We exchange a helluva lot of information over these forums. When I have a question regarding something I'm unfamiliar with, I know that answers are merely a post away.

Perusing the plethora of information and misinformation available to us all at this site and others like it, the question looms: How do I seperate truth from fiction, or put another way, one man's perception from reality.

Scenario 1: Someone asks about Winchester's WLR primers. I get in on the thread and tell the questioner that I think they are crap. I base this opinion on having improved the accuracy of virtually every load I ever tested by merely switching to any primer other than the WLR's. But is this really true? Are WLR primers really crap? I've seen some Winchester factory ammo shoot excellent, sub MOA groups with what are presumably those very primers, so maybe I should just keep my mouth shut, or simply say that "In my experience you can do better..."

Scenario 2: A shooter asking about IMR 3031 powder in the .243 Winchester is told by another shooter "My .243 doesn't like IMR 3031." Okay. How does the respondent really know that his rifle doesn't "like" this powder? He's tried two, maybe three load recipes using IMR 3031 powder, and none have performed. Conclusion? His rifle doesn't like the powder. Reality? He didn't use the correct charge weights for the bullets he was using.

Scenario 3: A handloader posts (and I actually saw the same thing in a handloading magazine!) that his rifle "likes" only Remington brass. He says that "When I switched to Remington brass, my groups tightened up." His conclusion? My rifle doesn't like Winchester brass. The reality? Since he didn't alter the powder charge when he went from Winchester to Remington brass, the resulting difference in pressure (due to the different interior dimensions of the two makes of brass) brought the velocity of the load to a point commensurate with a good harmonic node on his barrel. The truth is that he could have altered the powder charge slightly with the Winchester brass, and had the same good results. Suggest this to him, and you may be rebutted with "No, dammit, I tried every possible powder charge with that damned Winchester brass, and my rifle just doesn't like it!" But when he tried the powder combination that would have worked, his bore was hot, and heavily fouled...

Scenario 4: Someone asks: "Should I free float the barrel on my .223 Remington 700?" The first respondent chimes right in with a resounding "NO!" His reason? Well, he free floated the barrel on his .223 Remington 700 and groups went to hell. His conclusion? Remington 700's, especially in the .223 chambering, like a little "forend pressure" for good grouping. The reality? Hell, he didn't redevelop the load he was using to take advantage of the free floated barrel, so of course the old load likely wouldn't do so well with the floated barrel.

Scenario 5: A shooter asks, "How good is a Bushnell 3 to 9 power scope? I'm thinking of putting one on my .300 Win Mag?" Respondent number one says "Save your money, they're junk! I had one that wouldn't hold zero worth a crap, and I swithched to a Leupold and everything is fine now." Conclusion? Leupolds are great, Bushnells are crap. Reality? The shooter who had the bad experience with the Bushnell went out and purchased a Leupold and a Leupold base and rings. The Bushnell didn't have the advantage of a decent set of rings and bases, and in this case the cheap rings and bases were the real reason the Bushnell wouldn't hold zero. (For the record I'm not arguing that there is no quality difference between these brands).

This last example happened to me a few years ago. I let a friend have a Tasco scope which I believed to be junk. I told him it wouldn't hold zero on my .22 LR, and in truth, it wouldn't. He said he was going to return it for repair, but out of curiosity he mounted it and tried it, in a set of Burris rings, and it held zero beautifully on a 30-06.

Anyway, I wanted to post this to get folks to not only think about the actual value of what they are reading, but to also use discretion when answering posts. Be leary of what is stated unequivocally, and be careful of advancing "absolutes." As I said at the opening of this rant, I've been guilty of perpetuating what may not be truth myself, with regard to the WLR primers. Sorry for that (but I still think they're crap!)

And one more to close!

Bonus scenario: In response to his question as to which is the better of two rifle chamberings, a shooter is told that rifle chambering "A" is inferior to rifle chambering "B" based on the respondent's own experiences with both chamberings. He says that rifle chambering "B" brings down deer on the spot, while rifle chambering "A" does not. Now that may be truth, or it may only be the respondent's perception. Perhaps the two whole deer that he's dropped with rifle chambering "B" were simply well placed shots. You see, the one that got away from him when he shot it with rifle chambering "A" never revealed that the bullet missed the vitals entirely.

