PDA

View Full Version : learning



mike in co
07-10-2015, 06:09 PM
from sdean: "I find this place invaluable to a person learning"

from sdean: "A short rang guy doesn't want to hear a long range guy telling them they are leaving something on the table if they don't use a $600 scale or anneal brass every firing or other such things. "

so a simple question , do you want to learn or not ??
yes or no ??

just yes or no, then we can move on...no need do redirect or comment, just yes or no.

can you do that ??

Jerry Reisdorff
07-10-2015, 06:33 PM
What are you teaching him now? :confused:

I think whatever you hear on this Site should be considered non-factual - until you yourself prove that it correct - for your self - because someone else will find it not correct.

Grains of Salt.... Proof is in the pudding - don't know if it is good until you put it in your mouth.....

JR

mike in co
07-10-2015, 07:30 PM
i never said i would teach him anything.
i asked if he was willing to learn...simple yes or no answer.

sdean
07-10-2015, 07:53 PM
I have already learned a lot on here. I read most what is written, form my own opinions,
Believe whomever and whatever I choose. I test some stuff in my own way and make my own mistakes. I really don't care how you or anyone else reviews how I accomplish my goals.

Yes my own way not yours.

mike in co
07-10-2015, 09:27 PM
so yes or no..i could not tell from your rambling

like i said a simple yes or no


I have already learned a lot on here. I read most what is written, form my own opinions,
Believe whomever and whatever I choose. I test some stuff in my own way and make my own mistakes. I really don't care how you or anyone else reviews how I accomplish my goals.

Yes my own way not yours.

Dusty Stevens
07-10-2015, 10:09 PM
Mike can you believe bart won that 600yd match shooting brass i formed in that barrel (13firings and no annealing), with a bullet (no false shoulder), with non sorted bullets, with cci primers, tuned at 100yds, a 26" barrel, and with powder thrown on a chargemaster? Sometimes the shooter has a lot to do with it. You wouldnt believe what he can do with the junk i throw in front of him :cool:

Boyd Allen
07-11-2015, 12:04 AM
Experience teaches up which things are important for a given task. Different task, different important factors. Can't get around experience. It is a requirement. Long range, short range, score....different tasks, different realities. What is important for one, may not be for the other. Absent experience, we waste time trying to apply "universal truths" that are really not universal. Without experience we have no basis on which to make those judgments.

sdean
07-11-2015, 12:10 AM
Well you guys with Mike on your ignore list missed another great informative thread started by him. It is just too easy and fun to jerk his chain. One thing I have learned from Mike is if Wilbur runs me off I can just stoop to Mike's level and come back as someone else. Surely no shame in that. I think I'll try CMaier next since he disappeared when Mike reappeared. Sorry I'm gone. Go ahead Mike one more you win.

mike in co
07-11-2015, 01:48 AM
for close to 15 years i have been promoting better powder charge accuracy in benchrest.
the fallacy of thrown charges is not new to me.
the question is are you willing to learn ?
go to any short range bench rest match today and you see chargemater's on the loading bench.
in spite of some comments it is not a $600 scale. it is a $400 tool that is currently on sale for less then $300.
we have been over the lack of consistency of thrown charges, believe what you want the data says it is poor.

do not take my word for it, i do not shoot short range group, i shoot score.

will you listen to lou murdica ? dusty stevens ? bart ??
they do not throw powder..they use chargemasters.

using a chargemaster takes you from the .6's and .3's to plus or minus .1.
which ammo do you want to shoot ? plus or minus .3 or plus or minus .1 ??

if moving from .3 to .1 is a step in the right direction, would .05 be better ?

if you shoot in the high 1's how much would you spent to be in the mid 1's ?? in the lo 1's ??

do not reply to me, go ask the guys with the chargemasters why they no longer throw powder.

to learn, one has to be exposed to new information, decide if the information applies to them, and then decide what to do
with the information....move forward or stay where you are ??

i guess dean's answer was to stay the where he was or a "no"

Boyd Allen
07-11-2015, 02:50 AM
Anyone who can only throw +-.3 probably should use a Chargemaster, but given what I know about node widths of 133 in a 6PPC, and what records, and match reports clearly show before Chargemasters were around, the inescapable conclusion is that people were, and are throwing a lot better than you imagine, and that with the hardest commonly used powder for the short range game. It is not that hard to throw the LTs +-.1, and given the successes that we have seen with those powders, the golden age of the Chargemaster may be coming to a close. I am not saying that there is anything that is wrong with them, just that they are not a necessity. If you doubt me, you might want to consider Ocock's multitude of records, all shot with thrown charges.

