View Single Post
 
Old 03-13-2017, 07:07 AM
DumpStick DumpStick is offline
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Oklahoma, on a dirt road.
Posts: 389
Likes: 214
Liked 606 Times in 220 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forrest r View Post
If you ever are around long enough to test your own lubes & alloys for a specific bullet/powder/firearm combo. You would have a very different real world take on what you read.

I'm not talking 50 or 100 test rounds. I'm talking 1000's of the same bullet/powder/firearm combo over decades of testing/shooting.

Some see theory because they don't have enough knowledge/experience to know any difference.
And some see evidence in support of a theory for exactly what it is : evidence in support of a theory.

Face it, if anybody had proof of what was happening, they would say something like this -
" Here is my video/photo showing the lube inside the barrel doing 'X' "

or-

"Here is my pressure graph from inside the barrel, showing the instant that the lube does 'Y' inside the barrel."

That proof simply does not exist.

Just because the proof doesn't exist does not mean that your favorite theory isn't true, it just means you can't prove it. As I stated about the LASC article, it is a very logical theory. He does show evidence to support it. It sounds good, and may very well be what is happening.

It's just that proof is lacking. Which is why it's a theory.

And, notice I did that without calling into question anyone's knowledge, or experience.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post: