Sorting cases

First topic message reminder :

What is everyone's opinion on sorting 45 Auto cases by head stamp to shrink group size.
Is it worthwhile, does it actually work, has it been proven in a ransom rest, are there any articles on it?

Chase:

Ok, fair enough request (but embarrassing as its not particularly my style).  Please check out Orton Trophy list. That's the .45 match at Camp Perry.  And yes, I use the same reloads at all matches, no new brass, nothing special,  mostly lead.  Why introduce a new variable when you need it least?

NRA Number xxxxxxxx (you've now had time to look it up) (probably some leading 0's but it doesn't seem to matter using lookup function) so you can check my classification.

And I shot on a couple of Mayleigh Teams as well,  never was really great at .22 though. I did miss one or two Presidents 100s in the past 15 or so years, but I didn't show up one year. 

If you want some more, I've probably go a list somewhere. Did shoot a 292 in an EIC match this year.  But I don't keep track of that very much.  I do have 12 filled up shooting diaries to date and working on number 13 with what I've learned and still learning.  That's what I really keep track of.  No you may not read them (even coaches should not look at a shooters diary, only suggest things the shooter should add but that's a different subject). 

"What is everyone's opinion on sorting 45 Auto cases by head stamp to shrink group size.
Is it worthwhile, does it actually work, has it been proven in a ransom rest, are there any articles on it?"

I had an opinion and tried to answer the question, from my opinion.  To put it simply, its probably worthwhile from a reloading, reliability and alibi reduction standpoint, but for me and my equipment and loads, it doesn't see to reduce the group size enough to add enough points to make it worth the time for that reason alone (unless you have some really crappy brass mixed in there).  But remember, I'm shooting good bullets, good cases, with a tested load, loaded on a tuned machine and the ammo is as consistent as I can get it in the minimal amount of time.  And I ain't really changed my load in about 10 years or so.   Just a little tweaking on OAL or a half grain depending on what each new barrel likes. 

Sorry for the offhand comment about being bored, but I usually read and post on the Fundamentals Topics, mostly because it seems to get the least use.  And I'm not trashing the topic or anybody.  I provided an opinion on the initial question and the other comments.  And from my perspective, the ultimate goal of almost every topic on this list is shooting bullseye and how to get better at our game. Hence, my comments will generally be focused on training, how to learn to execute an acceptable shot and getting more time so the shooter can do those things.  

I didn't say you couldn't get smaller groups from a rest doing all that stuff mentioned in the posts.  I am suggesting you can get better scores with less reloading time and spending more time on training, especially learning to call the shot.  And when I learned to really call the shot, I had to accept the fact that that 7 or 8 or even 9 that  I  shot just ate up more points than I could gain from (equipment, brass trimming, weighing bullets, etc. after a certain point and time expenditure);  I didn't concentrate on training enough and with the conviction that that was what I needed to do to get better.  So for me, and what I would like to pass along, is that somewhere in the learning curve, we probably need to slow down from looking for an 0.2 inch reduction in the average 2 inch group size and address the fact that each 7 or even 9 was the shooter. And yes, I will generally incorporate that opinion in my responses to almost every subject.  

As I have suggested, get the best most consistent load you can in the least amount of time, and spend the saved time training and dry firing.  Eventually, the shooter becomes the most important variable to address.

I do want my gunsmiths to be as fanatical about group sizes as Jerry, bless that man.  And Ed, bless his heart too, has his own opinions and gets great groups because he builds some great guns too. I've had split cases come out of my gun as well and the shots were right in the group. I have no doubt that Jerry gets the results he reports as well. If I had someone like Jerry prepping my brass and building me guns, I'm damn sure going to shoot them.  And if Ed sent me a gun, I'd shoot it too.  But at this point I seem to get more benefits from dryfiring than anything else.  

Yes, Jim, there is an intersection between all these different comments, facts and opinions.  And that intersection is the shooter and what is next largest variable to be reduced to improve performance and increase the scores.  Once the group size get inside the hold, the outcome is mostly in the shooters hands (literally).  

