cdb1
Member
Crosses, silver bullets and wood stakes have not been effective for me on vampires. YMMV.
When is it OK to ignore the conventional wisdom?
- Thread starter bikemutt
- Start date
- Status
The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/
Things have really changed since the 1660's, but back then, authority ruled. Ancient Greek interpretations of the natural world had been incorporated in religious though, so claims that the natural world functioned differently were considered hieratical. Well Ptolemy, Aristotle, and others, got things wrong, in fact, they were wrong more often then they were right. But saying so would get you burnt at the stake.
The motto, Nullius in verba is a great foundation for Science. Base your understanding of the physical universe on observations in the physical universe, not authority. If your observations contradict authority, authority is wrong.
I ran into this long ago. The shooting community then, and many still do, believe that only high primers and "worn receiver bridges" cause slamfires. After studying this by going through every American Rifleman magazine from the 1950's onward, I am convinced that this is an Army coverup of a design defect of the Garand mechanism. This mechanism has a free floating firing pin. The mechanism does not have a positive mechanical interlock, so the thing will slamfire, in battery, and out of battery, given a sensitive enough primer. So certain precautions have to be taken to reduce the risk, the first and foremost, is use less sensitive primers. However, as I found for decades now on the internet, the authority of the Army is so high, that in spite of evidence in the natural world contrary, in spite of slamfire reports in Army reports with new M14's and military ammunition, many still believe that only high primers and worn out receiver bridges cause slamfires.
Things have really changed since the 1660's, but back then, authority ruled. Ancient Greek interpretations of the natural world had been incorporated in religious though, so claims that the natural world functioned differently were considered hieratical. Well Ptolemy, Aristotle, and others, got things wrong, in fact, they were wrong more often then they were right. But saying so would get you burnt at the stake.
The motto, Nullius in verba is a great foundation for Science. Base your understanding of the physical universe on observations in the physical universe, not authority. If your observations contradict authority, authority is wrong.
I ran into this long ago. The shooting community then, and many still do, believe that only high primers and "worn receiver bridges" cause slamfires. After studying this by going through every American Rifleman magazine from the 1950's onward, I am convinced that this is an Army coverup of a design defect of the Garand mechanism. This mechanism has a free floating firing pin. The mechanism does not have a positive mechanical interlock, so the thing will slamfire, in battery, and out of battery, given a sensitive enough primer. So certain precautions have to be taken to reduce the risk, the first and foremost, is use less sensitive primers. However, as I found for decades now on the internet, the authority of the Army is so high, that in spite of evidence in the natural world contrary, in spite of slamfire reports in Army reports with new M14's and military ammunition, many still believe that only high primers and worn out receiver bridges cause slamfires.
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,621
Conventional wisdom states that my M1A should shoot 168g SMKs accurately, and if it can't there's either something wrong with the rifle or me. Well, so much for conventional wisdom......
Reloadron
Member
This past summer I tried several new 308 loads in my Remington 700 BDL VSSF using both Sierra 168 and Sierra 175 grain BTHP Match King bullets. Rather than my usual powders I use with the M1A and AR10 rifles I tried some AA2495. While not a M1A or AR10 load the powder gave really good results with the 168 and 175 grain bullets. So while all rifles have their likes and dislikes as to bullets and loads I was doing well, real well using the AA2495 powder in my bolt gun. You may want to give the AA4295 powder a try. If you haven't already.
Ron
Ron
Fast Frank
Member
"Conventional Wisdom" is a strange thing.
I don't know why they call it conventional, and rarely does it look like wisdom.
In my experience, conventional wisdom is just something that's been repeated over and over by people that don't know what they are talking about.
It's not really very different than an urban myth, and it gets spread the same way- "I like the way that sounds, so I'll repeat it when that topic comes up".
One way to spot this is that it is always said the same way-almost like a quote. This is a pretty good indicator that somebody is just parroting what they heard.
Another indicator is that there's no "I" in the statement. It's never "I studied that" or "When I was doing that" or even "What I've seen".
From what I've seen, conventional wisdom might be correct about half the time, and believing it will offer about the same results you would get by flipping a coin.
I don't know why they call it conventional, and rarely does it look like wisdom.
In my experience, conventional wisdom is just something that's been repeated over and over by people that don't know what they are talking about.
