Has cat shooter gone off to dispatch another kitty and not returned? There were a few posts that i thought were ripe and ready for a few encouraging and enlightning words of wisdom that could have best been typed by none other.......
RESPONSE By MODERATOR to CATSHOOTER COMMENTS:
First, I've placed this in the first post so that it's easily visible to all reading the thread, but it's not directed to MPryne's post, but to Catshooters post.
My point in responding is to make clear that there was no conspiracy to silence Catshooter. Far from it. But the simple reality was that, in a FEW situations his posts were not only not helpful but had the potential to steer readers in the WRONG direction.
1) I value Catshooter's participation in this Forum, for the most part. There is no effort to single anybody out.
2) Trust me, I do NOT want to delete posts or edit posts. In an ideal world I would not have to delete ANY post. I have much too much to do otherwise running this site.
3) The reasons posts are deleted or threads locked are very simple--if there is insulting language, or if the information posted is incorrect, is potentially dangerous, or if it contradicts standard industry safety procedures. I have also "truncated threads" which went off into side-subjects that could cause confusion.
Now, as to Catshooter...
A. He claims: "Over time, about 70% of my technical posts have been deleted"
Flat out WRONG. This is utterly without basis in fact. Prove it for yourself.
If you do a member search on the Forum you will find that CatShooter has 880 posts. You will find 7 index pages with hundreds of threads with his posts.
OK, so it turns out Catshooter's posts have NOT been deleted en masse. What else is he confused about?
B. Item 1 -- the use of lubricant while fire-forming. First the stated problem was NOT case separation, but was an inconsistent ignition problem. Catshooter's "information" was deleted because 1) it was inconsistent with general reloading safety procedures that dictate NOT using lubricated cases or "wet chambers". CatShooter can say what he wants, but I will NOT have posts that can confuse novice reloaders and have them adopt procedures which run directly contrary to rifle- and powder-makers' standard safety recommendations.
In addition, I polled multiple, highly respected gunsmiths on this specific issue, as well as technicians at Alliant/CCI. All these persons, to a man, said that the use of lubricated cases, in this particular situation, was 100% wrong, and could actually make the situation worse--namely the issue of inconsistent ignition.
[Other posters DID understand the actual problem,inconsistent ignition) and provided DIFFERENT advice which in fact solved the posters' problem--without running lubed cases in a "wet chamber".]
Catshooter makes this a cornerstone of his complaint, yet he doesn't even get the specifics of the issue correct. And in fact that is one reason why his orginal advice was simply not helpful, and was potentially harmful.
There is a reason ammo and rifle manufacturers emphatically recommend against firing "wet" or lubricated cases or firing rounds in "wet" chambers.
CatShooter Writes: "It does NOT make any difference whether the case is dry or wet with oil".
Tell that to SAAMI... That advice is contrary to standard, universal, industry safety recommendations.
B) The Firing Pin Thread
The issue raised by the original poster was "What is the Firing pin tip protrusion on a Remington 700 bolt?" Catshooter said his info on firing pin protrustion "was all deleted". Not true. His first two posts stating generally accepted lengths are still there--for all to read. Subsequent Catshooter's posts in that recent thread,as well as others' posts) were deleted, and the thread was locked.
Catshooter also claims he had to correct Donovan's assertion that protrusion was .020". This is also false. Donovan said: "Protrusion should be about 0.055",.040 to .060 acceptable)", and "Firing-pin penetration, should be about 0.020".
There was an exchange of comments and Boyd Allen explained that firing pin penetration is not limited by the shoulder: "Actually, when firing a live round, the primer stops the forward motion of the firing pin, not the shoulder in front of the firing pin spring. This is why discussions of excess protrusion causing primer piercing are off base. All excess protrusion does is lessen effective firing pin fall, and slightly reduce the energy imparted to the primer. As an aside, firing pin protrusion is adjustable on Savages like the 110 etc., and Bob Greenleaf, retired Savage engineer, usually sets them at .035."
Catshooter challenged Allen and also disputed Donovan.
CatShooter wrote "Boyd gets no cigar. Do what I described and you will see that Boyds explanation is not true. He is entitled to his opinion, but when you test it, it is not true."
Other authoritative posts established that CatShooter's view was misinformed, i.e. he was plain wrong. Jim Borden said flat out: "Boyd is correct", namely that firing pin travel was NOT limited by the shoulder.
CatShooter then made a number of long posts which really had nothing to do with the primary issue. At best they created confusion and they were not responsive to the point of the thread. But most importantly, Catshooter was simply wrong on the basic technical issue,protrusion vs. penetration) and that's why his further posts were deleted.
