Boston's Gun Bible, save your money.


PDA






bbgun
June 30, 2005, 04:29 PM
bbgun is a convicted felon, and just the most recent incarnation of gunkid.

If you enjoyed reading about "Boston's Gun Bible, save your money." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ian
June 30, 2005, 04:44 PM
No book is complete without a chapter on how to select the best 11" AR, homemade suppressor, and .22 conversion kit. Perhaps if Boston had added that, he would be selling books by the wheelbarrow-load.

thereisnospoon
June 30, 2005, 05:00 PM
A reasonable person could surmize that you are transferring your hatred for this, uh, um... gentleman that allegedly failed to pay you for your holster product onto the author whose book he publishes.

Besides, a poodle shooter set up like David Tubbs should win the 1000 meter, but has failed to most of the time, losing to the humble .308 round. Ummmm.. have you ever heard of this thing they call science? Kinetic energy and all that????

Just checking...

Gandalf
June 30, 2005, 05:01 PM
Wow! Where do I start on an ignorant rant like the one above.
As stated in his book, Mr. Royce says that these are his OPINIONS based upon his personal testing of the weapons involved. Nothing more, nothing less. However, I believe he has done FAR MORE actual study and shooting of these weapons than you have, bbgun. Therefore, I would believe his words over yours.
Second, I really can't believe you said "ball ammo sucks in all calibers,...". Really? Tell that to the thousands of Germans, Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese that were killed by .45. .30-06, .308 and .223 ball ammo in the wars.
Last but not least you bring up the tired old '.223 vs. .308 debate. Please! - Let me ask you this though: You have one shot from a rifle to stop an aggressor. What do you choose to make sure he goes down? A .223? I think not. Why do you think the soldiers in Iraq are begging the military to provide them with more M1As? That's right. The .223 just doesn't do the job, especially at distance.
Since you just recently joined this board I can't yet decide whether you are a troll or not. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, even ridiculous ones like yours. have a nice day.

TheGoodLife
June 30, 2005, 05:07 PM
Is this the same book,

Boston's Gun Bible,

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1888766069/qid=1120161595/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9633356-8356135?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


that is located on Amazon, and that after 44 reviews is rated 5 star? You must be talking about a different book, right?

Or is it personal between you and the author, or friends of the author?

rhubarb
June 30, 2005, 05:19 PM
i Worship you, Gunkid.

Zak Smith
June 30, 2005, 05:29 PM
Sturgeon's Law holds.

hillbilly
June 30, 2005, 05:51 PM
bbgun is a troll.

He joined the forum today, June 30.

All 29 or 30 of his posts thus far have been just as charming as this one, and all 29 or 30 of them have been posted today, June 30, 2005.

Thirty posts, full of attitude, all on one day?

If that ain't troll, then what is?

hillbilly

Sungun09
June 30, 2005, 06:08 PM
Well; I just got done reading Boston's book(s) and I have learned quite abit, but like any other book or author you might have an issue with an item or two due to your expertise.

With two ears and two eyes, you will learn alot more than with one mouth. Good luck BB, one day you'll be a pelletgun.

rhubarb
June 30, 2005, 06:09 PM
hillbilly, you are talking about an internet legend. We're not worthy. He's as entertaining in his predictability as he is energetic.

Zak Smith
June 30, 2005, 06:22 PM
I would characterize BGB as a 800 pages of marginal information interspersed with repeated political rants. What he lacks in accuracy and precision, he makes up for in volume.

It is not hard to find technical inaccuracies, and he glosses over some options in an almost embarassing way revealing that he promotes basically the optics that he's tried (for example, the most used magnified optic in the US Military gets less attention than IOR). The political ranting gets old for anyone who has participated or lurked in the same debates we've had here, on TFL, and AR15.com for the last 5+ years.

For what good information is in there, it ought to be presented in a pamphlet: A Quick Guide to Getting Armed with the basic premise: get armed with reliable weapons and get trained.

With the excellent information available on the web for free (e.g. the Ammo Oracle, the AR15 Optics FAQ, etc), I see the BGB's form as obsolete.

Onmilo
June 30, 2005, 06:34 PM
I don't agree with Mr. Party's advice to buy a .40 Glock and basically forget every other pistol.
I more or less agree with everything else he says related to firearms but the last few chapters of ranting about Government makes for some slow if rather entertaining reading.
The book is worth having because everybody will find something in this book that they will more or less agree with and find comfort in, hence the name "Bible".
Personally, I would recommend a Glock or H&K USP in 9mm first and .45 acp second, forget the .40 short and weak.
As for a rifle, and one rifle only, I suggest an H&K 91 or PTR91 in .308.

Tim Mullins, Boston T. Party's doppleganger, thinks a detachable box magazine bolt action in .308 is the ultimate cat's backside for a one and only one rifle.

Mannlicher
June 30, 2005, 09:55 PM
Opinions are like bosses, and, well, a certain anatomical location. We all have one.
Boston is entitled to his, and entitled to publish. I am just as intitled to take his posturings with a grain of salt.

DeputyVaughn
June 30, 2005, 10:20 PM
Gunkid,
Man it's been a while. Thought your IP was universally banned on all gun forums.
Scott

Preacherman
June 30, 2005, 10:45 PM
Don't worry, he's no longer with us in his present incarnation. Methinks it's about time I had a word with a few former Marines I know out Colorado way, and suggest a punitive expedition to his house... although since he hasn't learned from anything else, I doubt if pain would teach him anything anyway! :fire:

Bostonterrier97
July 1, 2005, 01:02 AM
Bostons Gun Bible.
I found much of the information to be useful. Though I too am of the opinion that Boston is heavily biased in favor of a 40 S&W Glock.

But to each their own...

stevelyn
July 1, 2005, 01:12 AM
Punitive Expedition. :D

bogie
July 1, 2005, 09:13 AM
So, Onmilo, are you saying that this Tea Party person is TJ?

