Nosler Partition question

How about a thunderflash into the arena ? All barrels of a given calibre are not ALL the same. Some appear to be a bit tighter than others don't they ? Wouldn't this affect pressure and the requirement to take precautionary steps - if not exactly starting from the very beginning.

I'm not into taking sides, but just chucking in my tuppenceworth. As you said Paul - it's not about being 'right' but about safety first.

The comment about the potential difference between boat tails and flat tails is, I think, a pertinent and important one, and from my limited experience of basic but effective homeloading over thirty years, and field testing a couple of bullet types on behalf of the companies, I've observed some fairly wide differences in prescribed handbook loadings of same caliber bullets and same powder brand loadings. For instance - the Lyman handbook - 47th. edition, can reveal some interesting differences to others.

My advice - forget shortcuts in order to save on bullets and take a route with which you feel really comfortable. A bullet or two saved at the possible expense of a separated case or blown primers is not worth it because you might then be on the way to bolt-lug set-back - dependent upon the style of lugs.
 
In order to make sure we're talking "apples and apples" and not "what if", let me remind everyone of the original poster's original post. It is fundamentally important to comments regarding "safety".

The load is giving me good accuracy and 3000fps with no sign of any pressure and some cases are on 10+ loadings with no problems.

That statement is critical to ALL of my following statements.

Furthermore, my emphatic "advice" was:
YOU need to decide what YOU are comfortable doing, and stay within your own "comfort zone". YOUR SAFETY is YOUR responsibility. Imagine how absurd it would sound in the hospital's emergency room if you were telling the doctor that "It wasn't my fault. I was just doing what some guy on the internet told me to do".
and
It STILL boils down to an individual's level of comfort. If you are acting outside your comfort zone, you are on shaky ground.

All barrels of a given calibre are not ALL the same. Some appear to be a bit tighter than others don't they ? Wouldn't this affect pressure and the requirement to take precautionary steps - if not exactly starting from the very beginning. (Emphasis mine.) The original advice was "start over".

I'm not into taking sides, but just chucking in my tuppenceworth. As you said Paul - it's not about being 'right' but about safety first. Following the logic that we must be "safe" regardless of reality, the "safest" action to take is to NOT reload at all. If one thinks that is too extreme an action to take, then reasonable is somewhere in short of quitting reloading. Who gets to "choose" what is "reasonable"? The person doing the reloading. See my quotes above.

The comment about the potential difference between boat tails and flat tails is, I think, a pertinent and important one, and from my limited experience of basic but effective homeloading over thirty years, and field testing a couple of bullet types on behalf of the companies, I've observed some fairly wide differences in prescribed handbook loadings of same caliber bullets and same powder brand loadings. For instance - the Lyman handbook - 47th. edition, can reveal some interesting differences to others. Actually, I would argue that that makes my point.

My advice - forget shortcuts in order to save on bullets and take a route with which you feel really comfortable. A bullet or two saved at the possible expense of a separated case or blown primers is not worth it because you might then be on the way to bolt-lug set-back - dependent upon the style of lugs. I wasn't suggesting a "shortcut". I was suggesting not wasting resources and time on a non-issue. The results, I think, bear my "advice" out.

First, no one is going to get me to "argue" against safety. Safety is a legitimate guide to behavior and technique. I've never said or suggested otherwise. Neither have I suggested an "shortcuts" at the expense of safety. I've not suggested any "shortcuts" at all.

Second, I'd like to hear of ONE example in which changing bullet type, but keeping bullet weight and charge exactly the same, ever led to ANY form of "disaster" including a "blown" primer pocket.

Reloading is without question, one of the safest "hobbies" one can undertake. I'm 59. I've been reloading since I got my first "kit" for my 16th birthday. I have all my appendages. I have both eyes undamaged. I have never been to the emergency room for ANY gun/reloading related 'incident'. No one "near" has ever suffered for my reloading practices including those several people for whom I still reload.

The errors, (they were NOT "accidents"), that have caused actual firearm-related harm, were the result of not paying attention or stupidity, not ignoring bullet and powder manufacturer's (and their lawyer's) self-serving recommendations. Excessive and unnecessary "caution" only 'serves' the bullet and powder makers, AND generates unnecessary fear and ultimately breeds contempt.

1) Reality, and
2) Your OWN common sense.

I'm sticking to that, and no "safety" arguments will budge me because "1" covers safety entirely, and "2" should.