"Hell no, I know EXACTLY whar that bullet went! I seent that bullet hit rat whar I aimed! Dammit!"

And so on...

Dan Newberry
green 788

[ 09-15-2002, 20:03: Message edited by: green 788 ]

Dan,

You know the "truth" on a forum like this when lots of posters come back and say:

Leupold scopes are good and they honor they warrantee;

4350 works well in 30-06;

WLR primers are hotter than most (see Saeed's study);

Wipe Out cleans guns well and is easy; and

Hilary Clinton is a @#$%^*&!

It is like polling. If a large number of us have similar experiences, you can probably consider it the truth or at least statistically significant. This is the reason one should own more than one reloading manual. And why you should always check suggestions on a board against experience and the manual! Ku-dude

Here is a fact from years and years of intensive study that will help you understand all of those questions.

"The main cause of mechanical failure is improper assembly"

There are links on the web to the Scientific Method. Few follow it. Thus their reports are worse than useless.

Dan,

Interesting that you should post this. I've been running around on the Internet for about seven or eight years now (quite the workout ;p ) and have been using mailing lists, Usenet newsgroups, IRC, etc. most of that time. Chat boards/forums are relatively new for me, but seem to work more or less the same way.

Everyone seems to forget one of the fundamental adages of the Internet: On the Net, no one knows you're a dog (or whatever). Translation: I don't know you, or anyone else here, from the man on the moon. Free advice is worth exactly what you pay for it. Follow guidance obtained over the Net, and you still get to keep all the pieces if it breaks.

There are some ways to ascertain whether someone is 'trustworthy' or if their advice is worth the time it takes to read it: Search the archives, if available, and see if others generally agree w/ said character, or tell him to go peddle his B.S. elsewhere repeatedly. Of course, then you have to determine if the others were just going along w/ him because they don't know anybetter, or are just an anti-social bunch to begin w/. You see the problem.

My main gripe is that after coming to the above conclusions, I tend to 'poll' when I have a problem. I'll ask the same basic question several different places, say on different message boards, or mailing lists. I keep a personal running tally of who said what, and then kind of form a general consensus of what conventional wisdom thinks I should do, and then decide whether I want to go w/ that, or not. Problem is, I have run into characters who while being full of good information, apparently think over much of themselves, and get rather P.O.'d at me for not just taking their word as gospel and doing as they say. 'Fine, then. I won't help you anymore, since you obviously aren't going to listen to me anyway' they say. Thing is, I *do* listen to them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to follow everything they say to the 'T' everytime. Still my decision to make, and my burden to bear.

Dunno if anyone else out there has run into this, or feels the same way, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it

Monte

Dan,

I think the two topics with lots of contradictions in reported results are accuracy and killing power.

Killing power because of small number of animals shot and also variation in components over the years. We probably see more of that in Australia because of the volume of shooting.

Accuracy is always tricky because of peoples different standards and also how rigorous the testing is.

As an example, I use to do a lot of shooting with bench style rifles in calibers from 6mm/06 through to 300 magnum and barrels from Number 5 through to Heavy Varmint. Sometimes you would be at the range testing them and having a chat between target changes and you might say something like "this is not going real well as it looks like about .6" will pull it up but it could have scope problems etc." Then someone near you who would over hear would offer that his heavy barrel Sako is doing .3" and is Rem 700 in 270 does .75" but often it does .5". He walks away and you can see he tells his mates that those bench style guns are a waste of time. Now of course the facts are that if those same bench style guns were tested the same way as his two factory guns then they will be shooting lots of groups that are no more than oval holes in the paper. In addition they are going to puts shots from clean cold barrels and barrels with cold hard fouling either right into or right next to the group.

But the bottom line is that the accuracy levels reported are about the same for each type of rifle.

The other issue is how each of us see an improvement or on the other hand what annoys us. What one person might consider a nice smooth operating rifle is to another person a rough piece of shit.

But I think in general what Ku-dude says is fairly close to the mark when general application is applied.

Lastly, the other issue is that shooters on these forums range from those who see a rifle and its ammunition as purely a means to an end through to the person where the rifle/ammo is the main game and animals and hunting provide an opportunity to try it all out and of course all the color shades in between.

