Wow! All you gun writer bashers may have uncovered a real magazine marketing niche here. You all could be the first to start a REAL gun magazine that provides honest and fair reviews including LOTS of negative articles about products that companies will lend you for review and you'll accept no paid advertising.

Guess how many companies would send you stuff and how fast it would take before you went broke?

8MM or More said: "For knowledge in the area of guns and hunting, you will be hard put to find the equal of this very forum, in my opinion."

Excellent point, and the truth, I agree...

The main problem with John Barsness is not so much his hawking of one product and failing to mention another. That's just business as usual with the gun rags. They promote their advertisers, plain and simple.

No, the problem with Mr. Barsness is that it will literally take decades to dispell the myths that he's put into print, passing off as knowledge. I won't waste the time necessary here to go into all of them, but here is one example:

JB says, in a recent issue of Handloader (or it may have been Rifle) with regard to thrown powder charges: "Thrown powder charges are often more accurate at hunting distances than weighed charges. You're free to believe otherwise, but that won't change the facts."

Okay. He makes a ridiculous statement, and without taking a breath throws in the qualifier "You're free to believe otherwise, but that won't change the facts." This sentence tells the reader that Barsness has been challenged on this point before, which isn't surprising.

So how is it that a load can be more accurate at "hunting distances," but presumably not as accurate at ranges beyond "hunting distances?" This makes no sense at all.

And what, pray tell, are "hunting distances?" That's pretty subjective.

What Barsness should have said is that thrown charges often provide acceptable accuracy for hunting distances. That's true. That they are more accurate than weighed charges (especially within a given short limit, which makes no sense either) is not true.

One other biggie: Barsness said in a recent issue of Handloader that all powders, even the slowest powders, burn completely within the first few inches of the bore. He says that even IMR 7828 and H1000 will burn completely up within 5 to 8 inches. He says that the flash seen at the muzzle at dusk isn't powder burning at all, it's just the oxygen in the atmosphere burning from the hot muzzle blast.

ROLMAO!!

A quick call to the techs at Hodgdon shot this load of Barsness BS out of the water. The Hodgdon tech (who is a chemical engineer) said that if Barsness' words were the truth that everytime someone lit a cigarette they'd explode the atmosphere. He also pointed out that unburned granules of powder are often discovered the entire length of the bore during their testing of slower powder.

So no, the real danger with Barsness isn't his product "loyalty." It's his uncanny insistence on "lying and making up facts."

Which as I say, will take years to set the record straight on...

Dan Newberry
green 788

[ 10-30-2002, 02:19: Message edited by: green 788 ]

green 788....a couple of things in Barness defense with respect to what you said....and I really hate to defend him.

(1) If weighed charges provide more accuaccy than charges that are thrown, why do you suppose benchrest competitors, who are constantly looking for any edge, throw their powder charges instead of weighing them? As I understand it the consistency of powder performance comes more from being placed in the case in a consistent manner more than using exact weights. This, of course, means using a powder that doesn't leave a lot of space in the case. I quit weighing all my loads years ago and now only spot check to keep track of my technique.

(2) With respect to even the slowest of powders burning in the first few inches of the barrel I think that statement is also basically true if you consider that you never get 100% of the powder to "burn" either completely or even partially....that's why you find unburnt powder the length of most barrels. I think the effect of this small amount of unburnt powder has little if any effect of performance. You might also consider that the amount of unburnt powder in a barrel after a shot could contribute to the next shot and is certainly one of the reasons to really clean your barrel when switching from one powder to another in working up new loads. For example...if you are shooting Varget and switch over to RL15 without cleaning the barrel of varget residue (unburned powder) until all the Varget is consumed and replaced with RL15 residue your consistency will suffer...ever notice how the first shot or two in a new string has a different velocity than follow-up strings?

I'm not a benchrest shooter, but I understand that the very expensive measures those folks use (Harrel's) to meter ball type powders do actually result in charges that weigh the same. This may be where Barsness got the notion that the same would work for extruded powders in high powered rifle cartridges.