Personally, I think those books are targeted at the sizable paranoid fringe. I'd pay far more attention to gun writers such as Jeff Cooper...

Onmilo
July 1, 2005, 10:36 AM
Not at all,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

armoredman
July 1, 2005, 11:01 AM
Gunkid was back, and I missed it again. See ya, inmate!

Travis McGee
July 1, 2005, 11:39 AM
Ken Royce, AKA "BTP," is a high caliber shooter and person!

Boston T. Party
March 15, 2006, 05:16 AM
from thereisnospoon:
A reasonable person could surmize that you are transferring your hatred for this, uh, um... gentleman that allegedly failed to pay you for your holster product onto the author whose book he publishes.
Is this somehow allegedly related to me, or to somebody else?
_____________

Tim Mullin and I have different DNA.
He wrote the Foreword to Boston's Gun Bible, but not the book.
_____________

from Zak Smith:
I would characterize BGB as a 800 pages of marginal information interspersed with repeated political rants. What he lacks in accuracy and precision, he makes up for in volume.
Always nice to hear from the "been there, heard that" crowd
for whom actually writing a better book would be condescending.

3600+ posts on just one forum, and you're harping on my volume?


It is not hard to find technical inaccuracies
Feel free to cite them, especially any which would lead
an unsuspecting reader astray to his detriment. (Use the 3rd
printing (2005) as the sample edition.) I am always willing to
learn of any errors and correct them.


...he promotes basically the optics that he's tried...
Yes, and I explicited admitted this on page 18/23, and
explained that precision rifles would be well-served by either
Leupold or IOR. Optics deserves its own book, so I brushed
some broad strokes as any mere chapter must.

Or, should I promote optics I've never tried?
Your point is obscure, assuming you have a point here.


The political ranting gets old for anyone who has participated or lurked in the same debates we've had here, on TFL, and AR15.com for the last 5+ years.
Sorry to have bored you. I forget how jaded some have
become in the shooting culture. Please excuse my simple
patriot-mindedness.

When battle rifles are declared contraband, you'll be
keeping yours right? See you on the barricades, eh?


With the excellent information available on the web for free (e.g. the Ammo Oracle, the AR15 Optics FAQ, etc), I see the BGB's form as obsolete.A predictable opinion from one in the computer industry.
You forget that many people actually have a life outside their
laptops, and value the simplicity, convenience, and pleasure of books.

The web is a great way to supplement any book, especially BGB.
However, I wouldn't want to be stuck with only one or the other.

Meanwhile, by all means, please write and publish the vastly
superior Zak's Gun Bible. Show us some new political rants.
Become my Boston. Shatter Sturgeon's Law for us all.

Barring that, should we all spend hundreds of hours sifting through
tens of thousands of Internet posts and pages on guns to find
all the excellent information?

The purpose of a book is to capitalize on Pareto's Law--the 80/20 Rule.
I.e., to receive 80% of the information in 20% of the time.
(The web exists to find the remaining 20% of information, and
doing so will require nearly all the remaining 80% of time. Such is
the nature of diminishing marginal returns.)

On pages Preface/3 and 4/2 I very clearly tell my readers what
to expect from Boston's Gun Bible and its author. It was not
written for firearm experts (though they will still learn a thing or two).
It was written to give the beginner and intermediate shooter a
solid foundation on which to build. By nearly unanimous accounts,
it achieves just that.

To expect more from the book is simply unfair.
To criticize it for not delivering such is just shabby and malicious.
_________________________

from Travis:
Ken Royce, AKA "BTP," is a high caliber shooter and person!
Thanks for the kind praise. Likewise!
_________________________

Molôn labé, y'all!

Boston T. Party
http://www.freestatewyoming.org
http://www.javelinpress.com

Zak Smith
March 15, 2006, 01:28 PM
Always nice to hear from the "been there, heard that" crowd for whom actually writing a better book would be condescending.

3600+ posts on just one forum, and you're harping on my volume?

Assuming these are personal attacks, they are prohibited on THR. And they are irrelevant to the issue as ad hominem.

Feel free to cite them, especially any which would lead an unsuspecting reader astray to his detriment. (Use the 3rd printing (2005) as the sample edition.) I am always willing to learn of any errors and correct them.
The copy I was sent is, I believe, the 2002 printing. If you believe the latest revision is considerably better, send me a copy for review.

Or, should I promote optics I've never tried?
Your point is obscure, assuming you have a point here.
If the goal is to evaluate the available choices, it is irresponsible to merely test ("have tried") a couple and wave your hands at the rest of the field.

When battle rifles are declared contraband, you'll be keeping yours right? See you on the barricades, eh?
What?

A predictable opinion from one in the computer industry. You forget that many people actually have a life outside their laptops, and value the simplicity, convenience, and pleasure of books.
More personal attacks.
Barring that, should we all spend hundreds of hours sifting through
tens of thousands of Internet posts and pages on guns to find
all the excellent information?
To the other point, up to date, cross-checked, high quality information is available and easy to find on the web, some it is even the published basic research. That's what that meant. I cited the Ammo Oracle and the AR15 Optics FAQ as two such sources.

Meanwhile, by all means, please write and publish the vastly superior Zak's Gun Bible. Show us some new political rants.The argument that only an author can criticize an author is a fallacy. If the same rule held, even you could not review firearms, not being a gun designer.

Mr. Boston,

You chose to bring this up, and then you chose to make it public. You keep bringing up personal attacks, when my criticism was of your work and explicitly not your person.

I understand that BGB was intended to be an introduction for beginner and intermediate shooters, and the 80/20 rule is a good idea. In my opinion, as I said before, BGB would have been a more successful vehicle had it been condensed down to a much shorter book: "A Quick Guide to Getting Armed" with the basic premise: get armed with reliable weapons and get trained.

