Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Gordon R said:

panoma 1 is a respected opinion on this Forum and I have to say I find your posts, criticising him, to be patronising in the extreme.

 

PS - Are you sure you mean that

Nope, t9 took it out of context and translate at its own leisure.

I'm a man of science, I don't do assumptions especially on matters concerning explosives and similar. I do researches which last month's and speak facts not fantasies (i.e. itx doesn't exist. Its either itx-10 or itx-13)

I don't think you'd go to a doctor and assume your illness and try to convince him your right would you? 

He's been patronising the whole time when I quoted the manufacturer and retailers own researches (which come from a US wide reputable company with years of experience and paid engineers dedicated to developing components and loads); he also try to do so with my own research and evidence based claims with no proof other than assumptions.. I don't think it's me in the wrong.

Appreciate he's a reputable member with knowledge on other fields and I do respect people's own ideas but only when they are based on solid evidence, fact or scientific proof which is not the case. Fantasy and witchery are not something I value. Everyone has its own field of expertise (you probably won't read me on other forums as I recognise my lack of knowledge on other fields)otherwise we could all be a surgeons or aerospace engineers.. but it's not the case, is it?

Edited by Continental Shooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Continental Shooter said:

Yeah I think you better leaving it, for the sake of others. You still bangin on about stuff you 'ASSUME' without any knowledge base or research. And this is dangerous in relaoding. You're not even able to quote a single reputable source you spoke with and you didn't buy/download the manual to acculturate yourselve on what you put through your gun, yet, you still feel the right to challenge the manufacrurer research and claims....

FYI: You can't just buy itx, it doesn't exist in the market (or you've been duped by dodgy seller) it's clearly labeled itx-10 and itx-13 exactly to avoid dangerous confusions where they are different material with different ballistic and physical components and marketed for reloading with different materials and loads.

Obviously, and with all due respect, it appears homework were superficial at best and lacking basic understanding. Also, not knowing the difference in hardness of the two materials you purchased (as you assume) shows great lack of understanding and research. 

This is the problem, people feel free to showcase their lack of knowledge and share it endlessly, ending up arguing when challanged with evidence based info.

Until proven otherwise, or BPI backtracking on their claim, itx-10 CAN be shot without protection that is the only truth, everything else is just conjectures and assumptions.

If a full shot cup makes you feel more secure, fine; if it gives you better pattern, fine. But definitely not required

Well that is quite a personal attack! To which I feel obligated, reluctantly, to respond.

I thought I was debating an issue with a rational person, obviously not!
 

Firstly, contrary to you accusations, I am assuming nothing, all the information I have posted on here comes not from me, but from long-standing, reputable reloading sources.

Secondly, I used up the ITX I purchased years ago. When I purchased it from a reputable reloading source, as far as I recollect it was just labelled ITX, presumably because it was the only ITX then on the market, there was no such thing then as ITX13, so why would the manufacturer need to label it ITX 10?......the same reputable reloading source provided a description of the shot (being harder than ITM) and reloading data!

Unlike you, I do not claim to know everything, I don’t! Although I do not do much reloading now (it’s no longer financially advantageous in 12 bore!) I have been reloading successfully since the mid 1970’s, so don’t presume to try to “teach your grandmother to suck eggs”

The fact that I use a protective, totally enclosed wad for all tungsten based shot, demonstrates I err on the safety side, you on the other hand, advocating using a tungsten based shot without a protective wad, is contrary to the advice I have been given from reputable UK reloading sources, and therefor in my opinion irresponsible!

Please explain why your research and information sources should take precedent over and be more accurate and scientifically relevant than mine?..........rather than quoting your choice of other people’s claims as gospel, perhaps if you provide the results of your own proven peer reviewed scientific evidence, no one could then dispute it........otherwise your claims hold no more relevance than mine!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Continental Shooter said:

Nope, t9 took it out of context and translate at its own leisure.