So...in this thread, Catshooter's initial posts,with correct information) were left intact, whereas his later posts,with some incorrect information) were deleted. It's as simple as that.
---
Folks, often times Catshooter has very useful and often very illuminating things to say.
Other times his posts have been off-point or technically wrong. On a FEW occasions his posts have been deleted because what he wrote either a) provided the WRONG solution to a question, b) really obscured the real issue in question, and only caused confusion, or c) could cause safety issues.
---
My key responsibility in this Forum is to promote safe firearms use. Whenever a thread creates confusion that could lead to a safety issue or where posts are made which contravene important, basic safety principles, they will be deleted.
As noted above, CatShooter has claimed I've deleted 70% of his posts. That's absolutely false.
CatShooter asserts "I asked the Mod why my stuff was deleted - I mean it was a lot of work, a lot of good, solid information, and the only negative remark I said was "Bad Donovan",which was mild, considering the circumstances, and how much of my time he wasted).
... and he basically said it's his sandbox and that's the way it is."
Again, this is a distortion. What I told him is that I do not have the time to police every thread and to try to modify and edit individual posts. I told him that I have to make quick judgment calls about posts/threads that contain potentially inaccurate, or confusing advice. In fact, I've deleted fewer than a dozen threads this year and most of them had nothing to do with CatShooter. I also told Catshooter that he was welcome to submit technical items to the Bulletin and for other longer technical articles.
----
What it really comes down to is this.
1. Yes, a few of Catshooter's technical posts have been deleted. That was done because I made a determination that the information he wrote was either technically incorrect, or inconsistent with generally accepted safety principles, or that his commentary simply missed the point of the question and created confusion.
He can believe I erred in deleting certain posts, but I did what I thought I had to do. Unlike Catshooter, I will admit that I can make mistakes. But to keep this Forum running I have to make judgments. Trust me I don't make the decision to kill/lock a thread lightly.
2. I explained to CatShooter that the reason I have to act swiftly on threads is that I DO NOT have the time to edit and tweak individual posts. Forum members have overwhelmingly told me that if there is something "sour" in a thread, just close it and move on -- so I can accomplish the more important tasks for this site. The reality is that I was taken away from working on the latest Gun of the Week story to deal with Catshooter's accusations and "Grand Exit". Thanks to him all of you won't have a new feature story to read tomorrow morning.
3. CatShooter is a very smart guy, but on a few occasions he wrote things that were NOT correct and NOT helpful and accordingly posts were deleted or the thread locked.
4. The claim that I have deleted hundreds of irreplaceable nuggets of Catshooter's technical wisdom is a LIE. Trust me, I would rather not have to edit/modify/delete any post by ANY member. I have made the decision that a few of Catshooters' posts were problematical, and I stand by those decisions.
There has been no effort to silence "divergent points of view". Bottom line, Mr. Catshooter cannot admit that on a few occasions he missed the point or wrote something that was simply bad advice.
It is ironic that Catshooter was often the first to aggressively jump down the throat of another forum member whose opinion he,Catshooter) believed to be incorrect. When it comes to criticism, Catshooter loves to dish it out, but he can't take it -- he couldn't accept the notion that sometimes his views were NOT 100% correct, or were completely off-point, or were contrary to important basic safety principles, or created more problems than solutions.
To be honest, I have great respect for Catshooter's smarts and his experience in the optics field. I have actually been very reluctant to edit or delete his comments because of those credentials. But that doesn't mean that Catshooter,or anyone else) always gets things 100% right, or that he always posts in a manner that is on-point, constructive, and helpful.
We all have egos, but most Forum members do not suffer from the notion that they are infallible or that their store of knowledge is ALWAYS superior to anyone else. Most of us can accept the fact that, now and then, a post can be problematical even if it has some good aspects to it. With Catshooter, I think it's black and white. He strongly believes he's always right. Hence if one of his posts gets deleted he believes a great injustice has been done.
The reality is I bent over backward to let him have his say on this Forum, and when in the rare instance I deleted one of his posts it was because that particular post really did more harm than good, or simply served to confuse the situation and undermine other members' posts which were actually MORE helpful and more technically correct,in terms of the actual issue being discussed).
---
My final word is that moderating a Forum, any Forum, is a tough job. Long hours, no pay, and you have to keep thousands of people happy while dealing with some pretty strong egos. And in the firearms arena, add the responsibility of trying to keep people from blowing themselves up. Bottom line is I believe Catshooter was treated MORE than fairly, and I deleted posts when I felt it was in the best interests of the Forum and the site.
