Quote:
Originally Posted by Jellybean
My use of the term "rocket science" wasn't about rockets either, although the science behind rockets and artillery are somewhat similar. And engineering is a science.
The engineers that determine the load data we use are not a group of morons that go by trial and error and are fully aware of variances that are involved in reloading and that some reloaders don't feel the need to follow their data because some internet expert told them a better way to do it. Trying to explain the science involved in reloading would be a waste of time for most reloaders so the engineers generate the data and explain how to use it so that it's simple to understand, and include information about safety, accuracy and how different components can affect the end result, and it's been like that for over a century. Component manufacturers also often include information about their specific products in their reloading manuals.
BTW, Hodgdon isn't a major reloading component manufacturer, so their data would come from the companies that actually make their products.
|
Thank you SO much for providing me with a working definition of "engineer". As someone who has an engineering degree I was totally clueless.
FWIW, Engineering is NOT a science. Engineering is the APPLICATION of science to real-world problems. SCIENTISTS make discoveries, through postulating and testing theories to prove or disprove their validity. This is the definition of the scientific method.
On the other hand, ENGINEERS find ways to APPLY those scientific discoveries to solve problems. Better, faster, cheaper. That is the mantra of the engineer. Personally, I've only been using my engineering degree to pursue those 3 objectives for around 30 years now. What can I say, I got kind of a late start in life. So please, tell me more about the relationship between science and engineering...
All that being said, the whole point here, is that for those of us who actually reload, the EXPERIMENTING (science) part of reloading has already been done. With the exception of those few hardy souls who develop wildcat cartridges, we are just following the proven powder, primer, and bullet combinations listed in the reloading manuals we all read and do our best to follow. HOWEVER, even those RECIPES allow for some variation and substitutions that fall within the range of what is SAFE. The linked article from Hodgdon's site simply confirms that they agree that this is so.
Hodgdon is one of the largest producers of smokeless "canister" powders in the world. They are the parent company to IMR, Winchester, Ramshot, Accurate, Blackhorn, and Triple-Seven. If producing and selling that many of the common canister powders and propellants that reloaders and black powder enthusiasts use doesn't make them a major player in the world of reloading components, then I'd really love to hear who you think WOULD fit that definition. OK, so maybe they don't actually
manufacture those products, they are still publishing the data and assuming the liability, so semantics aside, they are still a reliable source of reloading data. So then your point would be....?
Lastly, while there is some crossover and even similarities between the principles of rocket science and ballistics, they are not one and the same. Anyone who insists that they are is simply revealing their ignorance of both disciplines.
Linear Mode