I'll repeat that the issue here for me is not being "right" about whether Caorach should or shouldn't drop his charges when he changes bullets types of the same weight. I truly don't care what he does. The point I'm trying to emphasize is that common sense should rule our behaviour, not imagined and unsubstantiated fear, and not self-serving advice that is given NOT for the benefit of the advisee, but rather for the benefit of the lawyers of the advisor.

Regards,
Paul
 
Second, I'd like to hear of ONE example in which changing bullet type, but keeping bullet weight and charge exactly the same, ever led to ANY form of "disaster" including a "blown" primer pocket.
Well I've been there and done that in my thirty years of reloading. A revolver. But the "cause and effect" that of merely changing bullet type was enough to cause damage.

At the time I was commercially swaging lead Mk III "Manstopper" bullets for use in 455 Webley revolvers. This Mk III weighed 218 grains and had not only a large hollow bases like all Webley 455 bullets but also a large hollow front cavity. Imagine, if you will something that had cavities like an old fashioned egg timer! The only solid part of the bullet was the waist. Like on an egg timer where the sand passes from top to bottom.

I was asked to also see if I could produce the Mk IV "Manstopper". This was like an old fashioned hollow base wadcutter. It kept the Webley 455 hollow base but the front was dead flat. No problem swaged a quantity up and loaded them.

Used exactly the same load - 4.1 grains of Pistol Powder No3 - and there was the same airspace in the case. A load BTW that had been tested and certified by the Birmingham Proof House at a safe pressure with my Mk III bullets.

Loaded a cylinder full of six and started to fire at the test target. The third round didn't fire. Faulty primer? Re-cocked the gun to try the fourth round. That didn't fire.

Open the cylinder to see what is wrong and and see the problem. The gun had come "off the face" as the stirrup lock had stretched upwards. So that increased "solid" portion of the Mk IV bullet was enough to cause an increase in pressure.

So my experience is that you can indeed - certainly in a 455 Webley revolver - cause a dangerous increase in pressure simply by changing a bullet style!

What I also found out was that, as had been realised some eighty years beforehand, is that the solid front Mk IV had better knockdown power than the hollow front Mk III. I tried the revolver on large clay blocks. The Mk III expanded to almost the size of a old (large) 5p or 1/- coin.

The Mk IV? Didn't seem to expand much at all...but every time carried the same clay block clean off the bench at the firing point. So me with my clay blocks found out what actual use in conflict had also proven. The Mk IV had better knockdown power.

I also know, from first hand conversation with them, that Holland & Holland when they changed bullet construction with the 240 Apex in the 1960s or 1970s experienced problems.

Such that they had to re-design the grooves (with WIDER grooves) on their barrels as the new 240 Apex bullets were causing pressure problems with the old style barrels with equal groove and land width as the new bullets did not "crush" as easily.

Indeed if you call Holland's asking for 240 Apex cartridges they will invariably question you to determine the rifling style of the gun you intend to use the cartridges in and mention this problem.

I also understand that problems also arise with traditional lead core "solids" in double rifles and the new monometal truly "solid" bullets of the same weight.

This ability to "crush" is something that is important to consider. Not "crushing" in a swage die WHERE INEVITABLY IF GOING DOWN IN CALIBRE WITH A ROUND OR SPIRE POINTED BULLET THERE WILL BE A TAPER TO AID THAT but "crushing" in front of xxx amount of powder charge in a rifle barrel. Where in effect there is no taper. It is not the same thing.

So I would never say "never"...
 
Last edited:
Aaah ! As I said - chucking a thunderflash into the arena. I was not having a pick at ANY person here, but speaking my thoughts after looking at the thread in general and the 'taking of shortcuts' bit was in answer to caorach who appeared to be actively looking for a shortcut because he wished to save bullets. This was not a personal attack on you Paul.

As to the length seating of bullets - I have tried seating them as close to the rifling as possible, but had not the cash to spend on fiddling about with lots of loadings in order to try for improved grouping outside that of a minute of angle.
AS a matter of what might be interest :-
In the trials I did on behalf of Norma and Speer, (in both situations in .243 Win.), I deliberately set the bullet seating depth on my die to comply with the average found on factory ammo and worked up a powder load to obtain the grouping. (In this case my expense was covered). I have no doubt that in the case of Norma - then taken over I believe by RWS - they just got on with their general production powder in stock at the time which was producing average 1Min of angle in any case.

Best regards. Ken.
 
I appreciate the citations enfieldspares. Based on you description, I'm not envisioning "same weight". You say "same design just filled in front". Can't "fill in" a hollow and have the same weight.