Trust me, I would love to never have to delete a post or close a thread. But I think we all know how quickly things could get ugly if this forum became a free-for-all.
RESPONSE By MODERATOR to CATSHOOTER COMMENTS:
First, I've placed this in the first post so that it's easily visible to all reading the thread, but it's not directed to MPryne's post, but to Catshooters post.
My point in responding is to make clear that there was no conspiracy to silence Catshooter. Far from it. But the simple reality was that, in a FEW situations his posts were not only not helpful but had the potential to steer readers in the WRONG direction.
1) I value Catshooter's participation in this Forum, for the most part. There is no effort to single anybody out.
2) Trust me, I do NOT want to delete posts or edit posts. In an ideal world I would not have to delete ANY post. I have much too much to do otherwise running this site.
3) The reasons posts are deleted or threads locked are very simple--if there is insulting language, or if the information posted is incorrect, is potentially dangerous, or if it contradicts standard industry safety procedures. I have also "truncated threads" which went off into side-subjects that could cause confusion.
Now, as to Catshooter...
A. He claims: "Over time, about 70% of my technical posts have been deleted"
Flat out WRONG. This is utterly without basis in fact. Prove it for yourself.
If you do a member search on the Forum you will find that CatShooter has 880 posts. You will find 7 index pages with hundreds of threads with his posts.
OK, so it turns out Catshooter's posts have NOT been deleted en masse. What else is he confused about?
B. Item 1 -- the use of lubricant while fire-forming. First the stated problem was NOT case separation, but was an inconsistent ignition problem. Catshooter's "information" was deleted because 1) it was inconsistent with general reloading safety procedures that dictate NOT using lubricated cases or "wet chambers". CatShooter can say what he wants, but I will NOT have posts that can confuse novice reloaders and have them adopt procedures which run directly contrary to rifle- and powder-makers' standard safety recommendations.
In addition, I polled multiple, highly respected gunsmiths on this specific issue, as well as technicians at Alliant/CCI. All these persons, to a man, said that the use of lubricated cases, in this particular situation, was 100% wrong, and could actually make the situation worse--namely the issue of inconsistent ignition.
[Other posters DID understand the actual problem,inconsistent ignition) and provided DIFFERENT advice which in fact solved the posters' problem--without running lubed cases in a "wet chamber".]
Catshooter makes this a cornerstone of his complaint, yet he doesn't even get the specifics of the issue correct. And in fact that is one reason why his orginal advice was simply not helpful, and was potentially harmful.
There is a reason ammo and rifle manufacturers emphatically recommend against firing "wet" or lubricated cases or firing rounds in "wet" chambers.
CatShooter Writes: "It does NOT make any difference whether the case is dry or wet with oil".
Tell that to SAAMI... That advice is contrary to standard, universal, industry safety recommendations.
B) The Firing Pin Thread
The issue raised by the original poster was "What is the Firing pin tip protrusion on a Remington 700 bolt?" Catshooter said his info on firing pin protrustion "was all deleted". Not true. His first two posts stating generally accepted lengths are still there--for all to read. Subsequent Catshooter's posts in that recent thread,as well as others' posts) were deleted, and the thread was locked.
Catshooter also claims he had to correct Donovan's assertion that protrusion was .020". This is also false. Donovan said: "Protrusion should be about 0.055",.040 to .060 acceptable)", and "Firing-pin penetration, should be about 0.020".
There was an exchange of comments and Boyd Allen explained that firing pin penetration is not limited by the shoulder: "Actually, when firing a live round, the primer stops the forward motion of the firing pin, not the shoulder in front of the firing pin spring. This is why discussions of excess protrusion causing primer piercing are off base. All excess protrusion does is lessen effective firing pin fall, and slightly reduce the energy imparted to the primer. As an aside, firing pin protrusion is adjustable on Savages like the 110 etc., and Bob Greenleaf, retired Savage engineer, usually sets them at .035."
Catshooter challenged Allen and also disputed Donovan.
CatShooter wrote "Boyd gets no cigar. Do what I described and you will see that Boyds explanation is not true. He is entitled to his opinion, but when you test it, it is not true."
Other authoritative posts established that CatShooter's view was misinformed, i.e. he was plain wrong. Jim Borden said flat out: "Boyd is correct", namely that firing pin travel was NOT limited by the shoulder.
CatShooter then made a number of long posts which really had nothing to do with the primary issue. At best they created confusion and they were not responsive to the point of the thread. But most importantly, Catshooter was simply wrong on the basic technical issue,protrusion vs. penetration) and that's why his further posts were deleted.
