slowshooter wrote:So no matter what proof people provided you, would have said that it was just their load and gun... That's what you just did, right?
Not trying to start an argument but if you say that what the GAEP does doesn't matter - then when someone says it does - then you say they can't prove it... It's no longer incumbent upon them to do anything, they owe you nothing.
If someone says it works great for them and you pipe in that it doesn't work for them... It's incumbent on you to prove your assertion that it doesn't work for them. It's just that easy - and just kind of impossible.
All I'm saying is that that your ignorance about their setup, loads, guns, methodology and results is not just as good as their knowledge about how they achieved their results.
It goes in both directions as well. If you don't get good results - other people's good results aren't going to change. And they shouldn't be telling you to prove it either...
Just a thought.
Yea... I have patterned many hundreds of 12ga and 10ga loads to come up with top performers that also require no additional bullshit such as buffer or another step in the reloading process. The loads I reload will do the same numbers as the finest loads I have seen here without these steps.
So.... Yes... If the tool won't make those loads perform at a higher level I will not bother with it's use at that will defy logic!
Hear me... I do not need a pretty crimp for my mental status.
My 10ga cases only go twice or maybe three times before they are no longer reloadable and the velocity from first reload to third reload is close enough that my misses are not related to inconsistent velocity.
I can't make you guys believe that shell to shell inconsistency isn't affecting weather or not you are missing a bird and that is fine.
If you want to think that you are missing birds because your shells vary by even as much as 100 fps that just isn't the case.
Look... you guys are always talking about how you all kill your birds so close and that you never shoot over 40 yards.
If that is true then since we are going to make assumptions that we can not prove with this tool then lets make some assumptions about the ducks you guys shoot.
If you never shoot over 40 it implies that the majority are shot far closer.. In fact you just made a post attesting to that vary thing.
So if a shell to shell inconsistency is mere inches at 40 yards... How much does it affect a shot at 10 yards? 20 yards?
The truth is that it amounts to nothing. Nothing that would or wouldn't affect killing a bird.
Look at a chart that shows the difference in ammo that goes 1550 FPS and ammo at 1350 fps with the smaller steel at 40 yards.
look at the difference in actual speed by the time they get to 40 yards and the difference in forward allowance.
It's so little that you can't make use of the extra speed where you need it most which is at longer range rather a ten or a 15 yard decoy shot.
So now we are going to ignore the fact that there are plenty of fine performing steel reloads with small amounts of standard deviation say less then 50 FPS with standard fold crimps and say that we can't shoot properly and accurately unless we get the deviation on a shot shell load down to less then that?
That is just deluding yourself of the truth.
If were are going to try and eliminate as many variables as possible in order to shoot as well as we can that is fine but lets not completely crap ourselves into delusional thought processes!
If you think that shells that vary by fewer then 50 FPS are going to put one extra bird in your bag it just isn't so.
Now put two extra steel TT's in a 30 inch circle at 60 yards? That would be a near 5% pattern increase with a pellet big enough to make a difference. If it can do that we will have something.
Count all the times you shoot a bird on the water. This will teach you about how effective the shells you think are so great are.