-z

1911Ron
March 15, 2006, 10:15 PM
I've read BGB and thought it was very good. Zak as to personal attacks i don't see it that way, he responded to what you said,one must remember if you say something some one will criticize it, thats there right.
I have looked other places after reading BGB to fill out my research on what to buy to become a rifleman.

depicts
March 15, 2006, 10:20 PM
I didn't get to see the edited version of the comments posted here, but I do find this conversation about guns and gun stuff and gun rights to be interesting enough that I ordered a copy of the Boston Gun Bible today from Amazon.

I might have ordered it a while back, but to me, the Boston T. Party reminds me of the old club behind Fenway park, where in my Hippie days I rocked to the music and said "Peace Man!". I couldn't relate that T.Party to this one, or the original I'm afraid.

Anyway, for abnout $21 including shipping, it will be here in two or three days, and if nothing else, it will help balance the shelf that holds my Blue Book of Gun Values. Gosh, I can't get out of Wendy's for less than $21 anymore. Now I'll have a book for reference, and night reading, and who knows, I might even learn something. Wishid I could have bought Molon Abbe and Privacy and protection too, but my card is near the max. Maybe next time.

Boston T. Party
March 15, 2006, 10:47 PM
from Zak Smith:
If the goal is to evaluate the available choices, it is irresponsible to merely test ("have tried") a couple and wave your hands at the rest of the field.
It is infeasible for any one author to test every product in its field,
especially optics. Thus, this 80/20 Rule author must pick several of what
he sees as the best in their category (and "wave" my hands at the rest).

Besides, I urged precision rifleman to go Leupold or IOR, so how did I
cheat them of anything?

Even if I could own/borrow 30+ scopes to mount/zero/test on a dozen
rifles (which would take months of shop/range time), publishing the results
of such would obviate your advice of streamlining BGB to a "pamphlet."

You're welcome to urge me to write more extensively, or less
extensively, but please choose one.


The argument that only an author can criticize an author is a fallacy.
I agree.
But that has never been my argument.

My contention is that book authors understand what it takes
to be a book author, and thus their criticism (however harsh)
is often leavened with a perspective and fairness which some
readers cannot muster. Very few books are a total POS, but
your "characterization" of BGB was so sweepingly negative
(and without substantiation) that you stopped just short of
calling it a POS.

A fellow author, whatever his contrary view of the book, would
have at least mentioned in passing the BGB is a very unique
title which has been singularly responsible for morphing hundreds
of the unarmed into the armed, and the armed into Riflemen.

Perspective and fairness is what you lacked in your remarks.
A fellow author would have understood how precious all books are,
and would have described what was good and helpful in BGB.

You allege to know a better format with ostensibly better information?
Fine. Write and publish it. Otherwise, your wholly negative remarks
sound like those guys at gun shows who complain about everybody's
high prices, yet never counteroffer and actually buy anything.

I specifically asked you to cite any material error which if left
uncorrected would lead an unsuspecting reader astray. You
have yet to cite any such example.

As Theodore Roosevelt described in his essay on the Critic,
I am "in the arena"--several of them, actually. When I see you
there also, taking a marketing and freedom risk with your own
hand-crafted material, your opinion will increase in merit to me.


The copy I was sent is, I believe, the 2002 printing. If you believe the latest revision is considerably better, send me a copy for review.
The 3rd printing (2005) has about 100 pages revised from 2002,
particularly the M1/M14 and Optics chapters. Such improved the book,
though "considerably" would be stretching it since the 2002 version
was pretty good to begin with.

But why would you want to review it, since the book's format is
"obsolete"? In order to quip, "Yep, still obsolete!"?
You are clearly predisposed against the format, the coverage, the
ranting, etc. of BGB. Why subject yourself to more of the same?


In my opinion, as I said before, BGB would have been a more successful vehicle had it been condensed down to a much shorter book
In the 5 years BGB has been out in its various sizes (720pp. and up),
I can count on my fingers those who complained within earshot of
its excessive length.

Given the magnitude of the subject and sub-subjects involved of
History, Law, Safety, Tactics, Training, Shooting, etc.--an 848 page
book is a pamphlet. Nobody had ever before attempted such a
comprehensive volume (though Tappan's Survival Guns was a
step in that direction).

You've dispensed publishing advice, so I'm curious as to your publishing
bona fides. Please provide the ISBNs of the books you've made
a significant contribution to in research, writing, design, lay-out,
printing, and marketing. Have you any experience with reducing an
already successful large volume to an even more successful pamphlet?

What strong selling book has gone this route?

Boston

Zak Smith
March 16, 2006, 01:07 AM
Style and form are up for debate, I guess, but here is a taste of technical errors and omissions, from the 2002 printing. I'll just pick 5 I found browsing through just now:

1. 18/31. You say a 6degree scope cant (canted in rings) will cause 1/2 MOA or 3" error at 600 yards. Shooting a typical 308 load (175SMK @ 2650fps at say Denver altitude), it drops about 131" at 600 yards. sine(6) * 131 is 13.7" of windage error with a 6* cant at 600 yards.

2. 18/1 - 18/31. You give high praise - repeatedly - for the Leupold Mark M3, which you have apparently owned since the mid-80's. Then you complain on p 18/25 about the coarse 1 MOA and 1/2 MOA clicks. One wonders why you omitted all the rest of the M1 and M3 Leupold scopes, including the variable power offerings.

3. 16/25. Hard-chrome bolt carriers are not unreliable. Junky bolt carriers are unreliable. The two sets are not the same.

4. 9/6. You ask a rhetorical question about 223/556 loads heavier than 62gr, and then go on to hypothetical 6mm wildcats, when the 75 and 77gr loadings of 223/556 are known to have the best terminal effects, better than 55 or 62gr.

5. 19/10. Slant angle. I realize you are talking about ranges to 500 yards, however, the cosine method gives more incorrect answers as angles and distances increase. http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/article1.html

6. 25/*. You use M&S "one shot stop" data, yet it is been discredited http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm

7. 25/*. You use kinetic energy as an indicator of handgun terminal performance, when it is not a reliable predictor of terminal performance: http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." 42,43 Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.44

Again, I found those in about 5 minute of browsing. You can judge for yourself whether or not they "lead astray" readers, but they are factually incorrect.

