that this thread was going to degenerate into a pissing match.

Whenever I see a post on pressure indication, I don't even bother to read it until there is at least 5 pages of posts then I just check the last page to see who's pissing.

Then I can ignore it in good conscience.

quote:

Barrel length - 3 inches less than 24" - yet velocity only 170fps below 2800fps.

Gecko,

Not so hasty with your accusations. Velocity for barrel length is around 20 fps per inch for a 9,3 x 62 mm, You can check it out it is very similar to the 375 H&H. Even if it turns out to be more like 22 fps per inch for an individual rifle, the 3 inches you refer to would make up about 66 fps max,

Your velocity in 21-inch barrel = 2,630 fps
Plus velocity for 3 inches to get to 24 inches = 2,630 + 66 = 2,696 fps ----->

The velocity of the Lab's 24 inch barrel = 2,723 fps. ----------------------->

Still short by 27 fps, but then your load was 0.8 grains short, so it is about equal.

You can check this article on velocity loss per inch .... http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/October05.htm

For your information, there is no thumb sucks or skew lab tests twisted to fit some agenda as you accused me of. The loads were witnessed by 3 people and done by the Lab personnel with their equipment and we have the certificates. You are more than welcome to have your loads pressure tested, and it would be very interesting to verify your velocity (which is very close to ours by way of computation) to the pressure that we obtained, as similar velocity should equal similar pressure.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
.....Within the maximum effective effiency window of each propellant ( working pressure range and propellant balance point) as it pertains to a combsution volume we find that there is a steady state of velocity increase per unit of charge mass increase, when however suddenly there is a jump in velocity outside of the trend it can only be at the hand of increased pressure and that is the warning sign.

It only applies when powders of correct burn rates are used for the applicable combsution volumes....

..... But if we work up loads and fire series of shots over the chrono for each increment is charge mass increase we will see that there is a linear upward trend in velocity, if suddenly there is a deviation from the trend it should be a warning because it can only happen at the hand of pressure change

1in10,

The above quote pieces from Alf hit closest to home with my proceedures for reloading safely!

I've seen many threads where by the time every "expert" has cautioned about everything it leaves you wondering - Why I should should even try!

So....I'll offer my procedure for your help. You can expect it to be shot to pieces - But it has worked for me:


1) Keep good notes - I use an excel spreadsheet with the following info: date, temperature, rifle, barrel length, case, primer, bullet, crimp, powder, powder wt., velocities (1st shot, 2nd...etc.), avg. velocity, velocity extreme spread, velocity std. dev., velocity coef. of var., shot primer condition and shot case pressure ring diameter.

2) Find the better powders to try- 1 to 5 powders obtained from other experienced reloader's recomendations and published reloading tables for the catridge. Spending more time here WILL save you some time latter.

3) Load 4 to 5 sets of rounds for each powder staying within published min. and max.s- When starting with more than 2 powders, I reload 2 rounds per set with the sets spaced evenly over the min/max range (with 2 powders I reload 3 per set)

4) Shoot sets of rounds beginning with lowest charges 1st- Get velocity, primer info and pressure ring measurements on that set before going to next higher set. STOP - Don't go to next set of higher charge wt.s if signs of high pressure.

5) Compare velocities and velocity gain per grain of powder weight for all powders - Here, I want to pick the "best of the bunch powder" to experiment with further. Also, remember that a powder that almost fills the case volume after the bullet is seated may have the better accuracy potential.

6) Experiment further with that powder - If pressure indications are OK I may decided to go over published charged weights. If so, I'll increase to 3 rounds per set and work in smaller increments of powder charge. Remember, this is only for that particuler rifle!!! If I decide to go for accuracy staying at or below the published max. charge weight, I'll increase to 5 rounds per set, still working with smaller increments of powder charge. Use same STOP criteria as in 4) when shooting this exp.

Now.....The only problem I've run into following this procedure was with my 8x57 Mauser. I got signs of high pressure at a starting charge wt. with one powder, the rest showed NO signs even at europian max charges, case volumes varied as much as 1.5 grains of powder from brand to brand, velocities were MUCH lower than those published and could not even get velocity with some over max. experiments.

