Occam's razor

[Nightraider]

Occam's razor simply states that of any given set of explanations for an event occurring, the simplest one is most likely the correct one.

How often do you apply this to reloading? I apply everytime time I sit down at the bench.

A good example, seating primers. Does seating primers require a certain amount of pressure/ depth/ uniformity/ ect? A million answers could be derived or a simple answer of "as long as they don't move on impact, there's little to no difference in ignition among the same primers"

Same thing with powder charges/ loading. Are there a million different ways or do they all rely on the same energy consumption vs production theory and that's too simple to too accept as correct so there's a million different ideas that people have come up with across the span of time to exaggerate that very principle.

Personally the idea that energy consumption and production like to be as close to square as possible and consistancy is king is what drives my reloading views. Cartridges don't care about neck tension, primer depth, turned necks, ect.

Cartridges care about constant consistency and that's it. Are the primers seated to the bottom of the pocket, is the bullet pull weight the same, have you found a node in your powder charge, are your cases all on the same cycle of firing.

I often wonder how much true data is lost because the answers are right in front of us, but we're looking to the horizon.

 

[shb]

The same "force" for lack of a better word that has driven human beings to be the dominant specie on this planet, also drives them to make mountains out of molehills.

 

[Howland]

For every variable characteristic there is an optimal value. Everything else is suboptimal.

 

[riflewoman]

There are two methods of improving your shooting. Shoot more often and shoot better ammunition. If you spend your time perfecting your ammunition, you don’t have time to shoot more often. At some point both methods have diminishing returns. Wisdom is understanding which activity to concentrate your efforts.

 

[jimcasey01]

Your idea is overly simplified. Are you implying that bullet seating depth is the optimum at any depth, as long as they are all the same? Is neck tension always optimal, as long as it is consistent? Yes, they will both go bang, but for those seeking ultimate or even more than casual accuracy, your ideas do not work.

 

[Riesel]

NOW look what you started? That was probably the optimal plan from the get-go

 

[jimmymac]

I apply this to beer. There are so many choices. Free is always best.

 

[dellet]

Occam's razor simply states that of any given set of explanations for an event occurring, the simplest one is most likely the correct one.

How often do you apply this to reloading? I apply everytime time I sit down at the bench.


I often wonder how much true data is lost because the answers are right in front of us, but we're looking to the horizon.

Cartridges don’t care how they are assembled, but barrels do.

 

[dolek]

Sounds like a great theory,if a person strives for mediocre .

 

[Downeast]

As long as you find enjoyment and fun they you are at the optimum and simplest level. Once you lose that the rest is irrelevant.

 

[ebb]

Wow Tony Boyer has been getting it wrong all these years.

 

[ebb]

Please excuse me for being a smart ass. Since this is a forum about precision shooting most people here are trying to be more precise. While simple will make plinking ammo and not waste the time, energy and patience of the reloader. Simple will not win the national benchrest championships. It won't beat Jon Newman, Mike Dugan and Captain Bob out at Indian Hammock range. Why didn't NASA tie John Glenn to the top of a giant bottle rocket? They wanted more than sending a man into space, they wanted him to come back alive. Reloaders here want more than a bang and a bullet going some where,

 

[jds holler]

It seems like a lot of folks pick one particular aspect of the cartridge to go to war over, to the exclusion of several others which may be just as important; or even more. This mentality can get you driving a $100 car with a thousand dollar paint job.