It's not really very different than an urban myth, and it gets spread the same way- "I like the way that sounds, so I'll repeat it when that topic comes up".
One way to spot this is that it is always said the same way-almost like a quote. This is a pretty good indicator that somebody is just parroting what they heard.
Another indicator is that there's no "I" in the statement. It's never "I studied that" or "When I was doing that" or even "What I've seen".
From what I've seen, conventional wisdom might be correct about half the time, and believing it will offer about the same results you would get by flipping a coin.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"My 700 VTR hates 150's, loves 165/168's (half MOA@100 yards), and shoots 175's OK, but I haven't tested much because 168's work so well."
That's how my FNAR and 700 were (my suspicion was there was simply more room inside the 150gr factory ammo I'd shot for powder to slosh around differently, or that it simply wasn't as consistent as my hand-loads or heavier hunting loads). Just not quite that accurate since I've never gotten to practice enough (168's plateau'ed about .9MOA from the SPS consistently, 150's strung vertically about double that, and heavier rounds generally somewhere in the middle)
Honestly? If the goal is to shoot such long ranges that a bullet that heavy/long is required, it makes more sense to choose a cartridge better suited (7.5x55 would be my submission). The whole point of the 308 getting shrunk from the '06 was to give up some long range performance (case capacity) for a more manageable package gun/cartridge. '06 was concepted as a ~1000yd cartridge; a distance at one time unrealistic for most shooters aiming for creature size targets, but with modern technology is now largely attainable for those willing. Unless a slave to military distribution routes, there's no reason at all such a specialized (and expensive) rig for long range should necessarily be wedded to a cartridge that begins to struggle at the task.
"Conventional wisdom states that my M1A should shoot 168g SMKs accurately, and if it can't there's either something wrong with the rifle or me"
There is something wrong with you; you haven't sold that junk rifle and bought one that can shoot 168SMKs
TCB
That's how my FNAR and 700 were (my suspicion was there was simply more room inside the 150gr factory ammo I'd shot for powder to slosh around differently, or that it simply wasn't as consistent as my hand-loads or heavier hunting loads). Just not quite that accurate since I've never gotten to practice enough (168's plateau'ed about .9MOA from the SPS consistently, 150's strung vertically about double that, and heavier rounds generally somewhere in the middle)
Honestly? If the goal is to shoot such long ranges that a bullet that heavy/long is required, it makes more sense to choose a cartridge better suited (7.5x55 would be my submission). The whole point of the 308 getting shrunk from the '06 was to give up some long range performance (case capacity) for a more manageable package gun/cartridge. '06 was concepted as a ~1000yd cartridge; a distance at one time unrealistic for most shooters aiming for creature size targets, but with modern technology is now largely attainable for those willing. Unless a slave to military distribution routes, there's no reason at all such a specialized (and expensive) rig for long range should necessarily be wedded to a cartridge that begins to struggle at the task.
"Conventional wisdom states that my M1A should shoot 168g SMKs accurately, and if it can't there's either something wrong with the rifle or me"
There is something wrong with you; you haven't sold that junk rifle and bought one that can shoot 168SMKs
TCB
Hardtarget
Member
I call conventional wisdom the "starting point". Then, when you find what your rifle likes (as you have) then you have your "new conventional wisdom".
Congratulations! Shoot on! did I hear someone say range trip?
Mark
Congratulations! Shoot on!
did I hear someone say range trip?Mark
Bikemutt, I dont know how much you have played around with the OAL with 175 grain bullets, but I found that in my well used 308 Varmint Synthetic, I had to move the bullet out to within .050" of the rifling, so that left my OAL at 2.9 inches and wouldnt feed from the magazine. Typical Remington short actions have a lot of freebore, and I have found that 168 SMKs are a lot more forgiving in that respect. I really like reloader 15 for the 168 and 175 grain weights. The M118LR ammo issued to snipers uses the same powder. IMR4064 seems to do well too.
Oh, and range trip? Count me in!
Oh, and range trip? Count me in!
I and others have shot .308 Win ammo in 24 inch barrels with 1:12 twist using bullets of 150, 168, 172, 175, 180, 185 and 190 grain weights winning matches. Some have set records with such stuff.
