View Single Post
Old June 7, 2014, 08:49 AM   #51
Clark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 1999
Location: WA, the ever blue state
Posts: 4,678
When I started reading a gun list rec.guns on usenet on a Sun workstation at work in 1992, I thought everything I read was too extravagant.
But on issue by issue I came around.
Leupold scopes cost over $100, that was nuts, but within a few years, I owned one.
Cheap bullets
Cheap barrels
Cheap stocks
Cheap dies

All of those can get eliminated with 3 shot groups.

And now after 22 years of reading Bart's posts that I need more than 3 shots in a group... I am now realizing why I have never been able to measure an improvement from my current list of wasted effort:

1) True the action face
2) true the inner C ring
3) lap the lugs
4) true the bolt face
5) chase the threads
6) speed up the lock time
7) glass bed the action
8) pillar bed the action
9) get a 1 ounce trigger
10) turn the case necks
11) weigh the brass
12) de burr the flash holes
13) weigh each powder charge
14) try different powders
15) use benchrest primers
16) lap the scope rings.
17) Dial in bore when chambering
18) re crown the muzzle

But if I shot 20 shot groups, I could probably move at least one more accuracy ritual from the waste of time column to the part of my act column.
__________________
The word 'forum" does not mean "not criticizing books."
"Ad hominem fallacy" is not the same as point by point criticism of books. If you bought the book, and believe it all, it may FEEL like an ad hominem attack, but you might strive to accept other points of view may exist.
Are we a nation of competing ideas, or a nation of forced conformity of thought?
Clark is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03832 seconds with 8 queries