I never did solve this problem! - Just had that rifle rebarreled!

But have adjusted all my starting loads by up a small increment from published minimum in step 3) and sort cases by head stamp & whether not not the fired case was shot in my rifle.

Good Luck

quote:

This just as a matter of interest - may shed some light on Warrior's BS story.

Gecko,

Having explained the velocity gains/degradation per inch of barrel length to you, I now want to come to the bullshit (BS) part. The BS part is that 2,800 fps is a "safe" maximum velocity, which suggests that we have an adequate margin of safety. As you can see my team struggled to get higher than 2,723 fps as the the 9,3 case is too small.

If we add a margin of safety on top of 2,800 fps, say 3% of the velocity, then the upper limit becomes 2,884 fps and that cannot be achieved. Also S335 runs at higher pressures than S341 and S355 and one will have to use a foreign powder, which we do not have in SA, to get closer or to achieve it. Then of course we get back to checking the pressure level if it is achieved.

My statement was that it cannot be done with a combo of a PMP case, magnum primer & our local S335 powder. Pressure testing is still the best method to estabilsh datums for comparisons across different components, powders and barrels. The hole industry accepts that as a preferred method, rather than any other method, of which we have discussed the various drawbacks at length.

So, there is no "Warrior BS story" as you hinted, the only bullshit is the GSC recommended 2,800 fps max "safe" velocity in the SA context and then of course all those that want to sing in the same choir.

Warrior

Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris,

quote:

Warrior said:
"you claim I said ... "CIP maximum is absolute and cannot be exceeded." This is wrong, I never said that"

Once your position on this is clear, and only then, will we move on to the next item.

My hunting friend on an adjacent farm and I both hunt with 9.3 x 62's - his a 24" barrel.

This is his results:
1. Velocity results - 230 gr GSCHV bullet:

Powder: S335
Load: 59 gr
Case: Remington
Primer: Magnum CCI250
AOL = 83.30 mm
Barrel: 24 inch hunting rifle
Velocity: 2,760 fps
Pressure: No signs of pressure on brass or flat primer, etc.

Both sets of results, one out of my 21" and his in a 24" barrel, were chrono tested on the same date, same conditions, same load - only difference was the 24" barrel was seated slightly deeper. Only reason for that was the smaller three shot grouping that was achieved in doing that.

His 2760fps is 130fps more than mine - just over 43fps per inch of barrel length - actual field test figures.
So your table values of 22fps per inch are skew and incorrect.

What's more is that without any compacting of powder it would be easy to add another 2 - 3gr of powder in the case and that would easily take the 24" barrel over 2800fps.

We didn't bother to do that because both our rifles gave less than 1.5 inch groupings when zeroed on 200 meters.

Once again, you're talking BS

As far as this little bit you wrote goes:

quote:

As you can see my team struggled to get higher than 2,723 fps as the the 9,3 case is too small.

Another bunch of crap you are spreading around here!

Alf wrote:

quote:

Example:

9.3 x 62 Mauser:

Gross case capacity @ 75.83 gr water or 0.30 cubic inches.

For a 230 gr GSHV 0.366 inch bullet seated to a depth of 0.410 inches the net case capacity is 64.939 grains water.

Drop your agenda and get realistic for a change - stop your

Gecko,
You say that the Troll must drop his Agenda and get realistic. There is little chance of that. More than three years ago I explained to another forum member:

quote:

Chris goes out of his way to find any small reason to put a negative slant on my opinions ever since I pointed out a slew of technical errors in an article he wrote a couple of years ago. On this forum, many participants have called him some pretty insulting things, yet he barely responds to them. All his "research" and complicated explanations seem to address mostly the disproving of facts I raise when he is technically challenged. You may conclude yourself who is having a problem with whom.

Despite the fact that he has been caught in numerous lies and false efforts to discredit GSC, he continues. See him for what he is: A Troll with an Agenda.