Boston T. Party
March 16, 2006, 03:59 AM
Zak, thanks for taking the time on this. I respond below point by point:

1) Your analysis doesn't seem correct to me, especially since you
did not figure in sight offset to bore. Anyway, I'll look into it.

Even if you are correct, and more unwanted windage is
applied through cant than I claimed, are you not making my point for
me that scope cant is very undesireable? The reader is clearly warned
to set his scope up properly, thus the amount of cant-induced
windage is technically immaterial (though interesting).
READER NOT LED ASTRAY.


2) The Leupold Mark M3 is a very good scope, but its major
disadvantage is the coarse .5 and 1MOA clicks. You agreed on
that yourself on your own webpage.

I did not wade into the M1 and M3 Leupolds generally because BGB
was explicitly limited in some areas (e.g., countersniping, as I explained
on pg. Preface/3), and because the Optics chapter was clearly oriented
towards battle carbines and rifles, not precision rifles (which would
have deserved entirely their own chapter). Besides, anybody
interested in precision rifles would be conducting further research
and wouldn't miss out on the Leupolds anyway, geez.

READER ON CONTEXTUAL NOTICE, THUS NOT LED ASTRAY.


3) I have friends with Class 3 M16s who had problems with theirs.
I will verify this and seek wider corroboration. If this point needs to
be corrected, I will certainly do so. However, since I did not recommend
bolt carriers known to be unreliable: READER NOT LED ASTRAY.


4) I was (am) in favor of heavier bullets in the .223, why else
would I discuss a 100gr 6mm bullet from the same case? The 77gr in
particular have been significantly more effective in combat, and I
mentioned this somewhere in BGB by 2005, though apparently
only in passing elsewhere than Chapter 9.

Since I urge the .308 over the .223, I can't see how I led any
reader astray on the issue of bullet weights. 147gr FMJ wins over
even 77gr .223. But you knew that already. Anyway, in the spirit
of fairness, I'll call this point a draw. (If BGB was only about .223
carbines, you'd have won this point.)


5) Your linked article of June 2003 was written 14 months after
your copy of BGB, so I could not have been aware of it back
then. Nevertheless, it was most interesting--though more relevant to
precision rifle work vs. FALs and M1As.

Rifleman's Rule: multiply the cosine of the slant angle to the horizontal
range. (This is the BGB method.)

Improved Rifleman's Rule: multiply the cosine of the slant angle to the
# of sight MOA come ups. (Easy to use, and significantly more accurate.)

Sierra Method: "The observation was (and is) that bullet Drop at any
given slant range distance on inclined trajectories changes very little from
the Drop at the equivalent horizontal range distance on a level trajectory."

It's the most complicated to use, but the most accurate.
Up to 300yds, it hardly matters which method is used.

Even at 500yds and 30° slant angle, the simplistic RR will
be off only about 8.5" in elevation. Chapter 18 is about 7.62x51
battle rifle work with surplus FMJ out to a 500yd max, so the
RR/BGB method is quite adequate. Very few of us will be
defending ourselves from the top or bottom of half mile ravines,
but the more accurate methods would then be good to know.

For longer ranges and/or greater slant angles, please consider
the IRR or Sierra methods. Thanks, Zak, for the excellent link,
but as a source of BGB refutation...nice try. Context, you know...
WITHIN BOUNDS OF THE CHAPTER, READER NOT LED ASTRAY.


6&7) For these reasons, this book is admittedly not a handgun book.
Meaning, if you want to argue Marshall & Sarnow against the Strasbourg
goat shootings or anything else, BGB is not the best resource.

And you totally ignored the chapter's opening proviso on pg. 25/1:

Defensive rounds...from a powerful cartridge (e.g., .40S&W or .45ACP) placed well will usually solve your problem. If not, then you need a rifle.

What differently are you telling your students?
And since I didn't bet the ranch on M&S, who's the victim here?

You take my mention of KE out of context, as I do discuss the
importance of caliber size (i.e., wound channel) and penetration on
pages 25/8 and 25/9, respectively.

If I'd thought that KE alone was the primary factor in stopping
power, then I'd have recommended the 625fpe 9x23mm over the
the classic FMJ 343fpe .45 ACP (230gr at 820fps).

In short, I recommended the .45ACP, followed closely by the .40S&W.

READER NOT LED ASTRAY.

______________________________________________________

Again, I found those in about 5 minute of browsing.
...through the red ink of your own pen, rather.


You can judge for yourself whether or not they "lead astray" readers,
Yes, they are now pretty easy to judge since context and
relevance has been restored.


...but they are factually incorrect.
Gosh, let me change the part of BGB where I asserted that
it was a perfect work!

I admit that BGB has factual errors and will eagerly correct any
which are pointed out to me, but I was extremely careful to
weed out material errors which would lead my readers astray.

Keep on browsing!

Boston T. Party
http://www.freestatewyoming.org
http://www.javelinpress.com

Zak Smith
March 16, 2006, 04:26 AM
Please note that my original post, from 2005, says it contains "technical inaccuracies". Saying something is OK because is does not "lead the reader astray" is a red herring.

To demonstrate the logical error involved, here is an example: IF 45 ACP were the most effective handgun cartridge, and you said, "45 ACP will knock a man off his feet, and therefore is the most effective handgun cartridge", the conclusion would be the same ("45 is most effective") yet the reasoning behind it is completely flawed (basic physics in this case).

To be consistent, you would have to say that was not "leading the reader astray" since he would come to the same conclusion, yet the argument is totally broken.

I did have an error in my analysis for #1. There's only 88" of drop below sight plane at Denver altitude for a 175 SMK @ 2650fps, 2" sight over bore, 100 yard zero, at 600 yards. (I read the line for 700.) This still brings the error to 9".