I'm a man of science, I don't do assumptions especially on matters concerning explosives and similar. I do researches which last month's and speak facts not fantasies (i.e. itx doesn't exist. Its either itx-10 or itx-13) When I purchased it years ago from a reputable reloading source it was, if I recall correctly just labelled ITX

I don't think you'd go to a doctor and assume your illness and try to convince him your right would you? Strange as you may find it a good friend of mine did just that, by asking for a second specialist opinion and being proven right! He has now received the correct diagnosis and is receiving the correct treatment!

He's been patronising the whole time when I quoted the manufacturer and retailers own researches (which come from a US wide reputable company with years of experience and paid engineers dedicated to developing components and loads); he also try to do so with my own research and evidence based claims with no proof other than assumptions.. I don't think it's me in the wrong. Manufacturers and retailers are not independent sources, they are trying to market a product! 

I do respect people and their own ideas only when they are based on solid evidence, fact or scientific proof which is not the case. Fantasy and witchery are not something I value Everyone has its own field of expertise otherwise we could all be a surgeons or aerospace engineers.. but it's not the case, is it? If I may enquire, what are your scientific qualifications, perhaps you would point us to your own peer reviewed scientific papers proving your claims.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Continental Shooter said:

Nope, t9 took it out of context and translate at its own leisure.

I'm a man of science, I don't do assumptions especially on matters concerning explosives and similar. I do researches which last month's and speak facts not fantasies (i.e. itx doesn't exist. Its either itx-10 or itx-13)

I don't think you'd go to a doctor and assume your illness and try to convince him your right would you? 

He's been patronising the whole time when I quoted the manufacturer and retailers own researches (which come from a US wide reputable company with years of experience and paid engineers dedicated to developing components and loads); he also try to do so with my own research and evidence based claims with no proof other than assumptions.. I don't think it's me in the wrong.

Appreciate he's a reputable member with knowledge on other fields and I do respect people's own ideas but only when they are based on solid evidence, fact or scientific proof which is not the case. Fantasy and witchery are not something I value. Everyone has its own field of expertise (you probably won't read me on other forums as I recognise my lack of knowledge on other fields)otherwise we could all be a surgeons or aerospace engineers.. but it's not the case, is it?

Toungsten is supper hard and the polymer or iron or syntered toungsten based shots which ITX is on be it 10 weight or 13 its an abrasive and will do damage to any barrel even a hard chrome barrel if it is used in a non protective wad . you might get away with a heavy maylar or similar wrapper , but its best in a protective cup/ bucket wad like TPS  B&P 35 / 32 or similar steel style wadding. to use it in felt or conventional lead style plaswads would be a bad idea if you want to look after your bores.   I dont care what you say or what you do but don’t give out misinformation that could lead to some damage long term or otherwise to some one else’s gun.

 I can not believe for a second you would use any such toungsten based shot in the way you describe , so why put out claims and then slate off what others are trying to say.  Its ridiculous. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first read Continental Shooter's posts, I thought the style and tone were merely odd, but now find them over the top. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MARSH GUN said:

Toungsten is supper hard and the polymer or iron or syntered toungsten based shots which ITX is on be it 10 weight or 13 its an abrasive and will do damage to any barrel even a hard chrome barrel if it is used in a non protective wad . you might get away with a heavy maylar or similar wrapper , but its best in a protective cup/ bucket wad like TPS  B&P 35 / 32 or similar steel style wadding. to use it in felt or conventional lead style plaswads would be a bad idea if you want to look after your bores.   I dont care what you say or what you do but don’t give out misinformation that could lead to some damage long term or otherwise to some one else’s gun.

 I can not believe for a second you would use any such toungsten based shot in the way you describe , so why put out claims and then slate off what others are trying to say.  Its ridiculous. 

 

Because it's not my claim, is the manufacturer. Please read the manual or contact the manufacturer as I did. As mentioned before,and proved on email, BPI -whom hold the patent- do confir it's fine to shoot without shot cup or mylar, regardless of what your assumptions are.

Edited by Continental Shooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, panoma1 said:

 

I've already disclosed my qualifications on previous posts including placements in Italian manufacturers and produced emails from my contacts in those companies which no one else could have access to. I also produced email from BPI themselves in my earlier posts.

