Low charge weights.

[Duane Thomas]

PS. Or like one of the German (Berlin) reloaders I met at Drummen's Custom Guns (NL) last saturday who lost eyesight while reloading on a 1050 with a stuck primer and continued forcing the handle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kaboomm/hole in the roof (ca. 90 primers) Shit never happens???

The two situations are not even vaguely analogous. One (low charge weight detonation) is an example of worrying about a phenomenon that decades of test and evaluation by numerous powder companies has concluded doesn't even exist. The second (losing your eyesight from a detonating primer) is an example of someone who paid the predictable price for violating two common sense safety rules: (1) Don't try to force a misaligned primer into the casing by leaning harder on the loading machine handle. (2) Wear safety glasses while reloading.

Apples to oranges.

[schmitz]

PS. Or like one of the German (Berlin) reloaders I met at Drummen's Custom Guns (NL) last saturday who lost eyesight while reloading on a 1050 with a stuck primer and continued forcing the handle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kaboomm/hole in the roof (ca. 90 primers) Shit never happens???

The two situations are not even vaguely analogous. One (low charge weight detonation) is an example of worrying about a phenomenon that decades of test and evaluation by numerous powder companies has concluded doesn't even exist. The second (losing your eyesight from a detonating primer) is an example of someone who paid the predictable price for violating two common sense safety rules: (1) Don't try to force a misaligned primer into the casing by leaning harder on the loading machine handle. (2) Wear safety glasses while reloading.

Apples to oranges.

Duane,

Of course the situations are different! Also: experiments are everyones own responsibility! My statement is and will be: BE CAREFUL!

DVC, Henny.

PS One needs eyes and fingers to type and read postings on this forum

Earth used to be the center of the universe until one proved that this wasn't the case!

[Duane Thomas]

Earth used to be the center of the universe until one proved that this wasn't the case!

Yes, but in the case of the Earth not being the center of the universe, that was a matter of proving something false that was, in fact, false. Believing in low charge detonations, by contrast, is a matter of believing in something that has been proven false. And that's not the scientific method. The scientific method states I begin with an open mind, then test a hypothesis. If the hypothesis does not prove out, then I don't believe in it. Continuing to believe in something because results from testing for its existence have all been negative, and that means it "hasn't been disproven," is called Disproving the Negative. Which is meaningless and impossible.

My statement is and will be: BE CAREFUL!

On that we can certainly agree.

[schmitz]

With all due respect,

a hypothesis is always tested within a confidence interval. The narrower the confidence interval, the smaller the range of possible null hypothesis, and hence the greater the confidence in one's findings. (I agree on that!)

But it's not possible to work with a 100% confidence interval; 95-99% at the best.

I'm the pessimist, the 1-5% guy!

DVC, Henny.

[Duane Thomas]

Well, I guess we've both got to go with what makes sense to us. And that's cool.

[schmitz]

Yep,

USPSA/IPSC-shooting!

DVC, Henny.