Also, I will readily acknowledge there IS a difference between swaging in a swaging die, and swaging in a rifle barrel on front of high pressure. However, that wasn't what I said. What I said was that I have swaged both types in a swage, and there is no difference in the pressure needed, (measured, not guesed) in "partition" types and "cup" types. The point wasn't that the pressure of the two FORMS of swaging - hand vs barrel - were the same. It was that the pressure required to perform the swaging was not different just because a bullet has a 'partition'.

As to rifling differences causing changes in pressure:
1) That isn't an issue in Caorach's circumstances. He's not changing rifles.
2) We're not discussing changes in rifling, we're talking changes is bullet weight.


If changing bullet types WITHIN A WEIGHT was such a big deal, why does Nosler, MAKER of both "partition" and "cup" bullets, NOT differentiate the loads for bullets of the same weight in it's OWN RELOADING MANUAL? It's a rhetorical question.

Caorach's circumstances were clearly stated. As were his results. The proof is in the pudding as they say.

STILL... It doesn't matter to me WHAT people DO. What matters to me is "cautionary notes" that aren't supported by facts, that result in unfounded fear and wasted time and effort. "Safety first" is a "good" mantra, right AFTER "common sense and first-hand experience".

To oversimplify humanity for the sake of this discussion, there are (sort of) three "types" in the world:
1) "Belt AND suspenders",
2) "a belt OR suspenders, and
3) "no belt and no suspenders".

The first types are "safe". They never learn anything new unless taught it by "type 2" and they NEVER advance knowledge. However, they also NEVER hurt themselves or others.
The second types are "safe", but not at the exclusion of ALL risk. They learn for themselves, and they advance the knowledge of The Whole. They are called "scientists". They DO occasionally hurt themselves or others, but rarely. That "hurt" is the price of knowledge.
The third types are NOT "safe". They wander about willy-nilly doing whatever pops into their heads. They haven't the brains to deduce the risk of 'new' practices nor do they care. They don't learn, they don't remember their mistakes. They OFTEN hurt themselves, and occasionally others. They are idiots.

Type 2 and type 3 are not the same.

Regards,
Paul
 
View attachment 4384

The Mk III is the hollow cavity one. The two cartridges to the left. The Mk IV is "the same", and on the right, except there is no hollow cavity (so it is shorter but the length of that part that is solid is greater) but BOTH weigh 218-220 grains.

Both displace the same amount of room inside the case.

I maybe should not have said "filled in" but hope it conveyed what I meant. The Mk III is thus virtually all "hole" unlike the Mk IV which has that solid front end.
 
Last edited:
Aaah ! As I said - chucking a thunderflash into the arena. I was not having a pick at ANY person here, but speaking my thoughts after looking at the thread in general and the 'taking of shortcuts' bit was in answer to caorach who appeared to be actively looking for a shortcut because he wished to save bullets. This was not a personal attack on you Paul.

As to the length seating of bullets - I have tried seating them as close to the rifling as possible, but had not the cash to spend on fiddling about with lots of loadings in order to try for improved grouping outside that of a minute of angle.
AS a matter of what might be interest :-
In the trials I did on behalf of Norma and Speer, (in both situations in .243 Win.), I deliberately set the bullet seating depth on my die to comply with the average found on factory ammo and worked up a powder load to obtain the grouping. (In this case my expense was covered). I have no doubt that in the case of Norma - then taken over I believe by RWS - they just got on with their general production powder in stock at the time which was producing average 1Min of angle in any case.

Best regards. Ken.

Ken, did you crimp the loads you made up while testing?

I ask as a relatively recent reloader, and I find the more I read about reloading the more diametrically opposed views there are on it. And I belive, rightly or wrongly, that most ammunition manufacturers crimp their products.

Regards, Simon.
 
Hi Simon - no, I didn't. The simple reason was that at the time there was not the flush of crimping dies going out with the Lee die sets as 'freebies' in the boxes - which changed later to buying a separate crimper or paying more for the privilege.

What I did do was to uniform the neck thicknesses by means of a special little interior reamer which was made for me by a retired engineer down in Devon, (Shaped rather like a miniature starting handle), in order that the pressures on release would be as uniform as possible. But that was an idea of mine which might be considered as a load of old nonsense.