I have read a lot of stories in which the authors supposedly did exhaustive and complete studies exploring the limits of powder throwing. The simple truth is that their inquiries were limited by something that limits all of us, their imaginations. This sort of research only requires powder, measures, a good scale, an imagination, and a lot of patience, more of the latter than some may possess, in which case there is an alternative.

sdean
07-11-2015, 03:28 AM
Mike as usual you have your facts wrong. You quoted me out of context from a thread that had nothing to do with the pros and cons of thrown charges.
All I said is that most competitors probably don't care to hear you preach about that for the last 15 years. Most have formed their own opinions and do as they see fit. No time I have ever posted my thoughts on the matter. I know the advantages of wieghed charges. I don't own a powder thrower. I have a chargemaster, A D 120 and one of the new Bald Eagle scales Boyd liked. I pay attention to what Boyd posts and feel I can learn a lot from him.
I personally don't think I can learn anything from you. In that other thread you bashed some short range shooters so you opened that can of worms. Go back and reread if you care to apologize I suggest a PM. I'm texting and driving down the river tonight. Have a glorious day.

mike in co
07-11-2015, 03:35 AM
there is no denying gary's records.
BUT,
maybe if he had used a chargemaster instead of throwing, he would have beat lou's .272 at the sniper king match.
maybe if he had chargemastered instead of throwing he would have beat lou's 10 shot grand agg...
BUT HE DID NOT SO WE WILL NEVER KNOW WILL WE ??
GARY DID WELL HE DID TAKE THE 2 GUN, BUT LOOK WHAT HE MISSED...why ??

consistency.....plain and simple.......

if you insist on looking backwards, the .009 record that stood for years was done with a 222, we should all go back to 222's ??
how about looking forward ??



Anyone who can only throw +-.3 probably should use a Chargemaster, but given what I know about node widths of 133 in a 6PPC, and what records, and match reports clearly show before Chargemasters were around, the inescapable conclusion is that people were, and are throwing a lot better than you imagine, and that with the hardest commonly used powder for the short range game. It is not that hard to throw the LTs +-.1, and given the successes that we have seen with those powders, the golden age of the Chargemaster may be coming to a close. I am not saying that there is anything that is wrong with them, just that they are not a necessity. If you doubt me, you might want to consider Ocock's multitude of records, all shot with thrown charges.

I have read a lot of stories in which the authors supposedly did exhaustive and complete studies exploring the limits of powder throwing. The simple truth is that their inquiries were limited by something that limits all of us, their imaginations. This sort of research only requires powder, measures, a good scale, an imagination, and a lot of patience, more of the latter than some may possess, in which case there is an alternative.

Dave Coots
07-11-2015, 08:42 AM
I would venture to say most of Gary's records were not set with N133 powder.

Later
Dave

Boyd Allen
07-11-2015, 09:29 AM
Good guess.

Wilbur
07-11-2015, 02:04 PM
Mike is currently "re-blocked" for posting this thread. We both tried, and we both failed. Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive these days but the post appeared personal....and it didn't have to be.

Apologies to sdean for my poor decision.

B.Larson
07-11-2015, 02:23 PM
Mike is currently "re-blocked" for posting this thread. We both tried, and we both failed. Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive these days but the post appeared personal....and it didn't have to be.

Apologies to sdean for my poor decision.

Maybe "STOOL" will reappear...............????

dmoran65
07-11-2015, 02:56 PM
My opinion, I feel it was a good decision again Wilber......
Was glad to see him back at first, but seemed to slip right back into quarrel and feud.

Seems a likeable guy in person and on the phone to me, but burned to many bridges in forum discussions I guess.
No disrespects, just my own opinions.
Donovan

CharlieH
07-11-2015, 04:56 PM
My opinion, I feel it was a good decision again Wilber......
Was glad to see him back at first, but seemed to slip right back into quarrel and feud.

Seems a likeable guy in person and on the phone to me, but burned to many bridges in forum discussions I guess.
No disrespects, just my own opinions.
Donovan

I hear you, you've talked to him in person and he is respectful. But what do you call a man that acts hostile on the keyboard but "likeable" face to face? I think we all know the answer to that.
I did find him a source of entertainment though.
sdean you did good, stayed cool.

sdean
07-11-2015, 05:58 PM
Actually I am sorry things ended the way they did. Mike is close to the mark on a lot of things just has a problem getting it into print in a friendly manner. I made my peace and was finished. Was glad Mike moved on to Boyd and was looking forward to Mike lecturing Gary Ocock on what he was doing wrong. No apology needed Wilbur as I was part of the deal. I really enjoy your site and thanks to the many who share their knowledge on here. Stephen Dean

ebb
07-11-2015, 11:55 PM
I also think Mike was right on a lot of things, maybe all of them. It seems to me he couldn't live with the idea that some people didn't agree.

Dusty Stevens
07-12-2015, 02:03 AM
Mike is a good guy. He like many others have great ideas and when we dont use those ideas due to practicality or whatever the reason he blows up. Still a good guy with good ideas that is trying to improve the sport

Bill Wynne
07-12-2015, 07:54 AM
Over fifty years have passed since I was a student in a great university. While I was not a great student, I attended a great university. I had professors who were very knowledgable in their assigned subjects. Some of these people could teach and some could not but I am sure that they all knew their subjects.

I remember well professors who spent a lot of our class time telling us how stupid we were and I can remember the teachers who were really good at teaching. Some people have a gift for transferring knowledge while some just open their mouths and break wind.

Concho Bill