As I said, these are not my claims, I just did my research based on BPI's claims which returned consistent results to those published by BPI

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

When I first read Continental Shooter's posts, I thought the style and tone were merely odd, but now find them over the top. 

Apologies if my English is not to your taste. It was sufficient to get me a degree at Edinburgh uni and get me several jobs in project and global companies so, always thought it was good enough. I'll attempt to moderate my tones going forward, in line with others. As I said, I really struggle to discuss constructively with those who only work on assumptions and discredit other people knowledge and work (i.e. BPI own scientists and engineers, or any other scientist or evidence based conclusion). I recognise my limitation but I'm used to discuss with people who know the subject they talk about and produce solid data to back their claims.

Edited by Continental Shooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am unclear what your degree has got to do with the tone of your posts. If it was intended to impress - it didn't, unless it was in ballistics. If it was an English degree, they must be giving them away.  I think panoma 1 is used to discussing his subject with people of equal knowledge and can hold his own. Your dismissive comments do nothing whatsoever to further your cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Continental Shooter said:

Because it's not my claim, is the manufacturer. Please read the manual or contact the manufacturer before writing random stuff

Why? Are you seriously suggesting the manufacturers are going to publicise any negatives about the product they are trying to sell? I bet you believe it when the manufacturers advertising blurb tells you “you can’t tell stork from butter” or that “Phyllosan fortifies the over forties” or umteen  other past dubious manufacturers claims?

As you inform us you are a scientist, have you got your independently peer reviewed evidence, I asked you to post, which disproves my claims and proves yours?....

Further to this, I have now consulted my extremely comprehensive reloading data, and printed with the ITX data is (no mention of ITX10, ITX13 or anything else!) and I quote..........

“It is recommended by Ballistic Products Inc., that when reloading with ITX shot it should be fully enclosed within a wad or a wrap” 😉

 

Edited by panoma1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Continental Shooter said:

Because it's not my claim, is the manufacturer. Please read the manual or contact the manufacturer as I did. As mentioned before,and proved on email, BPI -whom hold the patent- do confir it's fine to shoot without shot cup or mylar, regardless of what your assumptions are.

If BPI accept it or not is not here or there, what will happen is that just in front of the forcing cones abrasion from the tungsten based shot will start by looking Etched/ matt this over time will get worse and eventually become warn its removing mettal in a wad it wont be a problem just leave some plastic fouling right in front of the forcing comes. 

 The choke areas /choke tubes themselves will see similar etching with the abrasive tungsten.

Cladding/ plating the ITX with nickel or copper if thick enough to avoid rubbing through in the internal ballistics cycle could in theory prevent contact with the tungsten powder , but even then it wont be as sure fire preventative as a fully protective steel type plaswad or modern biodegradable fibre cup.

  You do as you like but the smart shooters will walk straight past BPIs and your claims and take steps to prevent that or similar shot from contacting their bores.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MARSH GUN said:

If BPI accept it or not is not here or there, what will happen is that just in front of the forcing cones abrasion from the tungsten based shot will start by looking Etched/ matt this over time will get worse and eventually become warn its removing mettal in a wad it wont be a problem just leave some plastic fouling right in front of the forcing comes. 

 The choke areas /choke tubes themselves will see similar etching with the abrasive tungsten.

Cladding/ plating the ITX with nickel or copper if thick enough to avoid rubbing through in the internal ballistics cycle could in theory prevent contact with the tungsten powder , but even then it wont be as sure fire preventative as a fully protective steel type plaswad or modern biodegradable fibre cup.

  You do as you like but the smart shooters will walk straight past BPIs and your claims and take steps to prevent that or similar shot from contacting their bores.

 

I just wish to remind you that any claim on patented products can be subject to class act meaning every entity private or public can claim compensation against the claim. I don't think BPI are preparer able.to afford the likes of Beretta and all its entities claiming compensation on all scored barrels across the globe. Also, BPI said on the email I posted that mylar can be used should you wish to do so... Nothing strange there, I do use it with cup.wad for pattern density reasons. 