It was after the period when Norma .270 soft point semi-pointed rounds in 130 grains exhibited problems, and later the .243 did the same. Homeloading seemed to cure the problem after lots of discussion on perhaps the hardness of the lead alloy or the jacket hardness/alloy perhaps having changed, and it was concluded that it might be a problem with the factory powder.
Global supplies of Egyptian cotton used in the powder-manufacturing process had failed and another source was obtained - I believe from the USA - which for some reason did not produce the same results. I sent the findings of my paper-punching and practical field work back to them, (Ironically, having used Hercules) and the matter was dropped, but later a consignment of Norma Factory ammo was sent to me and this was tried in several deer forest rifles in the area - mostly BSA and Parker Hale.
The new ammo worked well.

In the case of the Speer Grandslam in .243 Win. The main criteria was to find out how they behaved at the velocities normally expected from a .243 on soft-skinned animals such as deer and foxes - and in this case I was using Alliant (Hercules) powders - RE19 and RE22.

I first built up loads, observing for visual pressure signs as usual, and achieved top powder (Handbook) loadings without any problems, then backed off a little and worked at grouping with the bullets seated at average factory depths in order to ascertain how they would react in a number of rifles.

The next stage was to shoot an animal with the test bullet - and have a follow-up cartridge of a known behaviour next in line, in case. (In this instance it was the Norma soft point-semi pointed which had at 100 yards, the same strike point - give or take an inch.

In all instances there were no problems. The first animal to fall to the Grandslam was a fox at something like 150 yards and it just dropped - chest shot. I should have a picture of it somewhere.

Warren Cloninger was the Speer ballistician at the time - a nice fellow.

I confess, despite my interest in finding bullets which work well in the field - and producing cartridges which provide good practical field grouping - that I have never taken the time to explore all of the alleyways which are used by the benchrest and target shooting people.

My main preoccupation has been in trying to get a bullet into a postage stamp at 100 yards - then further exploring by loading down as far as grouping would allow in order to see if the bullet would still perform. (This was for woodland stalking on my part. A softer but consistently 'point-of-aim strike' for shooting off sticks.
The best .243/6mm bullet I ever experienced in that line and with the biggest potential window of expansion was the 105 grain Round nosed Speer. They were not so good for reaching out, but in woodlands they would lift a roe off its feet and dump it dead on the deck. The same with foxes.

Sometimes a reply creates more questions than it answers Simon, but I hope that I've explained myself OK.. By means of what little equipment I have owned, I've always tried to fine down all possible mechanical and cartridge 'blimps' and give my equipment the best chance to perform to it's potential in field conditions. The rest was down to me.
 
Hi Simon - no, I didn't. The simple reason was that at the time there was not the flush of crimping dies going out with the Lee die sets as 'freebies' in the boxes - which changed later to buying a separate crimper or paying more for the privilege.

What I did do was to uniform the neck thicknesses by means of a special little interior reamer which was made for me by a retired engineer down in Devon, (Shaped rather like a miniature starting handle), in order that the pressures on release would be as uniform as possible. But that was an idea of mine which might be considered as a load of old nonsense.

It was after the period when Norma .270 soft point semi-pointed rounds in 130 grains exhibited problems, and later the .243 did the same. Homeloading seemed to cure the problem after lots of discussion on perhaps the hardness of the lead alloy or the jacket hardness/alloy perhaps having changed, and it was concluded that it might be a problem with the factory powder.
Global supplies of Egyptian cotton used in the powder-manufacturing process had failed and another source was obtained - I believe from the USA - which for some reason did not produce the same results. I sent the findings of my paper-punching and practical field work back to them, (Ironically, having used Hercules) and the matter was dropped, but later a consignment of Norma Factory ammo was sent to me and this was tried in several deer forest rifles in the area - mostly BSA and Parker Hale.
The new ammo worked well.

In the case of the Speer Grandslam in .243 Win. The main criteria was to find out how they behaved at the velocities normally expected from a .243 on soft-skinned animals such as deer and foxes - and in this case I was using Alliant (Hercules) powders - RE19 and RE22.

I first built up loads, observing for visual pressure signs as usual, and achieved top powder (Handbook) loadings without any problems, then backed off a little and worked at grouping with the bullets seated at average factory depths in order to ascertain how they would react in a number of rifles.

The next stage was to shoot an animal with the test bullet - and have a follow-up cartridge of a known behaviour next in line, in case. (In this instance it was the Norma soft point-semi pointed which had at 100 yards, the same strike point - give or take an inch.

In all instances there were no problems. The first animal to fall to the Grandslam was a fox at something like 150 yards and it just dropped - chest shot. I should have a picture of it somewhere.