My personal opinion is the shooter should be as fanatical about training as the gunsmiths are about accuracy and allocate his time accordingly (unless reloading is the shooters goal).  Shooting bullseye is like moneyball versus buying home run hitters.  Gotta spend the most limited resource (time for me) in the area that provides the most return (training for me).  You can buy equipment, you can't buy time or skill.  And this is from a guy that started bullseye way on the  high side of 40, with family, career and a crapload of other obligations.  
 
And that's my opinion.

Respectfully,

Cecil

Bear with me here, there is data at the end.

Doing well in the sport requires consistency in technique, equipment that can perform consistently, and knowledge.   I agree with Cecil about technique having the biggest impact, particularly for a new shooter like me.  No doubt that Brian Zins' technique, with a stock pistol and inexpensive ammo, would score higher than me any day no matter what I equipment I bring to the line. 

However, we all seem to agree that there needs to be a certain quality .45 pistol to know that the equipment is not holding us back.   We also share with new shooters that reloading will help accuracy over the off-the-shelf .45 ammo, again to help know the ammo is not throwing in an unacceptable "random" factor.

Discussing options to improve the ammo we bring to the line should not be strange as we regularly trade load data, for just that purpose. 

Here is the experiment I did this morning.
I measured both a short and long Winchester case which had been sized, flared and cleaned.  I then put them through my Lyman taper crimp die to see what difference case length made to the crimp which the bullet experiences.   My conclusion is that a difference of 16 thousands in case length yielded a difference of 3 thousands crimp into the bullet. Granted that might not be an every-day variation between two cartridges shot on the line.

Case 1  "short" .8800 length  .4465 inside dia  case thickness .0105   .4705 outside at crimp  .4510 inside crimp
Case 2  "long"  .8960 length  .4470 inside dia  case thickness .0105   .4675 outside at crimp  .4450 inside crimp
inside crimp difference - .006 therefore radial difference is .003

Since I don't have a chronograph, ransom rest or a barrel fixture, I can not conclude that the above differences actually do impact velocity or POI.  But the difference in crimp probably impacts the velocity due to the bullet being released at a different point in case expansion which then may have a negative impact. (Case volume being identical behind the bullet yields no pressure difference before the first bullet is released).

Aprilan, go back and search for the post that Jerry put up talking about using the  trimmed 460 Rowland cases that he and a Bacon did. 

The thing is that I believe there is an intersection in the advice of Keefer, Ed M. and Cecil. As a matter if fact I know there is an intersection. But it's for each person to find.

This one?
https://www.bullseyeforum.net/t3882-45-acp-brass-what-brand-do-you-like-and-why 
I had to use google search as the forum search wouldn't find it.

My take on sorting cases:
Starting with a quote from a High Master and 45 loads for 25yds.  "You can clean a 25 yard target with lubed rocks"

25yds mixed cases will do just fine - I prefer staying with Federal.

50 yard line:
Up until you reach Master go buy 2,000 cases once fired Federal brass and don't pick up any range brass.  Use for both 50 & 25yds if you like

When you reach Master then go buy 1-2000 cases of new Starline brass and be done with it.  Use the first and second loadings on the 50 yard line then move them to 25yards. replenish when you need new 50yd brass.

- Dave

w4ti wrote:For instance, Jerry Keefer repeatedly says that cracked cases are a detriment to accuracy, but Ed Masaki says (as I understand it; he has the targets that Jerry doesn't to back up his claim, so take my view on this with a grain of salt until Jerry shows his targets) that there is no difference.

Tell you what I'll do.. W4ti
I'll save all my split cases and sell them to you at 25% above new Starline, since they are guaranteed to shoot x's, the premium price should be fair..This is one reason I have stopped posting to this list.. There's  little or no common sense.. Argue about the virtues or negative virtues of case length, but no one knows their exact headspace..Not one mention of known  HEADSPACE in the entire thread......the most mis understood factor in the game..AND  split cases of any make and length shoot thru the same hole... Have at it...

Jerry, I hear your frustration.  I went back and through Google searched the posts which combined "accuracy" and "headspace".  Good info and I understand your point now.

Later I will measure headspace and then use that to look for the right length cases for the long line.

I particularly liked this post of yours.