2 hours ago, panoma1 said:

Why? Are you seriously suggesting the manufacturers are going to publicise any negatives about the product they are trying to sell? I bet you believe it when the manufacturers advertising blurb tells you “you can’t tell stork from butter” or that “Phyllosan fortifies the over forties” or umteen  other past dubious manufacturers claims?

As you inform us you are a scientist, have you got your independently peer reviewed evidence, I asked you to post, which disproves my claims and proves yours?....

Further to this, I have now consulted my extremely comprehensive reloading data, and printed with the ITX data is (no mention of ITX10, ITX13 or anything else!) and I quote..........

“It is recommended by Ballistic Products Inc., that when reloading with ITX shot it should be fully enclosed within a wad or a wrap” 😉

 

I will ask my source of he's willing to share it pending a fully binding NDA and your fully compliant GDPR disclosure

Can you confir you're able to provide those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Continental Shooter said:

 

I will ask my source of he's willing to share it pending a fully binding NDA and your fully compliant GDPR disclosure

Can you confir you're able to provide those?

What on earth are you talking about? Lol! 😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

What on earth are you talking about? Lol! 😜

Ahah nothing just a few legal bits. People in certain fields are somewhat jealous of their papers and that's why I never disclose names, I can't afford to get in trouble, especially so close to brexit lol😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Continental Shooter said:

Ahah nothing just a few legal bits. People in certain fields are somewhat jealous of their papers and that's why I never disclose names, I can't afford to get in trouble, especially so close to brexit lol😂

I know what the General Data Protection Regs 2018 is, and I know what a non disclosure agreement is too!......I was taking the proverbial! 😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

“It is recommended by Ballistic Products Inc., that when reloading with ITX shot it should be fully enclosed within a wad or a wrap” 😉

Game, set and match, unless an industry scientist breaks cover and fesses up.

I love the "legal bit". Unless you agree to this that and the other, then my source will remain silent etc etc.

Schoolboy stuff. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Game, set and match, unless an industry scientist breaks cover and fesses up.

I love the "legal bit". Unless you agree to this that and the other, then my source will remain silent etc etc.

Schoolboy stuff. 😂

To the many maybe, to me and people with highly sensitive jobs means more than you think. I'm surely not gonna risk losing my job -or my contact's- to prove anything to yous... sorry...

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

I know what the General Data Protection Regs 2018 is, and I know what a non disclosure agreement is too!......I was taking the proverbial! 😉

 

Touche👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

To the many maybe, to me and people with highly sensitive jobs means more than you think.

You will have to forgive me for taking that with a pinch of salt. Have you been positively vetted for your highly sensitive job?

It just reads "cop out" to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

You will have to forgive me for taking that with a pinch of salt. Have you been positively vetted for your highly sensitive job?

It just reads "cop out" to me.

No, absolutely, Gordon,  it's a forum after all and people like to build parallel lives on the net. I fully respect you doubting me.

But I've been vetted before starting this job and have full disclosure across several countries as I work for a global company which spans across 4 continents. As you can understand, if I were to disclose something without the owner's permission, that will result in immediate dismissal.... Also, would you, in my stead, risk burning a mentor and contact who you've known for a decade or so just to share info on a forum?

Edited by Continental Shooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when I first started reloading that this was the first site that I visited.

it was full of helpful and encouraging remarks, advice and help whenever I needed it. That was many years ago and to be frank I am glad because if I was a newbie reloader coming on to this site now then I would be immediately put off by the back biting and sniping remarks.

i have done a lot of work with ITX and it has always been a concern that it is harder than barrels. You cannot crush the original itx10 with pliers and it is abrasive. I remember seeing a reloading sheet provided by clay and game which said that BPI recommend the use of a fully enclosed wad when using this shot. Unfortunately I cannot currently find it so this will be classed as heresay.......

gamebore originally said that ITM was ok with a fully enclosed wad but since have changed there mind and recommend the use of a fully enclosed container be it a card wad or plastic wad.

on a footnote I like ITX but number 2 is as big as I would go due to its shape as you struggle with capacity

regards

Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cheers graham, its been a few years.

this thread seems to be headed for a "u" bend some time soon. there is way too much sniping.