What beats me is that this jerk can spend half his time here badgering a manufacturer who is putting out a world class product. There are so many real and serious issues with some other bullet makers that surely deserve to be mentioned and in fact often are talked about here on AR. Yet the JERK spends his time chasing after ghosts and ignoring reality. I have found GScustom to be nothing but helpful and far more willing to help with technical problems thab any other manufacturer I have contacted in South Africa. Some manufacturers simply give you someone else to call for load information and assistance or give such blatantly bad advice that even a novice can sense that they do not really know whats potting. Most South African bullet websites are a joke when you are looking for information. GScustom is like their website. They are never unwilling to try and help even when you aproach them with a problem that they are not responsible for. Complaints about GScustom products are noted by their absence except from this JERK. There has to be a motive behind his persecution complex. That is all it can be called. GScustom has my sympathy in dealing with him for so long.

quote:

considering no personal experience by Rat Motor

I may have only one rifle but I have used three brands of South African bullets and a number of imported bullet brands since I have been reloading and my personal experience is that GScustom is head and shoulders above the other two. The product and the level of expertise and service from GScustom is way ahead of the rest here in SA. This tells me that the JERK has no clue what he is talking about and there must be some other motive behind his action.

I think we are done with this thread now, so I am bailing out. I not going to start a personal fight or answer the one-sided crap or be side-tracked. Any debate with Gerard ends in personal attacks, name-calling, denials, twisting of facts, putting a different spin on things, and creating smoke to obscure and confuse - his favourite method of discrediting.

Anyway ...2,800 fps, a "safe" max load ... my ass!
This endeavour prove to me conclusively what I am dealing with.
I don't want to beat a dead horse about not being able to get an honest reply here, but the sad thing would be if there is failure to communicate back to the customer about the true nature of this particular reload data to amend it to a lower level.

Warrior

Hey Warrior

quote:

Warrior says
Any debate with Gerard ends in personal attacks, name-calling, denials, twisting of facts, putting a different spin on things, and creating smoke to obscure and confuse - his favourite method of discrediting.

quote:

Gerard said
On this forum, many participants have called him some pretty insulting things, yet he barely responds to them. All his "research" and complicated explanations seem to address mostly the disproving of facts I raise when he is technically challenged.

Even I can start predicting your reactions now. You are like a sheet of glass. TRANSPARENT!!

quote:

Warrior says
I think we are done with this thread now, so I am bailing out.

Like Schwarzenegger you will be back. Difference is you are a bad egg.

Transparency and being straight is what we expect from our government and that can only be a good thing. So that is fine by me.

Warrior

quote:

Like Schwarzenegger you will be back. Difference is you are a bad egg.

Wow that was fast!

Warrior

Interesting that this guy always run for cover when the facts are thrown in his face - just to return later to start a new mud slinging session.

Typical of someone with a low IQ

SpringTrap,

You must either be drunk or retrarded with your reasoning ... "facts" ... "mud-slinging". Your comments are actually indicative of your low IQ.

Warrior

Warrior, your first sentence spells it out -

quote:

You must either be drunk or retrarded with your reasoning .

Problem with you is you don't accept what others have experienced as being fact enough to be generally accepted for what it really is.

Yet, your own totally wrong information given, you expect AR members should swallow it hook and sinker! (Refer 9.3 x 62 case capacity which you and your 'team' claim is too small!)
Sorry pal, only you could be that stupid.

So jump in the lake with a rock in each of your trouser pockets

Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris,

Talking about being drunk, was it not you who wrote these examples of incoherence?

"Shooting into steel is very different to shooting into steel. I guess it takes some experience to discover this."

"Penetration was shallow because of over expansion and the two gemsbok had to take multiple shots each, except for the warthog."

"Pieter Olivier an I have shots may Impala bullets."

I would refrain from calling you retarded, they cannot help the way they are and some respect is called for.
(retrarded )

Gerard,

You are so clever, you should have been a twin.
Your bickering goes on and on.



Warrior

quote:

Yet, your own totally wrong information given, you expect AR members should swallow it hook and sinker! (Refer 9.3 x 62 case capacity which you and your 'team' claim is too small!)

I do not have a team of praise singers like yourselves. You must be referring to Alf here and also a previous reference to what Alf stated in terms of case capacity. I suggest you call Alf out and prove him wrong (with your superior knowledge), as that is what you are seem to be saying.