If a 1:12 twist barrel doesn't shoot those weight bullets from a .308 Win case with max loads through a 26" barrel very, very accurate through 800 yards, it's not the fault of the bullet weight or rifling twist rate. Some 22 and 24 inch barrels won't shoot the lighter bullets fast enough, but good enough through 600 to 800 yards.
1:12 was Winchester's twist in their first 22 inch barrels for the .308 cartridge. They sold hunting ammo with bullets from 150 to 200 grains and they all shot very accurate for a sporting rifle. Western Cartridge Company made .308 match ammo with 197 and 200 grain bullets for Win 70 match rifles in .308 Win chamberings; they were very accurate in their 1:12 twist barrels.
And Palma rifles have 1:13 twists for 155-gr. bullets from .308 cases that'll shoot well under 1 MOA at 1000 yards.
Most people are not up to speed on twist rates for bullets. People laughed at me with my .300 Win Mag barrel's 1:13 twist until I shot it with 180's at 1000 yards.
If a 1:12 twist barrel doesn't shoot those weight bullets from a .308 Win case with max loads through a 26" barrel very, very accurate through 800 yards, it's not the fault of the bullet weight or rifling twist rate. Some 22 and 24 inch barrels won't shoot the lighter bullets fast enough, but good enough through 600 to 800 yards.
1:12 was Winchester's twist in their first 22 inch barrels for the .308 cartridge. They sold hunting ammo with bullets from 150 to 200 grains and they all shot very accurate for a sporting rifle. Western Cartridge Company made .308 match ammo with 197 and 200 grain bullets for Win 70 match rifles in .308 Win chamberings; they were very accurate in their 1:12 twist barrels.
And Palma rifles have 1:13 twists for 155-gr. bullets from .308 cases that'll shoot well under 1 MOA at 1000 yards.
Most people are not up to speed on twist rates for bullets. People laughed at me with my .300 Win Mag barrel's 1:13 twist until I shot it with 180's at 1000 yards.
Last edited:
clearcut
Member
Barrel harmonics are different in all fire arms you have to seek what your weapon will shoot the best.
CC
CC
Barrel harmonics, or more precisely, barrel resonant frequencies and their harmonics, are the same for a given make and model. Or, all barrels of the same metal, caliber, chamber and profile have the same "harmonics."
The amplitude and directions they whip and wiggle at depends on how far the bore axis is from the buttplate . Along with how they're held by what shoots them. This is why several people shooting the same rifle and ammo will have different zeros on the sight for a given range.
The amplitude and directions they whip and wiggle at depends on how far the bore axis is from the buttplate . Along with how they're held by what shoots them. This is why several people shooting the same rifle and ammo will have different zeros on the sight for a given range.
Conventional wisdom, to me, means all identical rifles will shoot the same load with equal accuracy. If it's the right load, it will be one of the best for accuracy. Even with a reasonable range of bullet weights, accuracy will be both equal and best.
If the same proper tests are made across several rifles of the same make and model/style and they each shoot the same load differently, they are not equal.
If several people test the same rifle and ammo, most of the time their results will not be the same. Most people don't understand why. I used to think each rifle was unique and needed all loads tailored for it. Then I learned how to conduct proper accuracy tests. First thing I learned was if the same load didn't shoot the same accuracy wise with each test, the test was not good. Good tests get the same answer every time they're made. A good test of any load produces the same accuracy within 10% extreme spread across all groups.
Many times, I've seen the same rifle make and model shoot the same lot of ammo with equal and excellent ammo. Also seen several rifles of different makes and models shoot the same ammo equally as well.
If the same proper tests are made across several rifles of the same make and model/style and they each shoot the same load differently, they are not equal.
If several people test the same rifle and ammo, most of the time their results will not be the same. Most people don't understand why. I used to think each rifle was unique and needed all loads tailored for it. Then I learned how to conduct proper accuracy tests. First thing I learned was if the same load didn't shoot the same accuracy wise with each test, the test was not good. Good tests get the same answer every time they're made. A good test of any load produces the same accuracy within 10% extreme spread across all groups.
Many times, I've seen the same rifle make and model shoot the same lot of ammo with equal and excellent ammo. Also seen several rifles of different makes and models shoot the same ammo equally as well.