 

here is the thing thats really really frustrating. bpi keep on publishing odd and unique loads. at first glance a reloader can say, that they are fine they have numbers.. but reloaders in the states are getting mega frustrated with the "way" over pressure loads. loads that dont fit, problems  etc. when re- tested.

if its written down it must be true? right? 

 

please, 

reloading is very much opinion based. everyone is entitled to their opinion. everyone can input. seriously.

you can catch more flies with honey, than vinegar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/10/2019 at 22:41, Continental Shooter said:

Yeah I think you better leaving it, for the sake of others. You still bangin on about stuff you 'ASSUME' without any knowledge base or research. And this is dangerous in relaoding. You're not even able to quote a single reputable source you spoke with and you didn't buy/download the manual to acculturate yourselve on what you put through your gun, yet, you still feel the right to challenge the manufacrurer research and claims....

FYI: You can't just buy itx, it doesn't exist in the market (or you've been duped by dodgy seller) it's clearly labeled itx-10 and itx-13 exactly to avoid dangerous confusions where they are different material with different ballistic and physical components and marketed for reloading with different materials and loads.

Obviously, and with all due respect, it appears homework were superficial at best and lacking basic understanding. Also, not knowing the difference in hardness of the two materials you purchased (as you assume) shows great lack of understanding and research. 

This is the problem, people feel free to showcase their lack of knowledge and share it endlessly, ending up arguing when challanged with evidence based info.

Until proven otherwise, or BPI backtracking on their claim, itx-10 CAN be shot without protection that is the only truth, everything else is just conjectures and assumptions.

If a full shot cup makes you feel more secure, fine; if it gives you better pattern, fine. But definitely not required

I think you will find this is where this topic got personal and the sniping began? Prior to this it was just a debate with people expressing opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, cookoff013 said:

please, 

reloading is very much opinion based. everyone is entitled to their opinion. everyone can input. seriously.

you can catch more flies with honey, than vinegar.

Mate I slight disagree with the opinion bit. You can't just change powder on a load coz you disagree with the guy that posted it, can you 🤣but I do respect you as like our American friends you do a lot of researches, have enormous knowledge built on tons of tests loads. The fact that you produce an essay of immense importance and got very cold reception to it should give you some concerns about opinions Vs data...  ☹️

 

Edited by Continental Shooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in a way, everyone has an opinion. some opinions are backed up with hard data. some with soft data, some with no data. 

my test has started to get some recognition. with a good solid assay, even skeptics turn to have a look. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎07‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 22:41, Continental Shooter said:

Yeah I think you better leaving it, for the sake of others. You still bangin on about stuff you 'ASSUME' without any knowledge base or research. And this is dangerous in relaoding. You're not even able to quote a single reputable source you spoke with and you didn't buy/download the manual to acculturate yourselve on what you put through your gun, yet, you still feel the right to challenge the manufacrurer research and claims....

FYI: You can't just buy itx, it doesn't exist in the market  You could back in the day … only ITX was available .. now called ITX 'original 10' …. called Original for a reason eh?https://www.ballisticproducts.com/ITX-Shot/departments/511/ (or you've been duped by dodgy seller) it's clearly labeled itx-10 and itx-13 exactly to avoid dangerous confusions where they are different material with different ballistic and physical components and marketed for reloading with different materials and loads.

Obviously, and with all due respect, it appears homework were superficial at best and lacking basic understanding. Also, not knowing the difference in hardness of the two materials you purchased (as you assume) shows great lack of understanding and research.  Popycock … one material available ITX, from one supplier (Ballistic Products), and the data was from the supplier.

This is the problem, people feel free to showcase their lack of knowledge and share it endlessly, ending up arguing when challanged with evidence based info.

Until proven otherwise, or BPI backtracking on their claim, itx-10 CAN be shot without protection that is the only truth, everything else is just conjectures and assumptions.

If a full shot cup makes you feel more secure, fine; if it gives you better pattern, fine. But definitely not required

If you're going to rattle your sabre … check YOUR facts first !

Folks on here have been fowling on here for a lot longer than you, and although you have deep knowledge of some areas … don't be so arrogant as to think you know everything.

Edited by Smokersmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...