Bill Lawrence wrote on Aug 18^th, 2018 at 12:59am:


Of course, everybody should!  (Although modern education, beginning in grade school, teaches exactly the opposite--thus most of the Founding Fathers are now condemned for owning slaves, when that was the social system they grew up in!  Look up "presentism" is you've never heard that term--the college instructor who doesn't preach it will soon be out of a job.)

As I previously said, I very much want to give Harve the benefit of the doubt.  But if you knew as much, probably more, than the man who has become famous for the books & articles he's written, would it not be natural to feel some envy, some sense of life's injustice?  People who wouldn't are probably destined to become monks.  Harvey's only book, remember, was published after his death.  That's my interpretation of the questionable remarks Water's discussed in his Handloader article.

Incidentally, "print the legend," not the factual truth, is a pernicious philosophy--it means "what most (ignorant) people believe" is more important than what actually happened.  Of course, it's an immensely popular philosophy because it affirms what the majority want to believe.  Thus "the legend" of the greatest demagogue & rabble-rouser this country has ever produced--who else but MLK?--is taught in every schoolroom in the country, & the FBI tapes which reveal what kind of man he really was are suppressed because they conflict with "the legend."

Redsetter wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 11:01pm:

Come on Redsetter. I don't have a perfectly preserved stash of thirty to forty something year old powder and components to dig into when I take his original sporting rifles to the range. But, I did pick up the Handloader DVD set because it's quicker to sort through than a bunch of magazines or the Pet Loads compilations.

I much prefer reading and appreciating Water's articles than any up to date load data. My long time thinking has been that pretty much all the things that I'm interested in are approached as if they are individual wildcats, but I don't discount lab results. Do you shoot other folks reloads? I do, but not as a routine, it's not always so easy to tell what you're getting.

Fitz / OleTuck you were indeed correct it was the Lyman Reloading Handbook 43rd edition 1964. The 32-40 recommend load 20-24 grains Unique. The below link should take you to a gentleman who blew up his newly purchased original 32-40 HiWall on his very first shot and his story. Fitz if this is not the same rifle you and I were thinking about it would make for two known destroyed.

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

JLouis

Dellet wrote on Aug 18^th, 2018 at 1:20pm:


Nothing funny about that idea--it's an excellent one, & thanks for posting that link!  I'm going to try contacting the man identified as the city historian next week, to obtain, if possible, a copy of that "Stevens history" written in 1942 that he referred to--don't remember seeing any other reference to that document, whatever it is.

Redsetter wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 11:01pm:

What source(s) are you referring to, Redsetter, when you state Waters "personal shooting & loading experience FAR exceeded that of any technician in a ballistics lab."  ?
Did any of Waters data go to a lab for testing before publication?
Have you actually contacted and spoken with any ballistics labs techs, and if so, who were they and where did they work, and what data did they provide to you that allowed you to make your statement about Waters?

Is this the Roberts load in question? I have never shot smokless so don't know but I have it marked in the book as unsafe.
pg 234 32-40 16-18gr. 4227 with various 185-200gr breech seated bullets.
and on pg 235, 33-40 the same data, except bullet weight.

Also, I seem to remember reading years ago the "Winchester fire" was done in the 60's by I think FN or who ever was the current owner, to clear up some storage space.

Dellet wrote on Aug 18^th, 2018 at 5:45pm:


But Grant never to my knowledge cites his source for the story of the fire.  I would imagine he began his research when there were former Stevens employees around to be interviewed--they might well be his source for this info., but he would have added credibility by stating something like "I was told by so & so, former such & such at the Stevens factory, that this is how it happened."

Kyser's info bears quite a resemblance to Kenneth Cope's work on Stevens pistols & pocket rifles; makes me wonder if Cope used Kyser's work as one of his sources, though his name is not listed in Cope's bibliography.