Mike

Good post- here is my take on it-

One hunter in a lifetime (even as old as Ray) can't make enough kills with any one caliber, much less two, to describe a statistical advantage in meaningful terms.
This is where this and other forums come in handy. If you get enough answers from enough people with enough experience, the statistical advantage can be apparent.
I agree that one guy posting that this rifle knocked down animal "A" like lighting and this one didn't doesn't make a lot of difference in a discussion. Now, if that same question is answered by an outfitter who has seen thousands of animals killed and has studied the effects for his own information, the statistical advantage improves. Now, if many people with substantial experience and no axe to grind report the same thing, you can probably safely say the statistical probability has been proven enough to rely on the information.
I try to contribute where I can and it might be meaningful. I have more experience than some and much less than many, but my contribution still contributes to the statistical average.

Where this situation breaks down is when situations like new product introductions come into play. It will take time to accumulate enough information to prove or disprove the statistical value of a given product. A common sense approach from past experience and reputation must come into play here until the product has a track record. Just plain common sense helps in some things, but it is very possible to be completely in the dark on some products for years due to low use or public exposure.

The most important aspect of this subject is that over time we will probably be able to pick out the BS'ers from the knowledgable posters and the hype from the common sense approach. As in all things, it is up to you to separate the wheat from the chaff- Sheister

A very interesting, thought-provoking post. I believe, if we are to conbtribute any useful information here, we are limited to recounting what we have experienced or observed. This necessarily limits the amount of experience that bears upon any given observation. If we give information we have acquired second-hand, (hearsay), we should then give the source also, so readers can judge credibility or validity for themselves...

In the end, it's just like the local coffee shop, only larger.

Great place to bounce ideas, hear other folks' experiences, but not a reason to give up thinking. JMO, Dutch.

One thing to factor in, which most of us don't, is where, what and how eachoter hunt. To the mind of the texas whitetail hunter, a .223 is a fully adequate deer gun. To an Alaskan moose hunter, a .223 could be considered a mosquito gun.

Both hunters are correct, for their situations.

As far as sifting the weat from the chaff, one needs to have enough knowledge, and experience to do so. Those who have never cracked a reloading manual, and think that they'll learn everything they need to know to safely and effectively assemble ammunition may get in a heap of trouble. The reloader who has looked at 3-5 different manuals, and is trying to narrow down powder selection for a paticular application will likely get a great deal of help from folks who've tested the exact same combo's he's considering.

Green 788,

I think you understand very well what's going on. And that's BEFORE you count the nut cases and the clueless.

Good post!

Well a lot of people think something is great just because they own it. If they have never owned anything else it must be junk.

Also there is lots of hype in the shooting world these days. There is a lot of false truths as well.

If something costs less it must therefor be junk. Well this isn't true but it is true. You take the bottom of the barrel(no pun) and rate it against the best well of course it won't be as good. Get what suits you, not someone who hunts/shoots once a year or 364 days a year.

If something isn't working for you and you are not happy then try a magic trick(floating, foreend pressure, etc) but expecting a 300 buck rifle to make one hole in 10 shots probably ain't going to happen.

It is all in the eye of the beholder and we all have minds to sort what is BS from the truth.

Your scope question is easily solved. He shouldn't have bought the Buckhorn and opted for the Trophy. Been there, done that!

[ 09-17-2002, 22:15: Message edited by: Ranger Dave ]

I agree with Paul H on the location deal. Though I prefer 338 bores, they are not needed here in Texas. We fail to even ask the question when reccommending that perfect whitetail rifle of where is the person from. A Canadian whitail would outweigh a Texas Hill Country whitetail by 150 pounds.

As far as the exerience factor on these boards, I have always thought about what Dan posted. A person will have a bias towards what HE/SHE uses, because he believes he is right in his choice and it works for him in his situation with his gun and his hunting style.

People are against feeding/baiting deer and have never hunted in Texas where it is common practice. Just because it is illegal in there state they believe it's some sort of bad thing to do this. I have had the benefit of the military to allow me to hunt all over the country and in Germany. Folks all over the country have VERY different preconcieved notions on everything from feeding to calibers.

The diversity on boards like these are great though. They allow the person asking the question to get an answer from people with all sorts of backgrounds and all sorts of experience.