#3. Check into the carriers from Young Machine or LBC. There are others. I know personally they run gazillions of rounds in Colt M4's, and a lot of 3Gun shooters use HC Y/M carriers.

#4. You were talking about which 223/556 rounds were most effective for martial uses, and failed to mention the most effective loadings - which were , instead going on a tangent to totally impractical and/or hypothetical wildcats.

#5. The date on the article is irrelevant. It did not invent the numerical methods used to accurately calculate external trajectory, it's just talking about them. The math for such analysis has been around since about 1880, and is described in McCoy [1999]. Are you saying that 8.5" (1.7 MOA) error at 500 yards means nothing?

What differently are you telling your students?
Specifically, that 9x19 with any modern defensive load will get the job done.

Gosh, let me change the part of BGB where I asserted that it was a perfect work!
Technical errors reduce the value of the work.

Boston T. Party
March 16, 2006, 06:18 AM
Please note that my original post, from 2005, says it contains "technical inaccuracies". Saying something is OK because is does not "lead the reader astray" is a red herring.
A) I never claimed athat my book did not have "technical inaccuracies."
B) There are errors, and then there are material errors (i.e., those which would tend to cause the reader to choose/shoot poorly). These are the
errors which matter.


I did have an error in my analysis for #1. There's only 88" of drop below sight plane at Denver altitude for a 175 SMK @ 2650fps, 2" sight over bore, 100 yard zero, at 600 yards. (I read the line for 700.) This still brings the error to 9".
Not 13.7" but 9"? A 52.2% error?
Well, how can we trust your posts ever again?

You read the line for 700.
I typed in ½MOA (vs. 1½MOA), either as a typo or recalling incorrectly some data.
Given the estimated 2 million keystrokes in BGB you wanna get reasonable here?

________________________________

To demonstrate the logical error involved, here is an example: IF 45 ACP were the most effective handgun cartridge, and you said, "45 ACP will knock a man off his feet, and therefore is the most effective handgun cartridge", the conclusion would be the same ("45 is most effective") yet the reasoning behind it is completely flawed (basic physics in this case).

To be consistent, you would have to say that was not "leading the reader astray" since he would come to the same conclusion, yet the argument is totally broken.

Yes, I understand your theoretical point, but since the one-shot %s
were clearly more obiter dicta vs. supporting pillars for caliber
choice of one's handgun, my argument is hardly broken.

Recall the context of that chapter:

My point being, there's no longer time to endlessly debate 9mm versus .45. Pick a quality, reliable gun you like in the most powerful cartridge you can handle, use reliable ammo, pay for the best training, dry fire daily, shoot weekly, and carry it every hour. If you do that, it won't really matter if it's a Glock or a Colt, a 9mm or a .45. Carry a good gun with you daily, have the skill to use it instantly--and you're 98% there. (page 25/2)

Translation: The whole caliber debate is rife with a myriad of
differing opinions, which are basically moot if you follow the above.
How's that for pamphleteer rhetoric?

And whatever street stoppping power data you offer, I'd bet that
it's generally congruent to M&S--i.e., that .40 and .45 are superior
to 9x19.


3) Thanks for the AR bolt carrier tip; I'll look into it.
Perhaps my friends had some uncommonly faulty hard-chromed parts.


4) Most AR have barrel twists of 1:9" these days, which is too
slow to stabilize 77gr bullets for best accuracy. (Colt ARs with
1:7" barrels are the ticket there.) If somebody wishes to handload
77grainers for their duty AR, be my guest, but it's hardly reasonable
for thousands of round of training ammo.

1:7" barrel, handloaded .223 (vs. surplus 55gr or 62gr)? Ugh.
If you're going to go through that trouble, go whole hog and
make a 6x45 (or 6.5 or 6.8) out of the thing if you won't use a .308.


#5. The date on the article is irrelevant. It did not invent the numerical methods used to accurately calculate external trajectory, it's just talking about them. The math for such analysis has been around since about 1880, and is described in McCoy [1999]. Are you saying that 8.5" (1.7 MOA) error at 500 yards means nothing?
As I wrote earlier, you provided a source to what is apparently
a more accurate way to adjust for slant angle. Dandy.
The RR method of distance/cosine has a great deal of historical
inertia behind it which will take some time to reverse in favor
of IRR and Sierra. As I wrote, I'll do what I can in that regard.

8.5" of elevation difference is not the same as 1.7MOA because
we are not speaking also of concurrent windage variations.
Meaning, the shot errors will be vertical stringers only.

The Rifleman chapter deals only with rack grade MBRs using
surplus FMJ out to 500yds. Obviously, nobody is going to
rely on a headshot with a 2-4MOA battle rifle at 500, but
rather will take a body shot. Such a shot can very likely absorb
an elevation error of +/- 8.5". No, such an error is not nothing,
but given the described scenario it's hardly worth getting into
a lather about over a grossly theoretical 500yd/30° shot.


Quote:
What differently are you telling your students?
Specifically, that 9x19 with any modern defensive load will get the job done.
Ah, OK, now I understand you a bit better.

I agree, but with the qualification that if one can
just as reliably hit with a .40 or a .45, why use a 9?
To quote your own reference:

Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.

The extra mag capacity of a 9mm is hardly a compensating advantage, IMO.


Quote:
Gosh, let me change the part of BGB where I asserted that it was a perfect work!
Technical errors reduce the value of the work.
I agree, but only as far as that goes.

No reader is buying crappy guns in inferior calibers, or programming
bad habits because of BGB--and that is what actually matters.

A work can have few/no technical errors yet still be overly
difficult to absorb, or tout silly conclusions--and thus not be
worth reading (especially vs. other works).

Thus, a book must be judged as a whole for what it provides
the reader. And as a whole, Boston's Gun Bible is clearly worth
owning and reading. Utility is what matters, and I'll tolerate a mispelled
treasure map with the right directions to a perfectly worded one with
the wrong coordinates.