Last edited:
The whole point of the .308 (7.62x51 sillymiters) getting shrunk from the '06 was compliance with NATO standardization.
Conventional wisdom says shorter actions are stiffer and shorter cartridges burn powder more magically. Common sense says they have less recoil and and are better for target shooting competitions.
Last edited:
stoky, which compliance? US created the cartridge (ok, one can argue it copied the ballistics of the 7.5x54 but that is besides the point) and pushed/forced NATO to accept it. Same happened with the 5.56x45. Incidentally, 30-06 is also known as 7.62x63.
I thought the idea of 7.62x51 was a lighter/smaller cartridge to replace the 30-06 but still keep (most of) its performance.
I thought the idea of 7.62x51 was a lighter/smaller cartridge to replace the 30-06 but still keep (most of) its performance.
Actually, the 7.62x51 was a compromise mainly for American interests. The generals did not wish to give up 30-06 performance with standard 150 grain ball ammo. Because of new slower burning powders, they didn't have to although it did raise the max average pressure some. We got shorter cartridges which flew just as fast and far as the 150 grain 30-06. The cartridge is lighter so the GI can carry more for the same weight/space.
Its only when you step into heavier bullets that the 06 outperforms the 308 by a significant degree in mil spec ammo.
Its only when you step into heavier bullets that the 06 outperforms the 308 by a significant degree in mil spec ammo.
Swampman
Old Fart
7.62x51 NATO was an "assault rifle" cartridge designed for generals and tacticians who thought an assault rifle should be effective at 600+ yards.
It's an excellent cartridge, but with far too much power and recoil to serve effectively in selective fire weapons light enough for use as general issue infantry rifles.
We crammed it down the throats of our NATO allies (some of whom had excellent assault rifle cartridge designs of their own), then after they had given in to our pressure and spent huge amounts of money equipping their armies, we changed our minds and switched to the 5.56x45.
But I digress from the OP's question...
Conventional wisdom seems to be more reliable on general life information than it is in specialized disciplines.
Conventional wisdom says not to drink too much when meeting your in-laws for the first time. That's probably valid.
Conventional wisdom also says to watch your mouth when someone says "you can speak freely here, it's off the record".
This is also sound advice.
When you start to rely on conventional wisdom to buy a diamond, drill an oil well or select a weapon for home defense, things get a lot more sketchy.
Here's my take on your situation and 175 SMK's in general.
The 175's won't begin to show any advantages until at least 600 yards, even if your rifle was shooting them just as accurately at 100 as the 168's.
If you want to shoot long range, look around for some good ammo loaded with 155 grain Sierra Palmas or Lapua Scenars.
They've got BC's right up there with the 175 MK's, but can be pushed faster with less recoil.
If you're shooting 300 yards and under look at lighter bullets like the 135 SMK's.
If it's 100 yard groups you're after, check out flat base bullets.
Pretty conventional advice overall...
It's an excellent cartridge, but with far too much power and recoil to serve effectively in selective fire weapons light enough for use as general issue infantry rifles.
We crammed it down the throats of our NATO allies (some of whom had excellent assault rifle cartridge designs of their own), then after they had given in to our pressure and spent huge amounts of money equipping their armies, we changed our minds and switched to the 5.56x45.
But I digress from the OP's question...
Conventional wisdom seems to be more reliable on general life information than it is in specialized disciplines.
Conventional wisdom says not to drink too much when meeting your in-laws for the first time. That's probably valid.
Conventional wisdom also says to watch your mouth when someone says "you can speak freely here, it's off the record".
This is also sound advice.
When you start to rely on conventional wisdom to buy a diamond, drill an oil well or select a weapon for home defense, things get a lot more sketchy.
Here's my take on your situation and 175 SMK's in general.
The 175's won't begin to show any advantages until at least 600 yards, even if your rifle was shooting them just as accurately at 100 as the 168's.
If you want to shoot long range, look around for some good ammo loaded with 155 grain Sierra Palmas or Lapua Scenars.
They've got BC's right up there with the 175 MK's, but can be pushed faster with less recoil.
If you're shooting 300 yards and under look at lighter bullets like the 135 SMK's.
If it's 100 yard groups you're after, check out flat base bullets.
Pretty conventional advice overall...
- Status