Jerry Keefer

noylj wrote:you will not find many competitors who worry about cases in .45 Auto

Not exactly.. Some of us worry about all trivialities.. The sum of them all,  equals a winning combination..  Headspace alone will not yield much.. But in combination with many other points of detail, it does make a difference.  I've worked for more than one top flight shooter, and they all want every bit of accuracy possible out of the gun..They can shoot one magazine at 50 and tell you if the gun is shooting tight and on call..  The other criteria is, the gun must be reliable..
If a gun were capable of a .452 group..(One exact hole)the worst novice would shoot a better score than they would with a 4 inch gun.. When the shooter is at or near the top of the competitive ladder, every advantage is needed. I assure you, the best in the game are not shooting 3 inch guns..

I shot this target on Sunday at Oak Harbor.  50 yards Zero 185 jhp 4.4 grains of Bullseye with my beloved Mike Curtis gun.
I haven't reloaded since July and the only brass I had ready was ugly many many times fired mixed brass.  I also fired a pair of 98's and a 97 that day. It was by far the best I have ever done on the long line.
Does brass make a difference? In my opinion yes it does.  I think I could have cleaned a slow fire if I had used new Starline. 
The reason I shot my best slow fire scores ever was because for the last month I have been training for winter airgun at Colorado Springs.  I walk two miles a day, do half hour of yoga, and dry fire 100 times per day.  I have focused solely on my mental game and my process.

Master and high masters are credintals for me

[quote="w4ti"]

Jerry Keefer wrote:

w4ti wrote:For instance, Jerry Keefer repeatedly says that cracked cases are a detriment to accuracy, but Ed Masaki says (as I understand it; he has the targets that Jerry doesn't to back up his claim, so take my view on this with a grain of salt until Jerry shows his targets) that there is no difference.

Jerry- 

No need to be rude, and I'm sorry if you took my comments as provoking to you- you just don't have the photos of split case testing v. whole case testing that I've seen- if you do, I'd love to see them. You're more of a data driven sort of fellow than Cecil or Bickar (who I'm sure are fine folks, even though they either entirely too verbose without substance, or have no substance with which to be verbose), and if anyone on this board would have such photos/proof- it would most certainly be you. Don't you think it would be one heck of an experiment? I do, and Ed M. certainly did, too. Are you making the claim that Ed didn't have the facts right and his experiment was not in fact done properly? And, to round it all out- Terry has used mixed brass and gotten stellar groups! Lots of stuff going on here!

Don't disagree that headspace is probably the most important factor that many overlook, and I think I'm going to have a 45 barrel cut to a specific dimension, though haven't yet made my mind up on that particular bit. I'll continue to experiment because of the fun factor, something that is apparently lost to others who seem to be so very niggardly with their load data, targets, experiments, etc. I do hope you will continue to share your findings as long as you are able and do not wish to have made you think such an endeavor was otherwise wasted. I enjoy reading your thoughts, and I'm sure others do, too.
I recently picked up a Mitutoyo thickness gage and am hip to make some measurements on 32, 38 and 45 cases. I really do wonder if the thickness of the case wall makes a difference in the 45- though, apparently, it may well do so in the 32 and 38. No idea why, other than it may very well be the short/fat v. tall/skinny along with what Jerry points out is certainly a culprit- headspace. Which just reminds me of the old rifle reloaders saying, "crimp is case length sensitive."
Last thought- probably should make chamber dimension of depth and diameter part of the over all recipe data. I think it is entirely possible to gather data and make meaningful observations from it. But gathering enough data to be valid, especially when many deem it below their station, is going to be a tough nut to crack.

Ho Ho Ho,
Chase

First, you brought me into this foray, I did not post to it.. Second.. I meant to be rude, but tempered my comments out of respect for Rob. I can do much better at being rude, believe me..You are the one who seems to have a propensity to malign. 50 years ago, I shot matches with Frank Bickar.. John is his son.. Both Bicars are icons in this game. Cecil Rhodes and John Bicar have decades of high accomplishments in bullseye, yet you chose to to be condescending, and even disrespectful rather than listen to their suggestions. You haven't gained enough status as tyro marksman to police up their spent brass. ( "Gathering data from those who believe it below their station..? " ) That is a classic .. You ask all the questions, yet you also have all the answers.. Fits the definition of a "Troll." If you take the time, this forum is packed full of information.. from HM shooters, and gunsmiths who have decades of winning experience. My photo bucket account is accessible with over 1300 pictures, as of yesterday..
Ed Masaki and I are friends.. If he says the earth is flat, then it's flat.. Gunsmiths who ARE NOT ego driven, do not ridicule, and disparage one another..
Ed and I working together at Perry to help make the sport enjoyable for all.