I don't believe that one could get consistent charges of IMR 4350, for instance, from even the most expensive measure.

As to whether the powder all burns in the first few inches of bore or not, I'm more inclined to believe what the Hodgdon tech said. For years, there has existed a way to check for load "overbore," meaning that all of the powder in the cartridge has not burned. This is to place a white bedsheet on the ground in front of the muzzle, and fire a round. If unburned granules of powder are found on the sheet, this indicates that all of the powder has in fact not burned.

Thanks for the reply and thoughful comments,

Dan

Dan.....throwing consistent power weights is something that takes a little practice. I've ofter thought about getting one of the Harrell powder measures (very expensive but very good) but have had excellent results with my Redding model I bought used at a gunshow. I don't know if you read Precision Shooting magazine but there was an article awhile back that compared different powder measures and their ability to throw consistent charges....everything from a Harrell to an inexpensive Lee. The author found out that the results depended more on the skill of the person doing the metering more than the powder measure (he had help of various levels of skill) and I was suprised how well the Lee did.

You are right about some powders not metering well but even with them I can throw pretty consistent charges.

If you like reading about things like this let me suggest you keep on the look out for a writer named Mic McPherson who I think is about as sharp as any writer out there. He is a consultant to the folks who did QuikLoad and you can find some of his really good stuff in Precision Shooting and Varmint Hunter magazines. He kind of "dumbs down" the stuff he writes for Rifle Shooter but he is always enjoyable to me. If you go to the ShotShow or any other industry events he's frequently there and a 15 minute talk with Mic can be quite an education.

DB,
Like you I can throw VERY consistent charges within 1/10 grain with powders like 4895 and 4064 with no problem from a RCBS Uniflow. Its technique, nothing more or less.
Whats more, in 10 years of high power long range competition shooting tens of thousands of rounds up to 1,000 yards I could not discern a difference in my scores with weighed versus thrown charges. Now that's not very scientific I know but even the US Palma team loads ammo on a progressive press with thrown charges!
It might sound counterintuitive to say it but there is some logic as to why a volumetric measurement could provide a better, more consistent load than a weighed charge. Stop and think about the differences. A charge occupies x amount of space inside a case. The variation of the amount of powder (volume wise) inside a case has a far greater impact on shot to shot variation than does say a 1/10 grain variance in propellant weight! Said another way. Consistent volume of a given charge relative to available cartridge capacity is more important than small variations in load density (weight/volume) for a given charge. Its relative of course.

I'll post a synopsis of my load development method for any interested, which should explain why thrown charges can yield excellent results in spite of 1% variations in charge weights. I don't believe it is a volume issue at all, since the cartridges will roll and bounce around after being filled with powder, and this powder will of course settle. When you get down to the science of it all, a given amount of fuel will yield a given amount of energy.

But if a load is properly developed, there is a certain amount of "room for error." This will allow thrown charges to work in most cases as well as, but not better than, weighed charges. I believe this is where John Barsness confuses the issue.

My load development method, which follows should explain what I'm talking about:

What it basically is is a sort of "modified Audette" method. For those unfamiliar with the Creighton Audette method his was a method of load development which consisted of shooting at a distant target, some 300 yards away if possible. One shot of each charge weight variation was fired at the bullseye at the 300 yard target, and if all went well, a vertical string formed on the target as the increased charges were fired. Somewhere along that vertical string should be a "cluster" of three or four shots that hang together, indicating the most stable area of charge variations, and therefore (presumably) the best amount of powder to put into that load.

The problem I and many others have found with the Audette method is that useful information often eludes. Sometime (perhaps more often than not) no cluster, and often no intelligible vertical string even forms.

I've developed the following method which I believe is an excellent way to arrive at the OCW, or optimal charge weight for a particular load recipe. I define the OCW of a load recipe as the amount of powder which ignites and burns most consistently in that application. I believe that for any given cartridge recipe, there is a specific amount of that powder which will yield the best consistency.