So...in this thread, Catshooter's initial posts,with correct information) were left intact, whereas his later posts,with some incorrect information) were deleted. It's as simple as that.
---
Folks, often times Catshooter has very useful and often very illuminating things to say.
Other times his posts have been off-point or technically wrong. On a FEW occasions his posts have been deleted because what he wrote either a) provided the WRONG solution to a question, b) really obscured the real issue in question, and only caused confusion, or c) could cause safety issues.
---
My key responsibility in this Forum is to promote safe firearms use. Whenever a thread creates confusion that could lead to a safety issue or where posts are made which contravene important, basic safety principles, they will be deleted.
As noted above, CatShooter has claimed I've deleted 70% of his posts. That's absolutely false.
CatShooter asserts "I asked the Mod why my stuff was deleted - I mean it was a lot of work, a lot of good, solid information, and the only negative remark I said was "Bad Donovan",which was mild, considering the circumstances, and how much of my time he wasted).
... and he basically said it's his sandbox and that's the way it is."
Again, this is a distortion. What I told him is that I do not have the time to police every thread and to try to modify and edit individual posts. I told him that I have to make quick judgment calls about posts/threads that contain potentially inaccurate, or confusing advice. In fact, I've deleted fewer than a dozen threads this year and most of them had nothing to do with CatShooter. I also told Catshooter that he was welcome to submit technical items to the Bulletin and for other longer technical articles.
----
What it really comes down to is this.
1. Yes, a few of Catshooter's technical posts have been deleted. That was done because I made a determination that the information he wrote was either technically incorrect, or inconsistent with generally accepted safety principles, or that his commentary simply missed the point of the question and created confusion.
He can believe I erred in deleting certain posts, but I did what I thought I had to do. Unlike Catshooter, I will admit that I can make mistakes. But to keep this Forum running I have to make judgments. Trust me I don't make the decision to kill/lock a thread lightly.
2. I explained to CatShooter that the reason I have to act swiftly on threads is that I DO NOT have the time to edit and tweak individual posts. Forum members have overwhelmingly told me that if there is something "sour" in a thread, just close it and move on -- so I can accomplish the more important tasks for this site. The reality is that I was taken away from working on the latest Gun of the Week story to deal with Catshooter's accusations and "Grand Exit". Thanks to him all of you won't have a new feature story to read tomorrow morning.
3. CatShooter is a very smart guy, but on a few occasions he wrote things that were NOT correct and NOT helpful and accordingly posts were deleted or the thread locked.
4. The claim that I have deleted hundreds of irreplaceable nuggets of Catshooter's technical wisdom is a LIE. Trust me, I would rather not have to edit/modify/delete any post by ANY member. I have made the decision that a few of Catshooters' posts were problematical, and I stand by those decisions.
There has been no effort to silence "divergent points of view". Bottom line, Mr. Catshooter cannot admit that on a few occasions he missed the point or wrote something that was simply bad advice.
It is ironic that Catshooter was often the first to aggressively jump down the throat of another forum member whose opinion he,Catshooter) believed to be incorrect. When it comes to criticism, Catshooter loves to dish it out, but he can't take it -- he couldn't accept the notion that sometimes his views were NOT 100% correct, or were completely off-point, or were contrary to important basic safety principles, or created more problems than solutions.
To be honest, I have great respect for Catshooter's smarts and his experience in the optics field. I have actually been very reluctant to edit or delete his comments because of those credentials. But that doesn't mean that Catshooter,or anyone else) always gets things 100% right, or that he always posts in a manner that is on-point, constructive, and helpful.
We all have egos, but most Forum members do not suffer from the notion that they are infallible or that their store of knowledge is ALWAYS superior to anyone else. Most of us can accept the fact that, now and then, a post can be problematical even if it has some good aspects to it. With Catshooter, I think it's black and white. He strongly believes he's always right. Hence if one of his posts gets deleted he believes a great injustice has been done.
The reality is I bent over backward to let him have his say on this Forum, and when in the rare instance I deleted one of his posts it was because that particular post really did more harm than good, or simply served to confuse the situation and undermine other members' posts which were actually MORE helpful and more technically correct,in terms of the actual issue being discussed).
---
My final word is that moderating a Forum, any Forum, is a tough job. Long hours, no pay, and you have to keep thousands of people happy while dealing with some pretty strong egos. And in the firearms arena, add the responsibility of trying to keep people from blowing themselves up. Bottom line is I believe Catshooter was treated MORE than fairly, and I deleted posts when I felt it was in the best interests of the Forum and the site.
Trust me, I would love to never have to delete a post or close a thread. But I think we all know how quickly things could get ugly if this forum became a free-for-all.