You want a target?? Here's one.. It was posted at Perry by Zero officials in the Zero booth as a display of what Zero 185 HP bullets are capable of.. 15 shots.. No cracked cases..EXACT headspace was .895 So get a bucket of cracked brass and duplicate that.. Let me know when your successful, and hurry, I am running out of time..

w4ti wrote:

CR10X wrote:I was bored and finally glanced over this topic.  As an alternative opinion here (for the original posted question), I would like to offer my experience and opinion.  Please remember that my preferences are generally driven  by performance at matches, not group size.

Cecil,

Since we don't have the proof of your claimed results, it's hard to take your comment seriously. More importantly, that you looked at this topic with some degree of boredom says a great deal about yourself and your answer than it does the participants, don't you agree? For instance, Jerry Keefer repeatedly says that cracked cases are a detriment to accuracy, but Ed Masaki says (as I understand it; he has the targets that Jerry doesn't to back up his claim, so take my view on this with a grain of salt until Jerry shows his targets) that there is no difference.

Your performance, such as it is, doesn't amount to much unless we see the targets. I'm sure your match performance is so much better than your practice that you can share those results with the rest of us. 

Why don't you add to the conversation instead of trying to trash it? I dropped the Facebook group and a couple of "friends" off when I wrote something which had been well researched- because I was just supposed to "listen to the wisdom of my elders." One of whom has contradicted his own comments in this very thread from what he has said elsewhere. 

Do you have an on topic response to the original question? Do you know what the original question was?

I read this with some amusement, first Cecil doesn't have to show targets, just look to the right of his forum name ... High Master says it all, you dont reach that level with inaccurate equipment or ammunition, same goes for Jerry Keefer and his accomplishments, way to many to list. As for sorting brass, i sort by brand mainly to get uniform flash hole sizes, ive found slight differences in POI in older brass and the newer brass with larger flash holes used in the no lead primer ammo. However  For the life of me i cant figure why someone would even care about the accuracy of cracked brass  IMO only a moron would use it knowing it was cracked before loading it and would hope only a shooter with no other rounds available in a match would even think of shooting it at all. Ive loaded cracked brass by accident but always find it in my wipe down and chamber checking i do to all my match brass before it goes in the ammo case.

where's Neil Winston when I need him......

Just to stir the pot...   Actually, I think this is a pretty good discussion, after we strip away all the posturing, quoting and other comments. 

Look, the original question was about sorting brass by headstamp to improve groups.  And that can work to improve groups, or it can work against you.  See, that's where Jerry's headspace comes into play.  

Are you sure that Federal for instance has a better quality control on case length than say Winchester or TZZ?  So when you sort by headstamp without measuring are we really accomplishing that much to standardize the case lengths.  Sometimes maybe yes, sometimes maybe not.

Jerry on the other hand, I believe, made sure that his test was completely based on standardizing case length.  They were all as close to the same as he could get.  Do you think that was better than factory production?  I sure do.  Do you think we can get to that point by sorting by headstamp?

On to the real world.  Now, when I was going though the beginning of my learning process, (still working on that by the way) don't you think I tried out new brass, bullets, measured powder and crimp and seating depth? And then I compared that time and the results in the ransom rest to scores on the target.  And I found a combination that I believe that is capable of producing a winning score as long as I do my part.    

I finally got to the point of determining for me what took the least amount of time to get acceptable loads and try to use the rest of the time training.  There's a lot more than just case length / headspace going on in that little .45 case.  And there is probably some room in that powder measure and seating die to reduce the variables as well. 