It is important to note that this is not a method to discover the particular rifle's "sweet spot." This rather reveals the amount of powder in a particular load recipe that works best with that cartridge, bullet, and particular powder. Such loads usually yield excellent results in most rifles of decent construction chambered for the load being developed.

This method has worked beautifully for several loads I've developed for the .223, the .270, the .308, the .243, and the 30-06.

I'll tell you about the latest OCW load I developed for my .243, a Remington 788. The bullet was the Sierra 60 grain HP, and the powder used was IMR 3031. Primers were the CCI 200's, and brass was all twice fired Winchester.

In checking three loading data sources, I noted that 39 to 41 grains of IMR 3031 was the max charge zone for IMR 3031 with 60 grain bullets in the .243. I have found that the best loads for all of my own rifles have been loads that were at or near listed maximums, but I do test about 5 per cent below for pressure signs, then work up.

I began with three rounds each of five different charges, graduating in .3 grain increments. The tested charges were 39.2, 39.5, 39.8, 40.1, and 40.4 grains.

I cleaned the rifle, and shot two fouling shots and allowed two minutes for it to cool. I had five targets posted at 100 yards, one target for each charge variation.

I shot one round of the 39.2 grain charge at target 1, allowed two minutes for cooling, and then fired one shot of the 39.5 grain charge at target 2, cooled, one shot of the 39.8 grain charge at target 3, cooled, you get the idea...

This is basically a "round robin" system of grouping each charge, which precludes disadvantaging late groups due to fouling, or heat build up.

When finished, I had three shots on each of the five targets, BUT (!)... I don't look for the tightest group of the five and call that my load.

Here's what I do instead, and I'll explain why later: I look for the three groups of the five that come the closest to hitting the target in the same position. I noted that in this case, the three center groups were the ones which happened to hit the same POI, (all within about 3/4") with the 39.2 grain group hitting low and left from that common POI by an inch. The 40.4 grain charge, in addition to moving high and right of the common POI for the three center charges, opened up in size to about 7/8". The 39.2 grain charge shot about 1/2", but as I said, it wasn't near the common POI that the 39.5, 39.8, and 40.1 charges shared.

So I concluded that the best charge for this application was 39.8 grains of IMR 3031. This was the charge that would allow 39.5 grain charges and 40.1 grain charges to group right with it.

Why would I want that?

Well, variations in brass cases, powder lots, outside temperature--and other things can cause your load to increase or decrease in pressure. With the OCW load, you're covered for a significant amount of pressure differences that may come into play. If I'd gone with the 39.2 grain charge, a *slight* rise in pressure, brought on by an odd brass case or a hot day, etc., would have resulted in a 1 MOA deviation high and right of my POA.

I shot a 1.5" group at 300 yards with my .308 load with the 168 grain Sierra Matchking using one shot of 43.3 grains IMR 4895, one of 43.6 grains, and the third shot in the 1.5" group was charged with 43.9 grains. (The OCW being 43.6 grains, of course).

A group fired with my 30-06 at 335 yards consisted of loads all charged with 57.5 grains of H4350 pushing Sierra 165 grain Gamekings. One shot used a Remington brass case with CCI 200 primer, another used a Winchester case with that same primer, and the last load in the three shot group used a Winchester nickel case with a CCI BR primer. All three shots of this mis-matched trio came in at 2/3 MOA at 335 yards. (Update, I've since repeated this test for a five shot group consisting of two Remington cased loads, two Winchester nickel cased loads, and one brass cased Winchester load. Again with CCI BR and CCI 200 primers--again, the group broke 2/3 MOA. As an aside, the Remington cases weighed ten grains more than the Winchesters, but that wasn't enough difference to take the group outside MOA due to the pressure tolerance of the OCW load).

If you want to test the resilience of your own pet load, just load up a 1% increased charge, and a 1% decreased charge, and fire those two loads into a three shot group with the standard charge and see how it goes. In many cases, you'll find that either the low or high charge will group with the standard charge, but not both. This should at least tell you which way to go with redevelopment.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. How does one tighten the group after deciding on the OCW for their load? OAL adjustment is the way. Seating depth should be, in my opinion, the fine tuning tool used last, not first as is classically done. I've gotten kudos from Gerard Schultz of G.S. Custom bullets for this method of loading, as he says he uses a similar method wherein OAL adjustments are made last of all to tune for the tightest group.