Warrior

Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris,
These all come from you.

quote:

25 April
I do not have a team

quote:

24 April
As you can see my team struggled

quote:

25 April
You must be referring to Alf here and also a previous reference to what Alf stated in terms of case capacity.

quote:

24 April
as the the 9,3 case is too small.

quote:

I think we are done with this thread now, so I am bailing out.

Another five posts later you try to drag Alf into the argument with Triple Hornswoggle:

quote:

call Alf out and prove him wrong (with your superior knowledge)

You are confused as usual. Some advice: Stick to the truth, then you don't have to remember what you lied about.


See, I can also be relentless like the battery Bunny and continuously be in your face about nothing, creating arguments from thin air.

/

Alf, that was hard to follow! Nothing wrong with that, of course.

I must say - you never retaliate when insulted and/or attacked. That I admire in you! You are a gentleman and a scholar!

I have a question/problem of my own - this regards overloading my hornet. I don't know whether or not I am. I would like to hear more about 'reading' primers.

/

quote:

The service velocity limits for CIP then would be:

320 gr = 2230 fps
300 gr = 2310 fps
293 gr = 2330 fps
285 gr = 2370 fps
270 gr = 2430 fps
250 gr = 2520 fps
247 gr = 2540 fps
232 gr = 2630 fps ---------------------->
230 gr = 2630 fps
225 gr = 2660 fps
180 gr = 2970 fps

1. Results of my first pressure testing - 230 gr HV bullet:

Powder: S335
Load: 58.0 gr
Case: PMP
Primer: Magnum CCI250
AOL = 85.0 mm
Barrel: 24 inch test barrel from Lab
Velocity: 2,634 fps --------------------->
Pressure: 98 of P-max


2. Results of my second pressure testing - 230 gr HV bullet:

Powder: S335
Load: 59.8 gr
Case: PMP
Primer: Magnum CCI250
AOL = 85.0 mm
Barrel: 24 inch test barrel from Lab
Velocity: 2,723 fps
Pressure: 7% over P-max

Please note, in order to gain velocity, I seated the bullet out to an AOL of 85 mm (CIP = 83.6 mm), so I could get more powder into the case, but it was still a compressed load.

Powder was at the base of the neck (Neck length = 7.8 mm) and actually into the neck by a few millimeters (guess about 2 mm's) - see photo:



AOL -------------- 85.0 mm
Case ------------- 62.0 mm
Diff ---------------- 23.0 mm
Bullet length ----- 34.1 mm
Diff ---------------- 11.1 mm
Neck length ------ 7.8 mm
Compressed ----- 3.3 mm + 2 mm's into neck = 5 mm's

Warrior

quote:

You are confused as usual. Some advice: Stick to the truth, then you don't have to remember what you lied about.

Gerard,

You must be having a very high fever that makes you hallucinating and uttering gibberish. Every time that you open your mouth you must talk shit in an attempt to personally discredit me, rather than to stick to the subject under discussion and counter with facts and convincing arguments.

There is no confusing or any lie, it is all documented. The disturbing truth is that YOU are still trying to deny that it is an undue high pressure load. The confusing thing is that you are still in denial.

Warrior

Hey Warrior
Gerard has caught you out in several lies which you deny. So I checked out what you say starting with your post above.

quote:

Warrior posted: Gerard, The disturbing truth is that you are still trying to deny that it is an undue high pressure load.

Regardless of whether it is high or not I cannot find such a denial on this forum. Is your statement then a lie?

quote:

Gerard, Every time that you open your mouth you talk shit in an attempt to personally discredit me.

I quick check shows numerous posts where Gerard did not even address you and posted on topics and threads where you were not present. Is your statement then a lie?

quote:

I think we are done with this thread now, so I am bailing out.

I see another seven posts after that statement and there is no doubt that there will be more. Is your statement then a lie?

Wow that is on this page only. Page six I see:

quote:

Be careful of what Rat Motor says, he is a rabble rouser.

Ha! You have said you have me on ignore. How can you see what I am posting? Or was that a lie?

quote:

I mentioned that there were differences between the SAAMI and CIP system, and you you made out that it was not true

I find no reference where Gerard said that this is not true. Why then the lie above?

quote:

Warrior said:
"you claim I said ... "CIP maximum is absolute and cannot be exceeded." This is wrong, I never said that"

One of these statements must be a lie. Both cannot be true.