But a shooter has to believe in his load and gun (that's what gunsmiths and testing are for) so that he will have to man up and claim that 9,8, 7 or even scratch 10 as his doing.  Remember, probably the best liar you'll ever see watches you shave his face in the mirror every morning.     

So, in my opinion, when reloading gets to the point of taking time from training, from a score standpoint, I go will less reloading time and more training time.

Or to put it simply, somewhere around a consistent, round 2 inch or less group; it comes down to more training time for me.

Just remember that dispersion from the center of the group can sometimes work against you or sometimes for you.  It all depends on where your wobble was at the time. 

Or to put it another way, I always hear shooters complaining about a "flyer" 7 or 8; but I never heard a shooter call a 10 a "flyer"...... 

CR

Chase,
There are very few, if any, combinations that haven't been tried, tried and re-tried.  I noticed you are a Marksman, nothing in the world wrong with that because that's where I started too.  And, like you, I questioned everything, took nothing for granted.  I tried combinations that any experienced shooter wouldn't waste his time on.  You probably will too, cuz it sound's like you're wired like I am.  The real blessing is this list!  Before this list & its predecessor existed, a new shooter had no choice but to repeat mistakes already made by a host of more experience shooters unless they had a mentor that had already traveled that road.

There are combinations you'll try and get the same result that these gunsmiths, Masters & High Masters have tried and rejected as not worth pursuing, years earlier.  Don't try to reinvent the wheel. There are quite a few posters on this list that are incredible shooters and incredible gunsmiths.  I couldn't begin to name them all, but if Jerry, Cecil, or John give you a heads up on something, they probably tried it and it didn't work.  Don't waste your time or components.  This addiction is very simple, but not easy.  There's no magical combination that will turn 5's & 6's into x's.  A well made 1911 and a proven 22 is all that one really needs.  If you already have those, all that's needed is good 22 ammo and a proven 45 load followed by lots and lots of training.  There's a lot of great loads on this list, just pick one.  The 45 acp is a versatile and forgiving cartridge, there's quite a few really good loads that will shoot 10 ring or better.  They may not be x ring or better, but they're good enough to score a perfect 2700, which no one has yet done in this game.

I still experiment, because I'm wired that way.  But my go to loads, are pretty much the same as what you'll find with a search in this forum.


I am also relatively new in this game, 17 years and I started in my late 40's.  Due to degenerating eyesight, a beloved coffee addiction and shoulder surgery my peak hit about 10 years back, I will, in all likelihood, never progress beyond expert and I'm just fine with that.  I go to matches and Perry now for the sheer enjoyment of the good natured banter with my fellow addicts/friends and to squander otherwise excellent components.

Al



OOPS, while I was hunting & pecking on my keyboard, Cecil already hit most of my high points.

Showing results for: BULLSEYE-L.COM
Original Query: bullseye-l.com
Contact Information
Registrant Contact
Name: Chesley, Ross
Organization:
Mailing Address: 2040 ARGENTINA DR SE, EAST GRAND RAPIDS MI 49506-3463 US
Phone: +1.6162603627
Ext:
Fax:
Fax Ext:
Email:bullseye.lokahi@gmail.com
Admin Contact
Name: Chesley, Ross
Organization:
Mailing Address: 2040 ARGENTINA DR SE, EAST GRAND RAPIDS MI 49506-3463 US
Phone: +1.6162603627
Ext:
Fax:
Fax Ext:
Email:bullseye.lokahi@gmail.com

have you looked here?  Lots of good load info from guys who use it and are accomplished shooters. (see link below) as for how do they know what shoots best, its really simple.... Most accurate wad guns use a Kart barrel, not all but id say 98% do, some wont say kart but they were made by kart regardless, that said imo most of your accuracy comes from the load and the barrel, a small amount is in the fitment of it and the slide frame but imo most just from those two things. If you want an example, here ya go, my 75 year old friend with no gunsmith experience using only the tool kit and instructions that he ordered with a Kart ez fit barrel fitted it and the kart bushing in his old milspec Springfield and i ransom tested it, 4.2 gr of WST with a 185 lswc bullet shot 2'', 10 shot groups @ 50 yards. Since most kart barrels shoot really well, once a  few dozen guys have success with the same load then chances are if your gun has the kart barrel or even one made to the same national match specs you will have a accurate load as well. As said you could think of 10,000 things and i guarantee you its already been tried and it either worked great, good or bad and the info on it is out there already if you search for it. I started compiling this list awhile back, if any other masters or high masters would like to add their info to it shoot me a pm   yes pun intended! check here for some great loads!!!!
https://www.bullseyeforum.net/t1209-pet-loads-of-top-shooters-loads-from-the-past

Darn it, wrote a long answer to the post requesting load information and got kicked off and had to login again.  Rather than type it all, here is the best I can remember.