Thanks for your time and patience in reading,

Dan Newberry
green 788

I tend to think some gun writers are given free stuff, in exchange for positive articals being written. Of those, I can distinguish between an add, and a ligit artical, so I just read it for the entertainment factor.
John barsness once wrote an artical about this free stuff and free hunts, that the products didn't always prove themselves worthy, nor did the hunts prove successful, as one might be led to believe otherwise. Not every gun writer given freebies, had a possitive experience with them. Of course, these articals are rarely printed.
Still, I don't mind reading most gun magazines. I can weed out the good from the bad, and still have a good day reading. ~~~Suluuq

Hmmm...

What if one were to precisely weigh out 100 loads of powder, and put each charge in a seperate paper cup, then take each cup and a funnel and 'throw' the charges, using the same technique into the brass, till each case was full?

Wouldn't that be the bestest, mostest accurate way???



[ 10-30-2002, 11:07: Message edited by: BW ]

Dan...I recall reading about your method in one of your earlier posts and I agree 100% with your methodology.

I've also used the Audette Method but it is very difficult to use, at least for me, with sporter weight rifles as consistent bench technique is more difficult with a lighter rifle that doesn't ride the bags all that well. Couple this with a little breeze and trying to use the method at 300 yards is a real chore...especially without a spotter to make sure you are marking bullet holes correctly. A small error or combination of very small errors is enough to skew the results enough to be inconclusive.

One other little trick I learned about in Precision Shooting recently might be of interest to you....it has to do with sweet spots. Many times I've found that the most accurate load isn't at what I consider to be the maximum safe velocity. Like many I've tried different powders, different primers and different seating depths with varying results and sucess. The article I'm referring to dealt with the results of very slightly shortening the barrel. Sometimes just 1/8" would have a dramatic effect on accuracy and sometimes a second 1/8" cut was needed before you got improvement. When you think about barrel harmonics this makes a lot of sense. As a side note, the tests were run on basically stock rifles with no more than a heavy sporter contour and as I recall typical accuracy went from 1 1/2" to under 3/4" simply by removing the 1/8" sliver of barrel and recrowning it.

Thanks for the info on the barrel shortening, Bill. It makes good sense.

You've reminded me of something that happened a while back. My buddy had a recent manufacture Model 70 Winchester "Ranger" in 30-06.

We tried several factory loads, to no avail. (He isn't a reloader, so he wanted to find a factory load that worked for him).

I finally got a handload to work, 180 grain bullet and 4350 I believe.

Later on, he was trying to remove the front sight from the barrel and the screw broke off! Well, instead of going to a 'smith (like we should have done) we tried to remove the screw by drilling it and using an easy out. Guess what? We drilled plumb through into the bore!

Well, off to the 'smith for sure this time. He cut 3/4" from the end of the barrel and recrowned.

Well, a couple of fouling shots from one of the factory loads that had done horribly before(Winchester Supreme 165 grain Failsafes) nearly touched. A third landed within 1/2" of the other two.

Further testing with some of the other "fouler" ammo we had on hand yielded three shot MOA groups with more than half of it, and 1.5 MOA with the rest. This rifle was shooting 2" and bigger groups before the barrel was cut.

The dynamics of barrel harmonic whip were obviously changed by removing the weight of the sight, but I'm certain that shortening the barrel helped considerably.

I think you're right. If you have a problem rifle that hasn't responded to bedding and perhaps free floating, before trashing the barrel, why not give shortening a try? Velocity won't be affected all that much with small increments. All you'd really need to do this yourself would be a crowning tool, a vise, and a little bit of skill with a file and stone. Oh yeah, and a dab of bluing. Just cut, as you say, 1/8" off at a time until the harmonic whip improved.