For the most part people on these boards are honest and generally poliute to just about any question asked. I think you just have to weed out the people that are here only to cause trouble or think it's fun to start old arguements up again. An good example is the Matchking thread. People who have used them swear by them, people who have not used them think they are a bunch of junk, an opinion based soley on what the manufacturer says, welll my Dodge 4x4 has a warning not to take it off-road but I do anyway. If people only would post what they have experience with and not what they have read or heard, arguements like these would never start, much less be brought up a second time.

This is a great place to exchange information and get new ideas that we have never thought of, and I thank Saeed for giving us this opportunity, this board can't be cheap to run.

My opinion anyway.

Jim

Good question.

As mentioned above, a basic knowledge of statistics helps to separate good from bad info. Since it takes a lot of shooting to prove a statistical difference between a 1 moa load and a two moa load, most pronouncements of accuracy are best discounted.

A reliable source is usually careful to differentiate what he knows, or has heard, or supposes. People who confuse these things should be ignored.

A reliable source usually tells you what experience the information is based on. For instance, I don't say the .308 Nosler PP Partition is the best hunting bullet, but will say I used it (mv 2875) to kill a Kudu and and a Springbok with one shot each, destroying the heart in both cases, and exiting the animals in both cases. I conclude that it is a pretty fair bullet, but you are free to draw your own conclusions based on a very limited sample of data.

And the guys who claim to stand on their hind legs and kill deer at a dead run at 400 yards are best ignored altogether.

Hi guys, you know what I really like about all the various opinions, facts, bs, untruths, and plain old lies found here? Just that. I know that every question gets answered with opinions, facts, bs, untruths, and plain old lies. I LOVE ALL OF IT!!!!

I am not an expert shooter/hunter. But I love the sport. And I love putting meat on the table the REAL way. This forum has been the most entertaining way to get an education on guns and hunting. Sure, I realize that some answers are, well, questionable, but by golly I get value from even the lies. At the very least, I get a chuckle out of it.

The real value of all the answers is that we get such a wide variety of answers from such a wide variety of people from such a wide variety of countries who have such a wide variety of interests.

I love all you ugly SOB's. We should give ourselves a big pat on the back. roy p.

Hey'
My two cents worth.I think a lot of people who posts replies,have never owned a product,the original poster is talking about.I don't like to post about a product I never tried.However being 72 years of age.I have had some experience,with many products.If I have success,or failure with them,I will pass it on.That in itself does not mean that someone else does not have a different experience with the same product.
1geejay
www.shooting-hunting.com

Beware of posters using the words "always" and/or "never". Trust those who say "mostly" and/or "generally".

The good news:
Since this website is electronic, no trees have been destroyed in the creation of all this BS.

The bad news:
A tree in my back yard is growing into the power lines so it will have to be destroyed in the name of progress.

I think I will jump in with my few pennies as well. I consider our hobby and passion like designing propellers for speedboats and trawlers. It is a mix of science, art and voodoo. What will work well on one engine / boat combo sucks on another. The guy in the Marine store will swear on the science at hand that if you get this size blade and at this pitch the boat will "get up faster" and of course it is all rubbish. I know that a gun (barrel) can "like" a specific combo. Kimber proved it doing a detailed and exhaustive study using scientific methods (they were trying to disprove the argument and found it was true with simple .22 ammo). I know that all of our load books data is anecdotal to the test barrel length and condition and that you can open 5 books and get 5 different loads for essentially the same load. Hunting is another matter altogether with the hunters skill and the stamina of the game to add to the mix it is beyond discussion or scientific analysis. I agree that the Net is not the place for a newbie to learn handloading. They (and I) must read the published authors who have placed their views out there for all to see and question. I think we all can help others and give support and opinion but all should learn their basic understanding from the Nontes, Sharpes and maybe some wildcaters to boot. I can�t tell you when I read someone quote one of these guys. I have, I have quoted Nonte may times as a source. I guess that is why I keep buying books. I have rarely read anyone get request for a load answered "ken waters gave this load in his pet loads for 7.65x54 ---�" most give their own Pet load. I give credit to those who after they give their opinion and info add "you mileage may vary� Truth in Loading!! I guess I dropped all my pennies for the night. JB

Gentlemen, I think this is a wonderful thread. I have only started reloading this year, and have learnt the most valuable thing of all from this and other forums. I have learnt how much I don't know. I know that I don't know enough about pressure signs to be chasing hot loads, I know that I don't know enough about this game to have my manuals out of reach when I am reloading and so it goes on.

