OK fellas - Isn't this why there are myths and truths? What works for one does not work for another - based on their own experiences and expectations? Because it works for me and does not work for you doesn't make it a fact or a myth. It makes it an interesting talking point - a discussion if you will. I will take just one example - seating bullets into the lands leads to better accuracy. This is nether a fact that covers all rifles nor is it myth (BS if you will). I have guns that most definitely shoot better when the bullet is snugged right up to the lands. I also have guns, that when I try that, they just do not shoot that well and most definitely shoot better off the lands. So is it fact or BS? Neither, you can prove it or disprove it - for one gun; but you can't prove it in all guns. This is how a lot of truths get perpetuated. Some gun writer tries some thing and it works. He publishes his findings and the next thing you know, it came down from God. It may apply to you or it may not apply. Does that make it BS or a truth? - Neither; because some times it is true and some times it is not. That can be proven easily enough. I could on and on about each and every point, but mostly it is it works for me or doesn't work for me, so is it BS or it is a truth -neither. Other things cannot be proven by yourself or by most folks - or people just do not want to take the time to prove it out - they just take others word for it or make a logical guess. If you really wanted to find out which die sets the straightest bullets, you have to purchase every one's dies, and make measurements of run out before (on the neck) and after seating the bullet. Measure each one and have a sample larger enough to determine a Standard Deviation for each die. After doing all of that you could come up with - it doesn't make a difference which die you use or this particular die is best - but even that can change from 1 die set to another from the same manufacture. So how do you prove it out? You really can't - you do as a reloader what you feel good about. I personally feel good about Forster and Redding Seating dies. I feel good about The wilson dies, but do not want to mess with an arbor press or beating them with a mallet. Can I prove they seat bullets better that a Lee die or a plain Jane RCBS die - not really, but it makes me feel better and I seem to get good results from them too. Low bullet run out - but the sizing has a lot to do with bullet run out too - if you do not have a straight neck - you are not going to have a straight bullet. So is it the seater or is the sizing that makes the difference? Here we go again.
Pressure signs - truth or myth? This is a big one, because for the most part you can not prove it, yourself. Back when pressure testing equipment wasn't available or too expensive, the only thing available to the handloader, and to a certain extent reputable resources, was "signs". Argue all you want, signs work sometimes and some times they do not. There were many a wildcatter that worked up loads to the signs. the 22 Varminter is a prime example. It was touted as getting as much velocity as a 220 Swift, less barrel wear, less powder with the same weight bullets. When Remington picked it up as the 22-250, it did not have as much velocity as the 220 Swift, why, because they found the "standard" loads for it were way too hot. I have 1 223 that I developed a pet load for. Using the manufactures reloading data I worked up a very accurate load and was .2 grains below their max. Everyone else's data showed it way over, but you figure the manufacture should know what they are doing. No case stretching, no sticky bolts (it was smooth going in and out), the primers were still rounded and the corners were not sharp, no primer cratering or piercing, and the pockets were still tight after 3 rounds of loadings. Life was good. Then I got a chronograph. Naturally I wanted to run my pet load over it to see what I was getting. Almost 3700 fps with a 50 grain bullet
OOPS. I should be in the 3400 fps range max. I immediately dropped the load 2 full grains. I was now getting 3350 fps, more in line with everyone's data. The following year the powder manufacturer dropped their max loads - more in line with others data. What does it prove - nothing. After many years of loading and I fancy myself a fussy reloader; I use reliable published data from as many sources as I can lay my hands on, signs + in the last year or so a Chronograph. When every thing aligns, I think I am OK -but I do not know for sure what pressure I am getting. So are pressure signs BS or are they fact - neither. That is the whole point of this (my) posting. So called myths or truisms are gained from personal experience - and everyone has different experiences, with different reloading equipment, their individual guns. After you accumulate your experiences and formulate your way of doing things, you feel it is now fact -and that is what shapes our opinions. What is one man's fact is BS to another. Once we make up our minds about some thing - let's admit it - our egos start getting in the way of reason. There are just so many variables in reloading, expectations, and the guns them selves. That is what perpetuates "BS" and truths. A very good subject, but open to a lot debate - because most of it can not be proven one way or another. Sometimes this; some times that....
Sorry I got to rambling as I often do. The point I guess, is we all have different experiences and formulate our thoughts and practices on those, just because someone has come to a different conclusion, does not mean they are spouting BS. Remember when you say always or never, more than likely you are wrong.
Good Luck to all and most certainly Good and safe Shooting