It could be that some barrels simply have an abnormally violent and even erratic harmonic whip. The method you mention may help to create a more repeatable whip.

That Model 70 ended up being a super accurate rifle for a factory gun. It's best load was 62 grains of Ramshot Big Game behind Nosler's 125 grain ballistic tip, which often would put three shots touching at 100 yards, and shot a couple of three shot 3/4" groups at 200 yards.

Dan Newberry
green 788

You can say what you want. But on October the 10th in Denver I meet Mr. Boddington and shared a Great Lakes Airline flight with him to Casper. We were both going to hunt Antelope, him west of Casper and me east of Casper. It was an hour and a half that I truly enjoyed. In 5 minutes we were talking like old friends about guns, deer hunting, antelope hunting, Africa and the Gulf. I'm only sorry the flight didn't last longer. The thrill of shooting my first Antelope was unforgettable, but it was already a great trip before I got off the plane in Casper.

I think everyone has there favorite writers. I do, I like Seyfried. Boddington and Barsness have good articles too. I don't always agree with everyone all the time. I can see how bias can happen. When I find your favorite I won't change. I would be easier if I got stuff for free. I personally like writers that tell performance with real situations. Not the frills that some writers are - I got a "fill in the blank" animal now be like me. I like people that tell me how to make it better, testing of products, handloading, etc. This is the main reason why I am not liking Guns and Ammo. There atricle is - here is a 45 ACP Colt copy buy it because it has different sights than last months, or the article that are we got a BroRemWinchester that is smooth and shoots good. Look back at a Mid to last 80's vintage Guns and Ammo and you will see a differece. Most never have bad reviews. When I sold guns alot came out of the box as tools not as beautiful as most gun rags would make you think. More in depth atricles are needed in my opinion. I think the internet has changed because there are so more outlet and information about things. For example, Paul H from the board has information about the reloading 480 Ruger than any article that I found with the exception of JT's article. I think for serious gun cranks the internet allows us for infor than anyone ever had before. We just do "review" we actually use them. My 2 cents

Hcliff

Dan,

I want to give your Modified Audette method a try, since the full Audette method is difficult to do at the local ranges. Thanks for describing it so well.

I have a rifle that suddenly opened groups too, so perhaps some barrel shortening is appropriate there if I find out it is the crown (I dropped the rifle barrel down in the garage on the concrete floor).

The rifles I am working are .375" and up. Do you know of anyone who has applied your method to cartridges with large cases?

thanks...

jim dodd

I tend to buy some of the gun rags just for relaxation reading. However, I have to be honest and say it has been quite some time since I actually learned anything from them. In fact most of the info I gather is more related to whats new in the market place, not how to reload better, shoot better, hunt better, etc.. I do have a subscription to Gun Tests that I do enjoy. Although it is far from perfect, it doesn't seem to show bias towards any particular manufacturer. The information I gather from this forum is worth alot more than any gun rag subscription. Just my 2 cents.

BW.....You're right and that was my first reaction when I was told how accurate throwing charges could be. So like the good scientist that I am (really) I did a test.

Group 1.....25 rounds prepared as you suggest. Weighed to the 1/10gr and carefully poured each charge into the case the same way.

Group 2......25 rounds with powder ...thrown into the case directly. It was actually 30 rounds as I checked the powder weight after every 5th load to see how I was doing. The powder from these extra loads was dumped back into the hopper.

I had my son separate the loads into groups of 5 and mark the box with a code so he would know which ammo I was using.

At the range I fired 3 fouling shots and shot 2 5-shot groups...cleaned the rifle and repeated the process with fouling shots and 2 more 5-shot groups until I had shot 8 5-shot groups.

The result.....both the size of the groups, the impact of the groups with respect to point-of-aim and velocity were close enough that you could not tell which loads were which...accuracy was under moa and extreme spread for all shots was, as I recall, under 20 fps.

What did I learn? I can throw powder charges accurately enough for almost any application and it is a lot faster than any other method.

One word of warning....if you are the type that absolutely must add powder to the point that one more grain will bring about pressure signs then this method is not for you. Actually, if that's the case you probably should be using factory ammo.