I do know that a lot of choices made in respect of guns and optics etc, is subjective and if it works for you, you have got where you want to be, it don't matter that it is not the most expensive or fashionable.

These forums are an excerise area for the mind as much as anything else, you see the same names crop up time after time and you know that by and large these people know what they are talking about, and will point you in the right direction for you to be able to find the answer to your question. Then you get the encyclopedia who knows everything about everything and is never wrong, but in reality does not know his a**e from his elbow, but would not let a little thing like that stop him. You have to keep in mind though that normally there is no malice in this,it is just the way they are.

All you have to do is remember that what you are getting is advice, for free, it is up to you to sort it out. I love it, like minded people sharing hints and tips and an insight to their kind of hunting from all over the world. It does not matter that they don't always agree, they don't have to, it is the discussion and the sharing that makes it all worth while.

Having shared that I shall shut up

John

It all comes down to sharing knowledge and results with each other. I love to shoot and hunt and share those experiences with others that enyoy the same. At the coffee shop I frequent only one guy is a shooter, he doesn't even care to hunt, the rest of the characters are into cars, football, baseball, etc. On this forum and others it is like a coffee shop round table of thousands, sharing and gaining knowledge from each other. I love every message and thread, I have always felt I gained much more than I have contributed, yet I continue to try and tell my little experiences. I have a rule that I do not tell of any load or hunt I have not personaly created or experienced, I try to call a spade a spade or offer to show anyone how I do it, right or wrong. I certainly appreciate new insight into all of it, and that is why I can't wait for each days postings, from you fellow idiots who share my misery. Good shooting.

Well said phurley. Can't imagine a more comprehensive database covering most aspects of reloading than can be found here. I have learned quite a bit and have offered my limited experiences as I can. But I think if you frequent this site you quickly learn to separate the useful from the useless. Given the open forums you sometimes are forced to wade through some suspect information. I think it wise to question self-proclaimed experts in any field, but if you have a problem the folks here will usually point you in the right direction.

I think this just may be the most valuable thread I have come across; on this or any other shooting-oriented forum. The other day I heard that "nowhere is talk cheaper then the internet," and I tend to agree.

For my purposes, I find these forums an incredible resource for info, especially when very specific questions are asked: I just purchased a new Sako with two adjustment holes in the trigger guard, how do they function? - or "I need help determining what size bushing do I need for my new Redding Type S 22 PPC die ...."

Beyond that, I find these forums a source of sporadic gems of information. However in sifting through the minutia and BS I have to admit, I find a passive and ananymous enjoyment, and captivation just reading the "wisdom" that comes along.

I recently engaged in a spirited debate reguarding the suitability of 22 centerfires for harvesting deer under 200 yards. I have killed lots and lots of deer cleanly and humanely with a Ruger 77 220 Swift (I had to have my sister buy it for me as I was only 17 at the time) using the Sierra #1365 SPBT-38.0/4064. But who really knows if I'm nuttier than a squirrel turd? I know the swift kills deer with stunning effieciency, as do all my buddies that have subsequently purchased Swifts. (I should note here that my Swift convert, and non-reloading "Buddies" got me to transition to the 220 Weatherby Rocket, as it was the best way to keep them from appropriating my ammo..)

Bottom line is, take these forums for what they are: a wonderful POTENTIAL source of info. While it helps to be skilled in the art of statistical anlysis, getting there pretty much sucks. I find it similar to Isaac Asimov's description of the laws of thermodynamics: You cannot win, You cannot come close, and is in not even worth trying..

Be that as it may, I still look every other day to see if I can gleen some wisdom..

DEDA

I have never got a 1" group in 60 trips to the range.

That has not stopped me from making thousands of posts on the internet about guns.

There is lots of information out there, you need to be careful which you choose to act on.

Excellent thread! With many many years experience with shooting and hunting I find it to be typically easy to pick the truth from the fiction, so to speak. If I am in doubt, particularily with reloads, I tend to err on the side of safety. Whoever said that free advise is worth precisely that is in my book very much correct.