I see you have said that Barnes X bullet retain all their weight and that you have never seen one that lost the petals. Every second x bullet picture shows that this is not true. Why do you lie about that?

Until you come clean on why you post these false things I for one cannot beleive a word you say. There is another motive for all of this and I would like to know what it is.

You have this big issue with GScustom. You have said nothing about the debacle with a powder manufacturer very close to home. THERE is an issue you should be spending time on. How about bullet manufacturers who give you bullets to test and you say nothing about it when they fail to expand at low speed and break up completely when they should stay together? GScustom has been making bullets for a long time with better consistency from one batch to the next than any other local manufacturer can boast within a batch. You say nothing when reloaders like me develop loads with bullets you defend and the next time I buy a box it looks and acts like a completely different bullet. Does it not bother you when they have no consistent standard from batch to batch? Us poor suckers have to keep on spending money on developing new loads every season and this is ok with you. Instead of finding some real problems you only find these little things that pop out of your head about GScustom. There has to be more to it than a righteous zeal for correcting the "wrongs" of GScustom. They can not be the only bullet maker that makes mistakes.

Twisting and taking things I said out of context won't help you one bit. You have not made a single contribution ever on AR and only snipes from the side and dodges Alf's questions to you.

For your info, I have said many a time that the GS Custom's precision manufacturing is top class, you must have missed that. Also, If you read a bit wider, you will know that I have published an article where Barnes-X bullets lost their petals. So you perpetuate another lie.

Stay with the subject under discussion.

Warrior

Hey Warrior
There are lies damn lies and then there is Warrior. What is there to twist or take out of context? Did you or did you not say the things above? All point to lies and misrepresentation by yourself. And when it comes to dodging you are the expert. See how you dodged all the questions so far.

Dodge #1) Regardless of whether it is high or not I cannot find such a denial on this forum. Is your statement then a lie? Show me where this denial is or own up to the lie.
Dodge #2) I quick check shows numerous posts where Gerard did not even address you and posted on topics and threads where you were not present. Is your statement then a lie? This one you dont have to reply to. It is a proven lie. No Question about it.
Dodge #3) I see another seven posts after that statement and there is no doubt that there will be more. Is your statement then a lie? Another proven lie. No reply needed. The facts speak for themselves.
Dodge #4) Ha! You have said you have me on ignore. How can you see what I am posting? Or was that a lie? Proven fact. Cut and dried.
Dodge #5) I find no reference where Gerard said that this is not true. Why then the lie above? Until you produce the evidence of a post where Gerard opposed your view this also stands as a false statement by yourself.
Dodge #6) One of these statements must be a lie. Both cannot be true: "you claim I said ... "CIP maximum is absolute and cannot be exceeded." This is wrong, I never said that"
Dodge #7) You have said nothing about the debacle with a powder manufacturer very close to home.
Dodge #8) How about bullet manufacturers who give you bullets to test and you say nothing about it when they fail?
Dodge #9) You say nothing when reloaders like me develop loads with bullets you defend and the next time I buy a box it looks and acts like a completely different bullet.
Dodge #10) Have you decided whether you have a team or not?
Dodge #11) How come you only respond when Gerard defends his position and when other members call you a p.o.s. you say nothing? It takes a pointed post like mine to get you going and that is probably because I am defending my brand of bullet.
Dodge #12) Everyone who uses GScustom attacks you and twist your words and take you out of context. How is that?
Dodge #13) There can only be some other motive and it is not about quality and performance hey. Who is paying you for this?

Some more questions for you to dodge:

#1) About the 2800fps speed that you have been groaning about like a stuck pig you say: "My statement was that it cannot be done with a combo of a PMP case, magnum primer & our local S335 powder." If it can not be done where is the problem? If the speed can not be reached with the components you mention why are you arguing about it? Much ado about nothing again hey?
#2) "The loads were witnessed by 3 people and done by the Lab personnel with their equipment and we have the certificates." And the name of this lab is................?????????? So far we have only your word that this lab exists somewhere and we know what your word is worth.
#3) What question from Alf did I dodge?

I look forward to see how you dodge this lot again.