Forums.NitroExpress.com

Quote “Right, you give advice without even bothering to check your sources. CIP MAP for the .450 No. 2 has never been 45,000PSI.” End quote

The thread went.

“Good grief!!! Something of medium power (45-90, .50 Alaskan)is what I’m looking for. I was told that the 450NE 3 1/4 is a pretty manageable cartridge? Does anyone have experience with any of the .450NE cartridges?? I find myself leaning more towards lower pressure cartridges (45K or less if possible).

Thanks
pat “

My reply

“450#2 runs around 45,000.”

So my reply was exactly inline with the question. The MIP of the .450#2 is around 45k so its MAP is less. Just what the poster of the question wanted.

Ibid. Pg. 548 Max Indicated 45,907 psi

I didn’t even suggest that you could or should load the cartridge hotter.

“in the super strong No.1 action, if you want to hotrod the cartridge then I can't imagine what you could get.”

“If you want to” means exactly that, i.e. I’m not going to.
“ I cannot imagine” means exactly that. I.e. I am not venturing an opinion.

Quote “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.” End quote

Didn’t want to do what? Give consideration to the age of the potential recipients of the cartridge.? This reply makes no sense. It cannot be baseless as the MAP of the 45-70 was kept low because of the Springfield 28,000 cup.
“ The performance of the .45-70 Government is impeded only by the strength of the rifles for which it has been chambered” “Handloading is particularly advantageous when shooter possess a Ruger No.1”

Lyman 48thEdition Reloading manual Pg. 299

Quote “Wrong again. I didn't say it wasn't labour 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.” End quote

Who mentioned labour intensive ? You said that they weren’t re-standardised just “restated” Clearly now you have changed your mind and they indeed were re-standardised by the new method and more than once according to you.

Quote “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.” End quote

If you read the paragraph I was discussing the near impossibility of repeating pressure test results. You had used this failure to attack A square. I am glad that you now agree that you attack was unwarranted.

Quote “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.” End quote

Ibid. pg. 151 Primer change V pressure and velocity
“ The results are quite interesting. The total spread in pressure, from the cci 200 to the Winchester Large Rifle Magnum was 12,800 psi. This is a very significant change”

Ibid. pg. 146
“assume a change up or down of 0.9 fps and 66 psi with each degree F”

Ibid. pg.153 Case change v pressure
“”a spread of pressure of 4300 psi”

Ibid. Pg. 156 Primer lot change
“But there is still a total spread of 4,700 psi

Ibid. 157 Case lot.
“” Though the spread on this experiment was only 5,000 psi, this cannot be treated as conclusive or applicable across the board”

So the mere change in primer can result in a 12,800 psi spread. So why am I being absurd to suggest that, your Insider secret testing using components that could have been entirely different to those used by A square in obtaining these figures is not a good empirical reason to refer to somebody’s company as an “ Insider joke”.
You refuse to divulge any details of this supposed test or the parameters under which it was conducted and you have the effrontery to accuse me of absurdity.

Quote “Because I made it crystal clear by making a point of not divulging it.” End quote

So because you are not prepared to support your position with any published data whatsoever, do you fondly imagine that the claim of “confidential information” is enough to let you off the hook.? You are inferring that you are an “Insider” in the gun trade but you apparently did not contact A square about your case failures but decided instead to rubbish their company in this forum instead

Quote “(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.”

You believe that I am irrational.? You Sir are the one descending into the realms of “ I know but I wont tell you how I know” fantasy
Go back and re-read your posts. You have not offered a single citation to support your position in spite of my repeated requests that you do so. You didn’t when given the opportunity to do so even support your own claim of A square being an insider joke based on the secret pressure testing but then went on about bad cases and Ross Seyfreid. You don’t even give the citation for his article for the rest of us to read it.

I didn’t attack you, I asked you to supply evidence to support your case. That is common practice in all forms of scientific study and academia.
If you have been able to go through life without anybody ever asking you to prove what you say, then you have been very sheltered.
I stated that I was quite prepared to believe you if you could supply evidence, you clearly cannot.

Quote “I won't waste further time with either, so I won't bother with the rest of your points. “ End quote.

You don’t have the time to deal with this but you have the time to be snotty to somebody who is just asking for some .470 practice loads? Post 92776

So having failed to support your position you would like the whole matter to go away so you can make unfounded attacks upon whom next?