Clark, you must have some cheap crappy guns if the don't shoot MOA! I know guys who's slug shotguns shoot MOA all day long at any range! Now is that shotgun accuracy truth or fiction, I wonder...NOT! Although in all honesty, my Benneli M1 will shoot about 3 MOA at 100 yards with every Foster / Brenneke style slug load commercially available, at least around these parts.
I guess I need a new more accurate slug gun.
Axel

After reading a million posts, you can get some idea as to validity of poster... As pointed out, few that know what they're talking about will say "always" or "perfect" or whatever absolute...Most say "IMO" or better yet, back it up with experience and examples...

Also as pointed out, if 10 people say product "A" is junk... And no one say otherwise, its probably junk, and I won't buy it, but it it still might be fine, I just wouldn't gamble my hard-earned cash on it!

I personally WILL NOT post on a subject that I don't have first-hand experience with, and then I'm VERY careful about what I say, and always qualify with things like "Well, in MY gun"... I am very definitely NOT a "gun expert" and have very limited experience compared to many people on these forums

It's interesting that I came across this thread tho...On a couple other forums I've been recently involved in "flame wars" with several people, all on threads like "What do you do if a dog attacks you?" Now in this case, I do consider myself an "expert" having spent the last several years and many, many thousands of dollars on training dogs competitively for "Schutzhund Sport"... i have worked with some of the best trainers in the world, many with top placings in WORLD competition. Anyway, the results are pretty hilarious, sometimes...In one case I cited multiple examples, all of which can be verified, as they are a matter of PUBLIC RECORD! And one guy STILL told me (and everyone else) that not only was I wrong, I didn't know anything about the subject(dogs)! His experience, of course, is based on the coupla mutts he rescued from the pound, that lay around his house all day! Funny man!

OK, rant off...

After more than 400 shots handloaded with two different calibers;all of them more than 1 inch at 100 yards;1.25 are the best so far,and I dont consider my guns crappy,it is hard beating the factory ammunition;coming up with a pet load under 1 inch;may be I will obtain it or not;I wont quit handloading if not.

The more I learn the less I know.

Shayne

There's always more to learn, that's for sure.

You guys that are shooting over MOA at 100 yards with good rifles, please tell me what kind of rifles you're shooting, and I'll suggest some handloads that will beat factory ammo, and which, if fired in decent rifles with decent technique, will shoot under an inch.

All rifles are different, that's true, but there are a few known recipes that will work well in just about any rifle so chambered.

How else would you explain the near universal excellent performance of factory loads such as Federal Gold Medal match in .308?

Dan Newberry
green 788

Well, I have a neighbor who is a native of Colorado and has harvested an elk every season since teenage years(over 50 years old now)with his favorite 300 Savage M99 and factory ammo. This is his reality, he will not hunt with a rifle scoped or a different caliber or a different action...why should he?

Is a M700 in 300 Win Mag. mounted w/high quaility scope and sub MOA handloads of preminum bullets a better choice? Most of us would say yes it is. Try to prove that to Bob!

I know about every thing read here on the net is opinion. I personally add the "IMO" to the beginning of each reply I read. And the "IMO" is inplyed in every post of mine. Its all opinion unless you know the persons "facts" to be fact. That said, there are a few posters here and else where whos word is accepted by me as near fact. If they sugest something I will look into it. I will work up loads of their data, verify ofcourse that there are no typos. Tyops happne. As do the dredded brain farts. When you read something outa whack, from any one, you have to assume it is.

But thats thinking for myself, and that seems to be a less then common thing these days. "TRUST BUT VERIFY." should be the motto of the all forum lurkers, or any one else, any where else.

[ 09-23-2002, 10:00: Message edited by: KBGuns ]

Howdy,

Well put KB. I too try to add IMO or "in my experience" to my replies. I refuse to answer a thread in which I have zero experience. I can be called an expert in multiple defensive schemes, mid-line and loaded options, high hurdle technique for beginners, and a few other narrow aspects of football and track, but just an experienced amateur experimenter in loading for accuracy!
I hope my threads can earn the same respect that you obviously have for others on this site.

What a great site for learning this hobby!

Good shooting!

Coach

Dan, Dan, Dan... you had such a good thread going.

Just couldn't stand it could you? Saw the edge of the cliff, looked over, stumbled(again) and fell into the Rookie Pit of Inexperience. Darn shame as your thread really was going so well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by green 788:
...You guys that are shooting over MOA at 100 yards with good rifles, please tell me what kind of rifles you're shooting, and I'll suggest some handloads that will beat factory ammo, and which, if fired in decent rifles with decent technique, will shoot under an inch.