My load has been posted previously.  3.85 gr. VV 310, 200 gr. Oregon Trail SWC (long line), 180 gr. Oregon Train (short line), 1.239 nominal OAL measured for the 200 gr. Oregon Trail (really seated on the shoulder), 0.469 crimp, Federal brass (got a ton of it 15 years ago, once fired in new kart barrels), WW primers.

Never cleaned a .45 primer pocket in my life. Brass is cleaned in batches of 500 - 1,000 or so, brass is used in 3,000 piece lots (generally loaded 1,000, 200 gr. for 50 slow & 2,000, 180 gr. for 25 T/R several times until I start getting splits, then that batch is used at the indoor range or used when I won't be picking up the brass.) 

Dillion 650, tuned for loading as best as I can, O-rings under the dies, deburred powder measure and shell plate, loctite (blue) on the powder bar adjustment bolt (to keep from accidentally moving), extra return spring on measure. I wound up with several powder bars / spacers and selected the combination with the closest fit but still moved freely.  I seat the bullet in 2 steps, station 3 uses seating die with conical nose seater to align and seat the bullet halfway, station 4 uses seating die with shoulder seater to get to final depth.

Use 200 grain Oregon Trail for slow fire at 50, simply use the Oregon Trail 180 gr SWC for timed and rapid fire (no change in powder or any settings, just drop the 180 in the top of the case and keep reloading).   The 200 gr is slightly faster due to taking up more case capacity, has generally single digit SD over 30 shots (not that SD is indicator of accuracy but it makes the engineer in me happy) and the 200 gr. groups slightly better than the 180 for me.

Yes, I use case lube even with carbide dies, it makes every thing run smoother and my arm appreciates it too.  Simply spray lube on a towel, put a couple or three hundred clean cases on the towel, grab either end and make a hammock.  Shake back and forth a couple of times and dump in the hopper.  Not too much lube, not too little, just enough to make the machine happy and smooth. I generally load in 500 rounds at a time, that's a box of bullets and about all the case feeder motor can handle at once. Everything may sound like a lot, but each 500 round loading session is only an hour or so on the Dillon.    

Anyway, all this is done so I can load the best I can in the least amount of time. 

However at this point, I would like to point out that there are 5 times as many topics in Equipment than in Fundamentals (7.5 times as many topics in Equipment and Ammunition than in Fundamentals) and 4.5 times more posts in Equipment than in Fundamentals (7 times more posts in Equipment and Ammunition than in Fundamentals).  Today, I think its safe to say we have access to better powders, bullets, primers and even more consistent guns than previous for our sport.  

And yet, with all the discussion on Equipment and Ammunition, all the 1.5 inch guns being produced, all the sub whatever inch loads being developed, all the new dot sights, etc., etc., etc.; there hasn't been a change in the record score for a 2700 aggregate match in years!  Something to ponder here?  

I tend to think about that a lot and that's why I answer some questions the way I do.  

Cecil

Lee makes some die locking rings with an O-ring already installed.  

A progressive press can be set up in two ways to try and get more consistency in the rounds (which may or may not be possible or even needed).  We can try to make everything as solid as possible to achieve more consistency (see aftermarket for locking bolts for the the die holder for Dillon presses) OR we can try to allow everything to float or flex a little bit (except the shell plate) and allow the cartridges to center in each die (using O-rings on the die locking rings).  

Now this probably does very little overall, but it does seem to be a good method to keep the dies from loosening without requiring me to tighten down a ring against an aluminum block so hard as to need a big wrench to take off.  

Opinion is that it also keeps the pressure of the threads/die in the "up" direction which is where the case will push the die anyway.  