BGB overwhelmingly gets novice and intermediate shooters on the
right track in nearly every area of shooting. That was my goal for
it, and thousands of readers will agree that the book delivers.

You prefer to ignore its utility in exchange for what is basically nit-picking.

It's a sweeping overview of moderate depth. It's not a piece of software
code which must be utterly bug-free in order to work at all.

Boston T. Party
http://www.freestatewyoming.org
http://www.javelinpress.com

shermacman
March 16, 2006, 07:42 AM
This is really weird, I read Boston's Gun Bible. It is a very good resource, enjoyable, and I actually learned a lot.

Zak Smith
March 16, 2006, 12:45 PM
Not 13.7" but 9"? A 52.2% error?
Well, how can we trust your posts ever again?

You read the line for 700.
I typed in ½MOA (vs. 1½MOA), either as a typo or recalling incorrectly some data.
Given the estimated 2 million keystrokes in BGB you wanna get reasonable here?

If it were truely a typo in transcription from notes or calculation, you would not have a second number which verifies the first (you say "1/2 MOA or 3 inches at 600 yards").

If somebody wishes to handload 77grainers for their duty AR, be my guest, but it's hardly reasonable for thousands of round of training ammo.
Commercial 75 and 77gr loads for defense and match have been available for 5+ years, and Mk262 has been in use for around that long too.

8.5" of elevation difference is not the same as 1.7MOA because we are not speaking also of concurrent windage variations. Meaning, the shot errors will be vertical stringers only.
Yeah, it's 1.7 MOA of vertical error, or enough completely miss a 16" square at 500 yards, using a center hold. 16" @ 500 yards is surely a practical battle rifle target, no?

KIDGLOCK
March 16, 2006, 01:05 PM
Hey Boston
See ya in Worland!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

7.62MM.............................................. nuf said
M1a..............................................Riflemans Rifle
Buy Gun
Get Trained
Shoot often

Boston T. Party
March 16, 2006, 09:36 PM
from Zak Smith:
If it were truely a typo in transcription from notes or calculation, you would not have a second number which verifies the first (you say "1/2 MOA or 3 inches at 600 yards").
When you posted 131" drop at 600 yards I suspected at a glance,
without any calculation, that such was excessive, and it was,
but I am not belaboring your error.

Whether my ½MOA was a typo or a misrecollection, and thus
whether the 3"/600yds was a simultaneous error vs. a consecutive
one in a later editing pass are hardly burning issues--especially
since my statement...

Only 6° of cant can add ½MOA of unwanted windage. That's 3" @ 600yds!
-- page 18/31

...is absolutely true. Only 6° of cant can do precisely that!
If I'd claimed 10MOA, then it would be untrue on its face.

The statement embraced many rifles, scope offsets, calibers, and
zeros. I wasn't claiming that 6° of cant equals ½MOA of windage
for everybody.

A canted scope zeroed for 600yds would have no windage error,
because zeroing would have nulled that out. The same rifle zeroed
for 500yds (such as a dedicated LR bolt gun) would have far less
cant-induced windage error at 600 than one zeroed for 100yds.

So, for those using longer range zeros (and flatter-shooting calibers),
the cant-induced windage error is less than 9"...and it could easily
be the 3" at 600yds which I used as an example.

Finally, shouldn't sin6° (0.1045) be multiplied times the bullet's
maximum ordinate above line of sight between 100-600yds,
vs. (as in your calculation) the bullet drop from 100-600yds? I've
seen it calculated that way, and I think this is the more accurate
way to figure it. (If I'm wrong about this point, it doesn't really
matter, Q.E.D.)


Commercial 75 and 77gr loads for defense and match have been available for 5+ years, and Mk262 has been in use for around that long too.And what's the cost/rd vs. surplus 55gr and 62gr?
Much higher, so who buys thousands of rounds of 77gr for training?
That was my point.


Yeah, it's 1.7 MOA of vertical error, or enough completely miss a 16" square at 500 yards, using a center hold. 16" @ 500 yards is surely a practical battle rifle target, no?
If the highly unlikely shot of 500yds @ 30° were taken
at a standing 5'10" target, the 8.5" of vertical error would
translate to a handspan's distance of low shot placement.
If POA were center of mass (i.e., the solar plexus) the POI
would be a debilitating stomach hit.

And this is for a shot taken at the extreme range of rifle and
ammo capability, from the top or bottom of a steep ridge.
The range and angle are both so extreme that this shot is
practically a straw argument.

Oh, and what would it take to reduce that vertical error to
the Sierra Method's 0.2"? From http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/article1.html :

1) Measure the inclination angle of the target.

2) Measure the slant range distance to the target.

3) From the level trajectory at a horizontal distance equal to the slant range distance, take both the Drop and Bullet Path.

4) Change the algebraic sign on the Drop number (because Drop is always negative in Infinity change it to a positive number). Then, multiply this positive number by the quantity [1.0 - cosine (inclination angle)].

5) Algebraically add the result of step (4) to the Bullet Path (remembering that Bullet Path can be either a positive or negative number in Infinity) to obtain an adjusted Bullet Path. Then use this result to adjust the aim of the gun at the inclined target.

Uh, yeah, right.

This is lovely stuff for a countersniper team with the equipment
and experience to calculate what are basically artillery equations
on his PDA. (Let's throw in altitude, barometric pressure, ambient
air temperature, muzzle/downrange wind speeds and directions,
and ammo temperature while we're at it. Hell, why not projectile
spin drift and the earth's rotation during time of flight as well?)

Even the Improved Rifleman Rule of multiplying the cosine times
the MOA come-ups (which are single digit numbers w/i 500yds)
requires a calculator to achieve any precision. Or is it your
contention that most Rifleman are expected to calculate the
product of .87 times 9.29MOA in their heads, in the field?