Warren Cloninger was the Speer ballistician at the time - a nice fellow.

I confess, despite my interest in finding bullets which work well in the field - and producing cartridges which provide good practical field grouping - that I have never taken the time to explore all of the alleyways which are used by the benchrest and target shooting people.

My main preoccupation has been in trying to get a bullet into a postage stamp at 100 yards - then further exploring by loading down as far as grouping would allow in order to see if the bullet would still perform. (This was for woodland stalking on my part. A softer but consistently 'point-of-aim strike' for shooting off sticks.
The best .243/6mm bullet I ever experienced in that line and with the biggest potential window of expansion was the 105 grain Round nosed Speer. They were not so good for reaching out, but in woodlands they would lift a roe off its feet and dump it dead on the deck. The same with foxes.

Sometimes a reply creates more questions than it answers Simon, but I hope that I've explained myself OK.. By means of what little equipment I have owned, I've always tried to fine down all possible mechanical and cartridge 'blimps' and give my equipment the best chance to perform to it's potential in field conditions. The rest was down to me.

Ken, fascinating stuff, I am most grateful! The neck turner you had made now seems to be a big part of the long-range bench rest boys kit. I am only two years into this all consuming pastime, and I went into it to achieve the best accuracy I could after finding it hard to buy aparticular type of ammunition regularly.

It is truly amazing, I have been told I definately need a powder trickler, and that I should throw it away. Powder throwers are marvellous, and that they are the invention of the devil. That crimping bullets into the case neck improves accuracy, and that crimping leads to inconsistancy. That I should neck-size every 5/10 reloads then full length size, and that you should only ever full length size.

I am still picking my way through the minefield!

I have been reading this thread with interest as I relish the education on offer, unfortunately I have little to contribute, other than to say when changing from one bullet type to anther (of the same weight) I have reduced my powder charge in the name of safety. It seems to have worked, so far............

Simon
 
Thanks Simon - everyone has their way and on balance everyone is dead right. What works for every individual is absolutely fine. I believe that tolerantly shared opinions are educational and I think that as an intelligent person you'll pick your way through and find what suits you - and when you do, just be patient with others who have different ideas. You can shoot well on what might be considered a pittance or alternatively fill your reloading bench with loads of interesting gadgets. Fly-tying is an excellent example.

If your rifle and cartridge combination works safely for you and produces the goods - then what more can you say ?

All the best - Ken.
 
I am still picking my way through the minefield!

As I "picked my way through the minefield", what I learned over and over and over and over again, was that "experts" were far too often just plain wrong, and only too willing to "lay mines" that "blow the legs off" those that won't "see for themselves". Good thing that my metaphorical 'legs' grow back, but not without scars.

Regards,
Paul
 
"If changing bullet types WITHIN A WEIGHT was such a big deal, why does Nosler, MAKER of both "partition" and "cup" bullets, NOT differentiate the loads for bullets of the same weight in it's OWN RELOADING MANUAL? It's a rhetorical question."

If you check the Nosler reloading data you will find that their loads are two grains lighter than than the powder manufactures, that way they cover their butts,
If you change any component in a load you should always back off at least a couple of grains and work back up, the shape of the nose or the construction
of the jacket may be enough to change the pressure, I load a lot of ammo for customers, my number 1 rule is never load maxium powder charge you don't need it to kill a Deer, When starting out with a new bullet I load it to the standard cartridge overall lenght and work the load up from there, I have allways found a powder charge that will give acceptable accuracy, There is no point in seating a bullet close to the leade if the cartridge won't fit in the mag and
how much accuracy can the average Deer Stalker use if the bullet hits within 2" of point of aim the Deer is on the ground,
A .30 cabilre 150 grain bullet at 2800fps will kill a Deer at 400 metres any faster is just a waste of powder and case life.
Robrt.
 
If you check the Nosler reloading data you will find that their loads are two grains lighter than than the powder manufactures, that way they cover their butts,
Which is precisely why the OP's INFORMATION REGARDING HIS LOADS was so important. The above "two grains lighter" "covering their butts" (even if it is true and EXACTLY HOW do YOU KNOW it IS true), coupled with the OP's information, proves MY point, not yours.

If you change any component in a load you should always back off at least a couple of grains and work back up, the shape of the nose or the construction of the jacket may be enough to change the pressure,
There is no question, and NO ARGUMENT from me, that that comment is the "mantra" of bullet and powder makers. However, show me the proof with evidence that that PRACTICE is REQUIRED, or rather that failing to follow that practice results in "disaster".