Anyway, just something I've used, this is one that make me "feel better" more that a result of any actual testing.  Can't say my groups got smaller, but I've never had a die work loose since I started using. 

CR

Cecil,  Thanks for the good info, I hope you don't mind that I quoted you in my new signature.

If Cecil is ok with it i will add his info to the pet loads sticky,  So w4ti your in buckhead, then will you be joining the other bullseye shooters here in ga. at Conyers (south river) and Riverbend this season? As for international shoot me a pm and i can hook you up with locals that shoot rapid fire and air pistol matches in the area.

w4ti wrote: You're more of a data driven sort of fellow than Cecil or Bickar (who I'm sure are fine folks, even though they either entirely too verbose without substance, or have no substance with which to be verbose),

I've averaged 2640 over the past two years in the 2700s I've shot, with a high of 2660. It's been over two years since I've been below 2600. That's the data that drives me.

w4ti wrote:
Bickar just dropped an "I don't know laugh," instead of sharing what worked for him in his guns. Why they keep such easily documented details to themselves I've no clue...

Go back and read the nonsense that you wrote, that I quoted and laughed at.

I'm not keeping anything from you. I'm a High Master bullseye shooter, not a High Master bullseye reloader. It took me over 20 years to learn that you can be the former without having to become the latter. I shoot ASYM at 50 yards because I can't reload ammo as accurate as that.

If you want to become a High Master reloader, enjoy - we need folks like that. If you want to waste two decades of your own rather than listen to folks that know better, enjoy, but please don't try to drag my name - or that of other shooters - through the mud while you do it, especially if you're going to do so anonymously.

I'm surprised the forum administrators haven't pulled the acrimonious replies to an innocent question that led to such childish outbursts.  I really value this forum and the inabilities to keep it within a hairsbreadth of decorum, disappoints.  We should be cognizant all members may have differing personalities and keeping the replies civil is important to polite discourse.

Jovial ribbing is one thing.  Acrimony is another.

Bigtrout wrote:I'm surprised the forum administrators haven't pulled the acrimonious replies to an innocent question that led to such childish outbursts.  I really value this forum and the inabilities to keep it within a hairsbreadth of decorum, disappoints.  We should be cognizant all members may have differing personalities and keeping the replies civil is important to polite discourse.

Jovial ribbing is one thing.  Acrimony is another.

Agreed. I think I wrote something similar a while back. Personally I'm sure I give away more points with poor execution of fundamentals than I could ever make up with premium .22 ammo or precisely loaded centerfire ammo.

Oh, boy.

Chase....first I gotta make sure that you know that this is my forum.  I haven't been around much since I realized that the things that Cecil, John, Jerry,  and others have been saying on this forum for years:
Bullseye has NOTHING TO DO WITH AMMO OR EQUIPMENT.

After being a dedicated administrator of this forum for years, it's gotten to the point where I'm just too busy to keep reading the same answers that my friends keep retyping and retyping the same answers for new users like you.

LIke you, Chase, I thought that after 100+ years of marksmanship with the 1911 platform and more modern ammo that's perfectly accurate every time, that we will be shooting 2670 in no time.

Then I learned that I need to learn how to stand before I could walk.

Chase, please don't talk to my friends like you did in some of your previous comments. There are thousands of my other users who need to hear what they have said over and over.  The other members need to keep hearing it until they truly agree, and if my friends stop commenting because the counterarguments are more trouble than it's worth, our sport will be worse off.

Do me a favor, everyone.  Reread the comments on this topic.

My friends who have already achieved greatness in this sport don't need to be here for THEM to learn new lessons!  They are here to share all of their learning with US!

If you want to systematically relearn everything about this sport through trials and experimentation, you don't need to argue about results. Your results are the only thing that you can believe right now. You don't need to compare your results on this forum--you aren't ready to accept the lessons yet anyway.

When shooters are ready to really learn from others, there is so much free coaching and lessons to be had here.  I avoid deletions as much as possible. I just buy more storage. There are years of lessons to be searched.

For the other couple thousand active users of this forum, please communicate with each other like you are friends.  I won't let you stay in my house if I don't like the way you talk to my friends.