But the average Rifleman in the field with a FAL or M1A needs a
quick and easy rule of thumb to make his hit. He is generally
limited to estimates vs. actual measurements.

The Rifleman Rule (as described in BGB pages 19/10-11) is not
the most accurate, but for men fielding with rack-grade rifles
and surplus FMJ it is accurate enough for nearly all of his fighting
ranges and slant angles. Out to 300yds, RR error is no more than
2.12" and usually less than half of even that.

Measuring slant angle is problematic even with the Angle Cosine
Indicator ( http://www.snipertools.com/aci.htm ) I recommended
in the 2005 printing. The red dial is quite fat (for visibility) and
the engraved cosine values are in 5° increments. I.e., there is
a significant amount of unavoidable error translated to the shooter,
and such may very well be in excess of the error between using
RR and the other two methods. But what is the countersniper's
alternative, use a surveyor's theodolite? That's about as
reasonable as expecting the M1A Rifleman to use a PDA for
his ballistics program.

My point: K.I.S.S. whenever possible, because that is what
life and Murphy will far too often reduce us to. Sierra requires
a PDA, and IRR requires a calculator. A Rifleman carrying a .308
battle rifle makes well do without either.

Besides, since the current BGB does refer the reader to the ACI
website which clearly discusses the three methods of slant angle
correction, I reject your implicit contention that I've somehow cheated
my readers out of important knowledge on this matter.

This is a good example of what BGB doesn't provide directly, it
very often does indirectly as a gateway to further study.

_____________________________________

I understand that BGB was intended to be an introduction for beginner and intermediate shooters, and the 80/20 rule is a good idea.

This is what I don't get about you: you claim to understand for
whom I wrote BGB, and my rationale of providing 80% of the
information under one book's roof--yet you harp on fact that I
am not providing countersniper-level of data and techniques.

And you do so even though I explicitly warn my readers that BGB
should not be considered such an exhaustive source on that topic.

Judge the book within its awowed context.
It is a sweeping overview of moderate depth and necessary limitations.
If that offends your engineer's sense of precision and perfection, bummer.

Not all of us are born knowing this stuff, so most folks must begin somewhere,
and without such "gnat straining" (Matthew 23:24).

Boston T. Party
http://www.freestatewyoming.org
http://www.javelinpress.com

Boston T. Party
March 16, 2006, 09:41 PM
Righto KIDGLOCK, see you at the FSW Jam!

Great synopsis, but what are you trying to do,
run me out of my upcoming gun pamphlet business?
:p

Boston

Sgt.Slappy
March 16, 2006, 10:02 PM
I liked the book. I forgive the author his sins of technical imperfection.

I am continually amazed as I read through this forum, at some of the things people say to each other... at some of the opinions the moderators hold, and the mega-posting senior members as well. ...and now, to jump all over "Boston", as if he isn't on our side... (well, my side anyway.)

Zak Smith
March 16, 2006, 10:21 PM
Oh, and what would it take to reduce that vertical error to the Sierra Method's 0.2"? From http://www.exteriorballistics.com/eb.../article1.html :

Uh, yeah, right.

This is lovely stuff for a countersniper team with the equipment and experience to calculate what are basically artillery equations on his PDA.

Or is it your contention that most Rifleman are expected to calculate the product of .87 times .29MOA in their heads, in the field?

Not at all All the shooter needs to do is add one extra elevation column on his dope card per angle increment (e.g. 5, 10, or 15 degrees, whatever he wants); its contents will be the pre-computed and angle-correct elevation from Sierra. Accurate and easy.

And what's the cost/rd vs. surplus 55gr and 62gr? Much higher, so who buys thousands of rounds of 77gr for training? That was my point.
The 75 and 77gr bullets provide and easy and economical terminal ballistics upgrade to 556 weapons. Even those with 9" twist barrels will be OK to 50 yards. It seems strange to go on to mention wildcats like 6x45 which are orders of magnitude more impractical, than this simple alternative, when discussing 556 ammo choices.

Sgt.Slappy,
Zak, take a Pamprin
Personal attacks are not permitted on THR.

Sgt.Slappy
March 16, 2006, 10:49 PM
That's not an attack... It's medical advice! :rolleyes:



More likely...


... you're upset that it was an excellent (and most wittily delivered) point about the tone you have taken with Mr. T.Party...

For shame! Accusing me of attacking you!

Refute my point then! It may have started as a (somewhat) good natured and polite discussion of the book's technical data, but the last exchanges did little to hide the acidic criticism of a book (and by proxy, a man) you clearly don't like...

...or am I crazy?

Hmmm... mebbe I'm just :scrutiny: crazy...:scrutiny:

Boston T. Party
March 17, 2006, 12:06 AM
from Zak Smith:
All the shooter needs to do is add one extra elevation column on his dope card per angle increment (e.g. 5, 10, or 15 degrees, whatever he wants); its contents will be the pre-computed and angle-correct elevation from Sierra.
This is more feasible for a DMR or countersniper than most
basic Riflemen in the field (who even still must have mounted
an ACI in the first place). The common 100-300yd shots at
<20° won't require it, for the math is quite basic.

Nevertheless, your idea has merit for those bolt-gun guys who
wish to avoid carting around PDAs and lithium CR2032 batts.

The 75 and 77gr bullets provide and easy and economical terminal ballistics upgrade to 556 weapons. Even those with 9" twist barrels will be OK to 50 yards. It seems strange to go on to mention wildcats like 6x45 which are orders of magnitude more impractical, than this simple alternative, when discussing 556 ammo choices.
The extra cost and hassle of buying or handloading lots
of 77gr seemed silly when the real answer to enjoying
a terminal ballistics upgrade has always been going to 7.62x51.

If one, for whatever reasons, is stuck on/with an AR15, why
not bypass the 77gr and rebarrel to 6x45? Yes, it's more
impractical at first, but the gain over 77gr 5.56 just may be
worth it--especially if I had to rebarrel to 1:7" 5.56 anyway
for 77gr accuracy beyond, uh, 50yds.