Seems to me that you've got to decrease the inconsistencies in all aspects of the cartridge, and realize that perfection in any one is not only impossible, but probably not the answer. jd

 

[JimSC]

My belief is there are three main components to accurate and precise shooting. The person pulling the trigger, the rifle being used and the ammo. The key to improving scores is recognizing which one leg is the weakest and concentrating time, effort, and money improving that aspect. Even the finest gear and perfect ammo will only take you to a point and after that it is all up to the person pulling the trigger. I can get good groups with my current gear and ammo, but a MOA or even a half MOA group centered on the 8/9 ring is not going to win many F class matches so I know what I need to work on. I really do wish that I could drop a few thousand into gear and after the UPS guy dropped it off all of my groups would be centered on the X ring , but that just isn't going to happen

 

[wkdickinson]

My belief is there are three main components to accurate and precise shooting. The person pulling the trigger, the rifle being used and the ammo. The key to improving scores is recognizing which one leg is the weakest and concentrating time, effort, and money improving that aspect. Even the finest gear and perfect ammo will only take you to a point and after that it is all up to the person pulling the trigger. I can get good groups with my current gear and ammo, but a MOA or even a half MOA group centered on the 8/9 ring is not going to win many F class matches so I know what I need to work on. I really do wish that I could drop a few thousand into gear and after the UPS guy dropped it off all of my groups would be centered on the X ring , but that just isn't going to happen

I agree with you completely and that is why "precision" shooting in whatever discipline, ultimately becomes a never ending progression toward perfection. As you become a better shooter you will need a better rifle, then with a better rifle you will need ammo worthy of it. Once you get ammo that will perform to the level of the rifle, you will likely find that you again have become the weak link in the equation - and so it goes in the pursuit of perfection.

 

[garandman]

Powder charge, bullet seating depth / jump to lands, and concentricity all are significant factors in accuracy, in my first hand experience. All have precise optimal values.

My guess is primer seating depth is likely insignificant.

Neck tension / annealing? I havent got that far into it.

By majoring on the majors I have been able to get all my precision rifle rounds under half moa. That's good enough for me.

 

[JLT]

Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate - Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. That is William of Ockham's maxim, focused on ontological parsimony. From a logical (symbolic), mathematical and engineering standpoint it is quite correct. Hardly the path to mediocrity. It results in elegance of solution. It also comes in really, really handy in theoretical development.

As for how Fr. William's maxim affects our common pursuits and interests, one must be careful to apply The Razor at the appropriate level of granularity. It is not a 'Do it once and the Heavens will sing' sort of thing. It is carried forward in every step of theoretical development. Having graded my share of calculus proofs, I'm here to tell you that one cannot recover from an error's point of origin. I had a big 'BULLSH*T' rubber stamp made up and I used the 'reddest' ink I could find. It saved time and was faithful to Fr. William's maxim.

 

[TC260]

Occam's razor simply states that of any given set of explanations for an event occurring, the simplest one is most likely the correct one.

How often do you apply this to reloading?

Interestingly enough I was listening to a lecture by an MIT machine design professor a few days ago and he brought up Occam's Razor. His point as I understood it was that OR can't decide for you which design to use, but it can be used to guide your design. So if evaluating multiple design ideas, generally speaking start with the simplest and quickest one to prove out the idea, then move out into increasing complexity until the objectives are met.

If you were applying OR to reloading, to use your example of neck turning or neck tension. OR can't tell you they are or are not important simply because it's a less complex reloading process to skip those steps. Applying OR would be something like, define an accuracy objective and start by omitting those steps to quickly evaluate whether the objectives were met without them. If the objective isn't met, then add in additional steps until the objective is met. For a plinker, the accuracy objective can be met with the very simplest of reloading processes. For a short range BR shooter, the accuracy objectives probably aren't going to be met until after a host of case prep operations are added to the basic process.

 

[BDman]

I have a friend that was a very respected and high scoring BR shooter a few years back and he is very good at reloading precise ammo. I have learned a lot from him. He told me that he'd had one barrel that had especially led him to several winning scores. He said that barrel didn't seem to care about neck tension, seat depth or bullet or powder charge (within reason) it just shot everything through the same hole. Looking at some of his winning groups, it was hard to argue.

I've had one (1) barrel that I'd say was like that in about 30 years of shooting but everything else has required some commitment to achieve competition level accuracy. Ockham's idea is far removed from the attention to detail required to shoot through one hole. JMHO