| 400NitroExpress |
| (.400 member) |
| 05/01/08 03:24 PM |
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1
|
Quote:
I didn’t compare them, I just made a statement.
You compared them or assumed I had.
You obviously can't read your own post.
Quote:
False claim.? I expressed it as an opinion. Many older cartridges have their MAP or MIP set low because of the age of the firearms that they may be discharged in. The 45-70 is a notable one.
I would be amazed if in setting a MAP and MIP for the 450#2 due consideration was not given to such matters.
It wasn't an opinion, which would indicate some level of knowledge on your part. It was baseless speculation on your part, which was wrong. If you knew much about double rifles, you'd know why they didn't want to do that with a double rifle cartridge.
Quote:
Quote “The intent was to restate the original standards, not change them” End quote
They didn’t restate the original standards. A new method was used, one cannot simply restate empirical data if one uses a different method.. They were standardised or re-standardised by a new method.
Wrong again. I didn't say it wasn't labor intensive. There is no conversion formula, so it took a lot of testing to arrive at the equivalent of the original standards in chamber pressure, and they didn't get it right the first time.
Quote:
Quote “You don't know what you're talking about anyway. If the chamber pressure of the .450 No. 2 is lower than all other flanged nitros in the same performance band “ End quote.
I have not stated that, throughout the entire thread, I have never stated that or used any combination of words that suggest that.
Yes you did, here and elsewhere a number of times. You're mincing words and you know it.
Quote:
In fact if you refer to my post #92663 several lines above you will see that in answer to the original poster I gave the approx. MIP as 45.000psi
Ibid. pg. 548
Right, you give advice without even bothering to check your sources. CIP MAP for the .450 No. 2 has never been 45,000PSI.
Quote:
Quote ”Are you just now discovering this?” End quote
Why would I be the one just discovering this ?
Because you missed it entirely. You mentioned a number of other factors which are fairly constant for a given manufacturer as the reason for the need to adjust their loads periodically, which isn't true. It's primarily due to the differences in lots of the same bulk powders.
Quote:
I must also take it then, having picked at almost everything else I wrote, that you are not at issue with the essence of that paragraph about the near impossibility of duplicating another’s pressure test data given different parameters. Thus rubbishing A squares data based on anthers test results under different circumstances was an unwarranted, unsubstantiated act.
I am entirely at issue with it. A difference of 10,000+ PSI with the same kind of powder pushing the same weight bullet to the same velocity isn't due to the reasons you gave, and to suggest that it could be is absurd.
Quote:
Quote “Not even a good try. Some of the information I get from the trade is confidential, and you knew that when you posted the above.” End quote
How on earth would I know that. I do not know you. You do not say who you are and just keep referring to your highly confidential sources. This appears to be manifesting as some form of megalomania.
Because I made it crystal clear by making a point of not divulging it.
Quote:
Quote ”Clearly a lie.” End quote
It is also manifesting as paranoia.
You wrote "this is not designed as an attack on you" after having written a long post, which one hopes you re-read before going forward, that was unmistakably precisely that. Since you were able to do so, you either suffer from cognitive dissonance (you're irrational), or you're a liar, possibly both. Which should I assume? I won't waste further time with either, so I won't bother with the rest of your points.