Bill,

Excellent test of the thrown versus weighed charges. I like how you "blinded" yourself to which batch was which to avoid inadvertently influencing the results.

So it would appear that thrown charges can be as accurate as weighed charges, with a well developed load and carefully thrown charges.

Thanks for sharing that data, it's interesting and helpful.

Jim,

Thanks for your interest in my load development method. With the larger magnums, I would vary the powder charge by .4 grains. What bullet and powder are you considering? Is this the 375 H&H?

Take care,

Dan Newberry
green 788

I'm interested in the proper technique for throwing very accurate charges. Could one of you charge throwing gurus enlighten the unenlightened please?

I've been weighing charges for hunting rounds for years, and throwing them for plinkers, which are never very hot. I wouldn't mind throwing them all, thanks.

I vote for Precision Shooting and The Accurate Rifle. REAL gun magazines!

Whitehurst,

I use a Lee "perfect powder measure," as it's called. These inexpensive measures have a patented polymer wiper system which actually helps them to throw charges as well as most of the big money units. My Lee measure cost me 24 dollars from Midway.

What you do to get consistent throws is you have to work the handle up and down with the same timing, the same "rhythm," if you will. Pour the hopper about 2/3 full of powder, and tap the side of the hopper a few times to allow the powder column to settle into some semblance of uniformity.

Some folks tap the side of the powder drum on the handle with each up stroke. If you choose to do this, these taps must be of equal pressure and duration.

Experiment with technique until you have your own special way of doing it. What works for you may be a little different than what works for me.

As the hopper empties, pour more powder in to bring it back to about 2/3's full. Otherwise, as the volume in the hopper goes down, charge variations will increase. There is an old type measure called the Belding and Mull which actually has two hoppers, a primary (main) and a smaller secondary hopper, this to prevent charge variations from occurring when the main hopper gets low. But just keep a fairly constant 1/2 to 2/3's volume in the hopper and you should do fine.

Practice helps. Shorter extrudes, such as IMR 4895, the Reloder powders, and most of the Hodgdons meter best. You may not be able to get IMR 4350, or 4831, or 3031 to suit you--you'll just have to try. Ball powders are a cake walk.

Best of luck,

Dan Newberry
green 788

Dan,

Right now I have loads to develop for the .376 Steyr and a .450 WSM. I expect to be working with a .400, but that rifle is not built yet (so many projects...). I may do some .375 H&H too. I have some GS FN solids for the .376, and Varget and BL-C(Lot #2). The .450 gets XMR 2015. I have been waiting for GS .458" bullets, but no joy yet.

I have been using a Belding & Mull measure for crikey I don't know how many years now. I have the micrometer drop tubes for it, so I can record the readings and go back to a load easily. Throwing repeatable loads with the B&M is quite easy, at least it has proved so for me. You don't see many of them any more.

jim dodd

[ 10-31-2002, 07:12: Message edited by: HunterJim ]

The single best book on reloading is sold by Sinclair. It is aimed at benchrest/varmint shooters but most of it will apply to anyone wanting to get the most out of his rifle possible.
I don't weigh brass or turn necks but I do most everything else. I use either Neil Jones In-Line dies or Redding Micrometer....neither one is very inexpensive but will worth the money.

Dan, Bill:

Thanks for the discourse, very informative! I discovered the "sweet spot" by accident with one of my 25-06's this summer. The rifle is very light and shot well but inconsistantly. A 5/8" group, then a 1 1/8, yadda yadda. For some reason, I increased my powder charge in a test series by 0.2 gr, and I don't think it has shot over 3/4" since. Using Dan's techniques, I would have found that load quite a while ago.

Bill I'm glad to see an objectice test of thrown charges. This will change my way of thinking on that subject.

JimF

I like RIFLE. On the whole, it always seems to have a balaced coverage of trends. I don't like magazines like GUNS AND AMMO that seem to chase fads. All of my hunting rifles were designed about a hundred years ago and work fine. No need for me to rush out and get the latest whiz-bang magnum.