If I HAD to field with a 5.56 AR, then I'd try to do so with 77gr
...but I am happily not limited to that weapon system.

Finally, after re-reading my text, I sense a bit of the intentionally
ironical in there regarding the silk purse construction from a 5.56
sow's ear. There's only just so much knockdown power that can
be delivered from that case, regardless of bullet caliber or weight.

Most men can carry and fight well with a 7.62 battle rifle, and to
avoid such for any bullet weight of 5.56 would seem to require
extremely compelling reasons. This is why I didn't devote
any more space to 5.56 bullets than I did. It's just not a cause
I believe in.
___________________________________________

Sarge, thanks for your input and medical advice.

I've often wondered, however, about the true value of
palliatives. I mean, wearing a tweed coat to "cure"
dandruff is visually effective, but perhaps the afflicted
should just more regularly wash his hair and actually
solve the problem?

Good night everyone,

Boston T. Party

Join the Free State Wyoming Forum at:
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php

Zak Smith
March 17, 2006, 12:16 AM
Refute my point then! It may have started as a (somewhat) good natured and polite discussion of the book's technical data, but the last exchanges did little to hide the acidic criticism of a man (and a book) you clearly don't like...
You can see in the text I have written, that I criticize the book, not his character or person.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 17, 2006, 12:22 AM
Slappy, you are out of line. Re-read the Forum Rules (http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html) if you are confused.

Zak Smith
March 17, 2006, 12:28 AM
Perspective and fairness is what you lacked in your remarks. [...] and would have described what was good and helpful in BGB.
Actually, I said this in my post from 2005, just above, in this thread:

For what good information is in there, [...]

1911Ron
March 17, 2006, 01:10 AM
Hmmm a member with 32 posts gets slapped down for a comment but one with 3,648 who rants on and on gets nothing??? :scrutiny: i don't get it.

I think that the senior member was way out of line and should be called on it, i've read some threads that got shut down for less. The discussion was going good until the nit picking started, sad when a ones argument goes bad and they resort to this type of behavior.

I may get censored for this, oh well my first ammendment has been exercised.

Sgt.Slappy
March 17, 2006, 01:13 AM
I did read those rules. Particularly this one:

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Since I am, by my own admittance, stark raving mad at times, but nonetheless brilliant, I suppose I will have to explain what I was getting at, with "The infamous and universally deplored Pamprin comment"...it was a sarcastic metaphor, gentlemen. Not an Ad Hominem assault. My intent was to illustrate the insufferable criticism of infinite minutiae (which you will note, we have all at one point or another endured for no good reason), from a person who isn't so much seeking redress for the questions raised, but rather seems to express the need to peel away the layers of another's sense of reason, creations, or person, out of a subconscious desire to inflict pain. I am sure you will see this was an attempt at humor, not to be taken at its obviously base and vulgar face value... Only those not as intellectually gifted as ourselves would make such a mistake, or am I mistaken?

1911Ron
March 17, 2006, 01:47 AM
Thank you Sgt Slappy finaly reason has been restored!!

matis
March 17, 2006, 02:06 AM
Sorry, but I disagree with the critics here.


The subject line said to "save your money".

Well I spent the money and got excellent value.


I am pretty much the target reader, not very far beyond the beginner stage. I learned much in a format and style I found entertaining.


I was sorry to run out of book at 700+ pages but certainly got my money's worth. I'd previously purchased another BTP book, YOU AND THE POLICE, and learned much of value from that book as well.




matis

1911Ron
March 17, 2006, 12:43 PM
Back on topic, i to found it a good read learned alot, somethings i didn't agree with. It showed me how to be a Rifleman not a sniper/countersniper. It gave an over view of several rifles and their good and bad points and didn't bore me with overly technical information. With any book,class or training take what info you want and leave the rest, if the info is to simple or not to your liking find other info that suits you but don't attack some elses work because you don't like it.

NineseveN
March 17, 2006, 03:16 PM
What differently are you telling your students?

Specifically, that 9x19 with any modern defensive load will get the job done.

Ah, OK, now I understand you a bit better.

I agree, but with the qualification that if one can
just as reliably hit with a .40 or a .45, why use a 9?
To quote your own reference:


Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.

The extra mag capacity of a 9mm is hardly a compensating advantage, IMO.



Yes, the adage "bigger is better" is often true, but what are we talking about in terms of the relation in sizes of expanded handgun bullets? A popular 9mm load expanded is what, usually between .61 and .63, a the popular .40's are what, .65 to .67...not enough of a difference to really claim superiority. Both are over the often preached bare minimum of .50 and even the mythical .45 mankiller is shown to be optimal given recent loadings when it expands to about .72 to .75 (I have seen some expand to over .83 but penetration was severely lacking).

Now, as clarification, I carry 230gr +p .45's almost exclusively because I want that little extra edge if it does not expand, but on the same token, I carry a lot less ammo per magazine so realistically, it's a wash with proper expansion and all other criteria being met for a given shot.


The following 4 things will effect your results in this order of importance:

1. Shot placement (Must hit a vital area and cause wounding, and trauma; a CNS hit is best for incapacitation, blood loss is a secondary factor).
2. Penetration (must reliably expand better than 12" in calibrated ballistic gelatin).
3. Reliable Expansion (must generally expand reliably to at least a diameter of .50).
4. Caliber/size (after the bullet hits the right spot, penetrates properly and expands efficiently and reliably, the size of the projectile and how much mass/weight is retained will affect the result of the shot; bigger is better at this point, but generally not before).

Now, there are exceptions, freak occurrences and disqualifiers to the above, but this is the general run of things.

Correia
March 17, 2006, 03:25 PM
Good freaking hell.

Everybody chill out.

1911ron, guess what? Moderating ain't easy. Probably should have shut this sooner.

If you enjoyed reading about "Boston's Gun Bible, save your money." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!