All rifles are different, that's true, but there are a few known recipes that will work well in just about any rifle so chambered....

---

I see a lot of "Experienced Reloaders" in this thread and they already know that there is no such thing as a Magical, Mythical, Mysterious Universal Charge(MUC Load) that works in "ALL" rifles of the same caliber.

But for those of you less experienced folks, the entire concept of a MUC Load is "Full of Beans". There are no guranteed combinations of Case/Primer/Powder/Bullet that

quote:

---

Originally posted by green 788:
...will work well in just about any rifle so chambered....

---

However, the BIGGEST Problem with this ridiculous Rookie thought process is that any Load not specifically developed in your own firearm "May or may not" have SAFE Pressure levels. Always Work-Up or Develop new Loads from lower powder levels "IF" your firearm indicates the Pressure Level is SAFE.

...

Now, in support of Dan, look at nearly any thread on this Board and you will see where Dan has listed an outstanding method of actually "Developing A Load". It is basically a restatement of the "Audette Method" in Dan's own words. The Audette Method has been used by many reloaders for a very long time and works very well. It will tell you quickly if your firearm likes or dislikes a particular combination of components.

Just don't get sucked into the MUC Load concept - it can be Un-SAFE!

[ 09-23-2002, 19:34: Message edited by: Hot Core ]

Hot Core
got to agree, I have never seen a "universal" load in the twenty odd years I've been reloading. Hard enough to come up with the right load for just one gun.

For fun though, what would be your universal load for 250 grain 338Wm?

Enjoyed this thread's read. There's a wealth of info here - and some of it is simply a person's own limited observations based on a few experiences.

Here's my limited experience...

I've been reloading now just a couple of years, and have already put together a couple of loads for my rifles that are MOA to sub-MOA if I do my part. These are the loads I hunt with, and they have demonstrated more accuracy in my rifle than the factory loads I bought when I first got my rifles. Plenty enough for deer hunting.

However, it took a bit of work to sift through all the fine-tuning of the load, and (more importantly) critiquing my shooting technique as well, to get there. Yet, if I don't shoot well, those loads will not shoot well either.

I know that one of my loads works well for someone else's rifle - they took my load, worked it up in their rifle, and got good results (better than mine!). Will it work for every rifle it's tried on? I doubt it seriously, but then again it seems every load combo listed in the reloading manuals worked well enough in those testing labs to be recommended as a starting point for our own loads...that's how I treat the load info on the 'Net, as well.

Some combos don't shoot anywhere close to MOA in my rifles...but is it me shooting a bad day, or the real performance of the load? Or was it because I forgot to clean the rifle the last time I came in from the range??

I agree - perception and fact are sometimes not in agreement...and state as fact what is really our perception...

TXLoader

I have found the following accuracy hierarchy of my my scoped, but
otherwise factory set up rifles 5 shot average groups at 100 meters with
the best factory ammo, from a benchrest:

1) chrome lined barrels 1.4" ~ 1.5" groups with AR-15's

3) non chrome lined barrels 2" ~ 6" groups with Rem 700, Sav 110, NEF
handi rifle, Turkish 1906 Mausers, Turkish 1938 Mausers, VZ24 Mausers,
K-31 Swiss, L1A1 FALs, STG58 FALs, Australian heavy barrel FALs,
Enfield No4 MkI, Enfield No4 MkII, Ishapore 2A, Moisin Nagant 91/30

3) chrome lined barrels 6" ~ 8" groups Chinese SKS, Bulgarian SLR95
[AK47]

If you get old enough, you won't believe anything but your own eyes and ears. I hate to even think about all the mistakes I've made in my life because I listened to some "expert" and followed his advice. Now, I act based only on personal experience. If I want to know, I go do.

Of course, we MUST rely to some extent on OP's advice. Most of what has been said above will help qualify a given "idea". But NOTHING replaces personal experience. And personal experience is USUALLY the BEST way to learn.

Take it from me - I KNOW what I'm talkin' about.

Paul

I know how to skin a hog, drink beer, and stare into the fire after a long days hunt.

is there anymore I need?

jeffe