They hardly ever give bad reviews but most products aren't bad. YOU may not like them but maybe lots of other people do.

Some of my favorite articles are not about new products but about historic or interesting firearms.

Grizzly Albert,

They're not chasing the fads, they're trying to start the fads so their advertisers' products will sell!

Remember how the RUMs were 'revolutionary'? The SAUMs 'spectacular'? The WSMs 'wonderful'? The .17HMR 'sizzling'?

Are these products REALLY THAT much better than what we have already, or is it just the manufacturers (with the help of the shills in the gun rag industry) trying to sell us a whole shitload of stuff we don't have any user for?

George

Dan,
I was not familiar with the Audette method and want to thank you for the post. Its always neat to learn something new.

I made a simple inexpensive modifcation to my RCBS Uniflow that has helped tremendously: Took a carburator return spring, whiich you can buy at any auto parts store for $3 and attached it to the handle. I drilled a hole in the handle near the knob and attached the spring to this hole. Took the other end of the spring and looped it over the top of the powder measure. This has the effect of keeping the chamber of the measure out of contact with the powder in the hopper except when you pull down on the handle and raise it.
Two other things that make a BIG difference for me are: making sure the powder measure is securely bolted to a rock solid bench and adding a baffle in the measure (one of those metal thingys that keeps the weight of powder in the main hopper constant. Redding measures come with these. I think RCBS charges me $3 for mine.
Finally, just be consistent with the way you use the thing. A tap or two with the handle is OK as long as its consistent from throw to throw.
Using these tips I've found it very easy to consistently throw very uniform charges with extruded powders like 4064 etc

Sounds like a decent idea, if I'm understanding it correctly...

Thanks for the kind words,

Dan

Looking at my post it might be a little confusing...all the spring does is keep the handle of the measure pointed up when you aren't touching it. That way the chamber of the measure isn't in constant contact with the hopper. It only is exposed to the powder when you pull down on the handle and I believe that this avoids any irregular settling of the powder charge between throws. Maybe or maybe not. But it works for me.

You know kentucky nimrod, I think you hit the nail on the head on one of your post about putting out a mag with no bias's and the real truth. I think what you were trying to say in a sarcastic way was you can't do it. So by my logic, you have confirmed my belief about these articles. That they are really for entertainment value only, and really should be taken with a grain of salt. And if your busy like me, just save your money.

I agree with the above. The gun rags rehash a lot of stuff just to segue into a tout of some advertiser's latest gadget. I've spoken to the editors of some of the big ones, and they are actually more interested in the photos you send with an article than they are the article itself.

I think it is possible to be entertaining and informative at the same time (which reminds me... almost time for Limbaugh! )

The problem is that the editors don't seem knowledgable enough to know if their magazine's technical articles are factually accurate. Rifle and Handloader's editor(s) simply believes that John Barsness knows what he's talking about. And he does know what he's talking about half of the time.

It's the other half that's worrysome. It's like ripping open a feather pillow and scattering the feathers to the wind. You'll never know where they all are. And you'll never know how many folks now believe, thanks to B.S. Barsness, that "Thrown powder charges are often more accurate at hunting distances than weighed charges."

Yes, the facts according to B.S. Barsness...

Dan Newberry
green 788

I could swear that Jon Sundra was pretty much writing the same stories all the way back in 1973 or so. Seems that is the correct date as we had a shooter at our skeet club that was a dead ringer for him.

The freshest writers to me are Barsness and Seyfried. I eagerly look forward to the new article on the seldom written about cartridge by Seyfried. He, Seyfried, has written about some of the same rifles/loads from different angles such as loading the .500 Express and then a bear hunt using the .500 rifle. I don't see anything wrong with that. I felt the 2 articles complimented one another.

I have to agree that most gun magazines are dull and repetitive. Heck I've been reading them since 1966 and while we've finally gotten away from the 9mm vs. .45 ACP debate we still seem to have quite a few repeats, even across magazines from different publishers.