There was a very famous behavioral study performed in the early 60s if I remember correctly. The researchers put a chimp in a room empty of everything but a banana hanging from the ceiling out of his reach, and a chair. After not long, the chimp figured out that he could put the chair under the banana and reach the banana. HOWEVER, the minute he pulled on the banana, lights started flashing, loud alarms went off and the chimp got soaked in frigid water. They repeated this until the chimp wouldn't even LOOK at the banana let alone reach for it. They then repeated this same behavioral training (separately) with 4 other chimps. They then put the four 'trained' chimps in the room with the usual scenario AND a NEW chimp. When the new chimp dragged the chair over to get the banana, the other 5 "set upon him and beat him". They would not allow the new chimp to even move the chair.

Apocryphal stories abound about what "might" happen. Saying that one has used the "back off" or "start over" method for "X years and I've never had a problem" is the same as saying "I haven't driven a car for the past X years and I've never had an automobile accident".

In this forum, you can keep me (or Caorach) from dragging the chair over to get the "banana", but that doesn't mean that "banana's" are "dangerous".

Regards,
Paul
 
I would ask for, (and note that I appreciate), the indulgence and temperance of those of you that are not only dealing with a bit of a 'maverick' (me) within his own culture, but also the cultural 'vagaries and whims' of your own firearms 'environment'. I am "coming along" in my understanding the differences in our "gun" cultures - some subtle some not so subtle. I would also ask you to believe me when I say that the legal machinations that you are subject to are truly difficult to imagine for an American newly exposed to them and only from afar - not firsthand.

This particular topic, generally speaking "safety practices", gets near to a raw nerve with me. (If you hadn't noticed. ;)) On one hand, the struggle I have is a universal one - ignorance. Please don't be offended at the use of that term. We are ALL "ignorant". I am certainly ignorant of many of the cultural aspects of gun law in the British Isles, and as I have said before, what I don't know would fill volumes. What gets me "wound up" 'over here', is "experts" telling novices they can't do something when the truth is, they most certainly can. And in the "gun-toting" community the most common reason given for saying "No" is "safety" because "safety" is a sacred cow that no one in their right mind is willing to argue with - except a few like me.

I don't know what it is about humans that makes them so eager to tell someone else to NOT do something. Don't tell me it's about "safety" because it's not, and the proof of that is in the fact that the "You can't do that" attitude pervades ALL human society. All of you get that "attitude" from your FACs, but those of you that deal with "accountants", "administrators" and "lawyers" as part of your professional life will have seen it just as prevalent in that walk of life as well. We humans just like to say "No" to other humans. I suppose it is some sort of "power trip". It certainly seems to me, (as seen 'through a glass darkly'), that "No" is the watchword of the majority of your FACs. And there you find the source of my frustration.

The unreasonable behavior and attitude of your 'constabulary' (I hope that term is not too far off the mark - I mean police in general), towards your firearm possession and usage is precisely what I'm fighting against when I so vigorously resist "blanket" statements about "safety" that aren't based on actual fact, but rather just generations-long "practice" or outright ignorance. I don't yet fully appreciate the 'completeness' of the hobnailed boot on your gun ownership throats, but what part of it I do understand I don't want to EVER happen "over here". One must FIGHT against every little chipping away of those freedoms. That fight, in part, means keeping mythology and alchemy from gaining foothold, and where it has established itself, challenging it. Mythology and alchemy is rampant in government bureaucrat's red tape associated with your gun ownership - and 'you' know it. I tend to get 'exited' when it gets promulgated 'from within'.

I am quite certain that there are those engaged in this particular conversation that would disagree (vigorously even), with my above comments, especially those comments directed at "ignorance" and "alchemy and mythology". My point in this post is not to continue the 'argument' on another plane, but rather to explain the basis for my vigorous resistance to perpetuating what, based on substantial personal actual practice, I see as mythology and voodoo. I understand that we "disagree". I am beginning to understand the need to "keep up appearances" by 'beating the safety drum'. I hope you understand that not having to 'keep up appearances' is in part precisely why I am so being so tenacious (some would choose 'hard-headed') in my resistance to what EVERYONE - this side of The Pond and that side - takes for granted as "standard practice".

We will remain in our separate 'corners' I suspect. For some it will be 'just because'. For some it will be out of need to 'keep up appearances'. I hope "you" understand that I "understand", at least a little, the need to "keep up appearances".

Regards,
Paul
 
Back
Top