Exposing some Internet Myths

[Crimp]

Myth #14: You can't shoot lead in a Glock.

Someone had to say it

 

[CryingWolf]

#4 revisited

The site Box O' Truth begs to differ. Although the author's experiment wasn't totally about killing primers. I have no idea who is correct here but I have the belief that not all primers are created equal. Like Myth Busters you say Myth Busted without taking every primer into account. Obviously there might be at least one small pistol primer who is affected by WD-40 in at least a small way. There are a few variables which the author did not disclose while soaking the primers in WD-40; how long, how much, did he let them dry out or did he load them right away? Because I don't have the time or resources right now to research the WD-40 vs primers fact or fiction I am assuming you did and came to your conclusions. I am looking forward to seeing your conclusive evidence that all primers can be soaked in WD-40 and still fire. OK, I'll let you off the hook and just say that there is at least one primer out there that could survive good soak in a WD-40 bath.

With all this said I do believe that some manufactures may seal their primers with something to protect them from things like water, coffee, tea, milk, orange juice or WD-40. I would not take the risk of just using WD-40 in an attempt to kill the primer and then simply throw it away in an unsafe matter. I sort of like the idea of shooting them up.

 

[ranger335v]

The practice of tinkling down the tube to flush out black powder fouling goes back to at least the late 1700s. Even flint lock muskets would get too fouled for loading during heavy combat so they used the best option they had but it wasn't a routine practice.

I refuse to load my ammo by using the base of the bullets for an expander for necks of varying inside diameter. Since absolutely nothing is always right nor always wrong for reloading and load development, I accept that other users may have different results with specific components and rifles. But button sizing of unturned necks without using an expander seems to be one of the least likely ideas to work very often. I'm one of those who caution against it and will continue to do so but your mileage may vary.

 

[Slamfire]

MYTH #2 – THE .308 IS INHERENTLY MORE ACCURATE THAN THE .30-06. I am well aware of the article by Bart Bobbit that was posted over 11 years ago, and makes comparisons between the two cartridges that go back 50+ years. In any comparison of the two cartridges as they were loaded in that time period for the M14 and M1, I am in complete agreement that in perhaps 9 times out of 10, in rifles of comparable accuracy, the .308 will exhibit slightly greater accuracy. However, once you remove the criteria that the .30-06 cartridge must be loaded down so as to be suitable for firing in a M1 Garand (bullet less than 180 grains and a powder no slower than 4064), you can essentially remake the .30-06 into a cartridge that is much better suited to it’s case capacity

I have always thought the airspace in the 30-06 was the cause of the higher dispersions reported by the American Rifleman in the 1960's. They use to post lot acceptance targets, about 600 rounds at 600 yards, with NM ammo. The 30-06 was loaded with 47.0 grains IMR 4895, which of course did not fill the case.

Now I have shot a lot of 55.0 grains IMR 4350 with 168's and 175's. The standard deviations are not that much different from the 4895 data, but there is almost no airspace in the case. So I have always wondered if that load was inherently more accurate.

For me though, sight alignment and trigger pull made much more of a different on target than whether I was firing 308 or 30-06.

 

[Slamfire]

I used to hear this on alot, so I suggest it as a Myth #15

Long Barrels are more accurate than Short Barrels.

I don't hear that as much since the AR was developed into an accurate rifle.

 

[USSR]

I refuse to load my ammo by using the base of the bullets for an expander for necks of varying inside diameter.

Everytime you seat a bullet in a case, you are using the base of the bullet as an expander for the neck. Otherwise, you would have zero neck tension. So, the question becomes, does it do any harm (accuracy-wise) to expand a neck with a bullet in which the inside neck measurement varies by 0.0005" to 0.001"? My testing at 1,000 yards over the past 5 years says "No".

Don

 

[kennedy]

better idea for using the windex method is to push cleaning rod thru barrel from the chamber end, with rod in barrel and tip exposed, put on cleaning patch and dip into a bowl of windex and pull it thru the barrel, do this a couple of times then clean gun using your regular method. Doing it this way keeps you from spilling windex in your action and under the wood. you can also use a Q-tip dipped in windex to clean the bolt face. All you are trying to do is neutralize the salts from the primers.

 

[zxcvbob]

All you are trying to do is neutralize the salts from the primers.

Dissolve and flush away the salts.

 

[rcmodel]

+1
You can't "neutralize" salt.
You have to wash all traces of it out.

rcmodel

 

[lamazza]

I never heard the water kills primers legend, but I always thought that oil is supposed to kill them.
Does anyone know the truth or falsity of that one?

 

[Cosmoline]

Boy that's a good question. All I know is if I fail to blast out the bore of my Mosin at the end of a range day with corrosive ammo, there WILL be rust in the bore. But if I've sprayed M-Pro in there, the rust never happens. I know I'm not spraying enough to make the salts wash out, so I'm assuming it must be dissolving them.