My subscriptions are now Muzzleloader, Blackpowder Hunter, Rifle, Handloader, Hunting (whatever it is called by Wolfe), American Rifleman, Wooden Boat, Traditional Bowhunting, and Primitive Archery. Kind of shows you where my interests are.

I don't know what some of you expect from some of these gun scribes, Little Miss Mofett??? I sure can't deny any of them a right to making a living and getting paid for it...I don't believe any of them outright lie...and they should get a gift now and then, for their work. We all get perks in any business.

Some I like and some I don't like as far as their articles go...I like Shoemaker, Seyfriend, Boddington and Scovill...I don't like Barsness, Sundra or a few others, but I don't deny them their place and I know a lot of folks that love them....nothing unusual about that..Mostly I only like the ones I agree with or have met personally, ever notice how that makes a difference.

Mostly gun writters have run out of something to write about...I'd write if they offered to pay my way to hunt in where ever, nothing wrong with that.

I think they have a right to their opinnions without being stringhaltered and gilflurted...like the critizism of Boddington pushing Noslers, damn fine bullet and I and many others push them on this thread, why? because they are about the best around...He doesn't get much from Nosler, they don't need him or anyone else to push their bullets....

I believe we have the right to thrash them for what they print, if only because we disagree, they opened the door to that and they accept that. lets not attack them personally, and make accusations of their character, for which we have no proof what so ever. That just ain't the right thing to do. In fact it's plumb chicken s---t.

BTW, nothing wrong with a properly sealed and finished laminate, they are as good as fiberglass...You sure need a good poly urathane seal and finish on them, not oil. That should be self evident, as we have had plywood around for years.

Gentlemen:

one question went through my mind. Why is it that there are so many excellent young and aspiring journalists *everywhere* in media, keen and zealous, but only the guns & outdoor press seems bent on old geezers who get worse every year like Dave Scovill (the best have died already, anyhow), and no young blood coming forth or taking up the tradition whatsoever ? :-(

Carcano

I have never paid any attention to anything said by barnsness or boddington and don't intend to start now.

Every time I open a gun rag it feels like 95% commercial driven garbage hauling. The practice of heart and soul put to the pen has become a rarity and something of a lost art.

The picture I get from Barsness is that he hauls his share of commercial garbage but doesnt like being viewed that way, so once in a while he will throw us a brave bone to ease his own mind. Frankly I find that insulting and would prefer an honest whore. But on the other hand at least he appears to realize that there is something wrong with the overall picture they are painting instead of just blowing off the reader like most of his peers.

The great writers of the past were great simply because they loved hunting and the outdoors, seems like no one has time for that thesedays.

[ 09-08-2003, 03:02: Message edited by: Wstrnhuntr ]

Green 788, et al, Holy smoke, this is why I haven't purchased a gun rag in years: I have never, ever seen a magazine article as useful, lucid, and to the point as Green 788's post on stringing and load weight, as opposed to barrel, sweet spots. Never. Green, your post confirms something I have long suspected about a few barrels I have that never change their point of impact due to heating, only to load change of several grains +/- a "sweet spot." I hardly have the authority to make any particular claims on anything, but in case there might be a fellow milsurp shooter on a budget here 1.) the idea that military stepped barrels resist heat stringing seems in my limited experience to be true. 2.) The most accurate rifle I own is a scrubbed gunshow K98 barreled with an FN contract stepped 30-06 barrel. Springfield armory sold these barrels years ago for about 35.00 a piece, after seeing how this rifle performed I bought 4. Arsenal mentality, you know...to the point, the no-name smith apparently did a good job: my trashy b-square scout scope mount/Steel Bed/ four power pistol scope, reticle centered, was two minutes of vertical/right POI. Groups shooting Dillon progressive thrown charge original Frankford Arsenal spec 173 grain match load shooting pulls and surplus 4895 were too tight to claim on the net: and did not change POI +/- a grain and a half on either side. Couldn't believe it. This board rocks. (this is an entirely out of character post from the internet intermediary of Lord S. and Heather Fawn, who send their regards from the depths of darkest Africa)