So your biggest problem is that I happen to refer to the method by the same "name" that someone has dedicated an entireweb page to it? Your "problem" with THAT is what is quite lame.

And you've whined and cried about it in several posts now with obnoxious rudeness yet refer to my explainations as being the same?

That's compelling.....

By your logic 13,686 posts on an internet site makes someone an all time expert, and someone with only 45, mostly on this thread,doesn't know jack....?

Also compelling......and obnoxiously rude.

Sorry I used the word"troll" as verbage to describe what you've done to this discussion...I should have used the word "fish", maybe?

Either way, the crux of what you said so far does nothing for the discussion and is...well, obnoxious and rude.

This is also rude and obnoxious..."Goodness, any foolcan kill somethingwith a gun. Your not one of those slob hunters that only go out with the orange armyevery year are ya?"

When you started crying about OCW as being not real or not any good I handed over this discussion to you and the other experts herein hopes you could demostrate just what the methods limitationsreally are. Since you've nowstated, "but your talking to a crowd here that knows better and knows its limitations", I would then expect that you could back up your statement.You haven't done that, and all you really CAN say is that the system doesn't work as good as what you do.

Well why not then? Why is a load that does what I've descibed above not any good? It's almost at max published velocity, AND it's less sensitive to normal variables.....WHY is THAT bad, in your opinion? I highlighted that part to make sure you read it.

I've already stated that I'm just an average joe that does average shooting. I've a range out back of the house and tend to shoot often, all year long. So by some measures that puts me above average compared to the average joe that drives 30 miles to the closest range andonly shoots just enough to "check zero's" two days before the season opens. I'm thinkin'those arethe slob hunters in the orange army thatyou refer to. "Refer" by the way (BTW) is spelled with only one "r" at the end.

I've changed my reloadingmethods from what I started with in the mid 80's and now understand the physics of the system becauseI KNOW it to work. I do not feel compelled to key in all the load data I've compiled over the years to prove anything to you and if you are too scared to try it for yourself then it's your loss, in spades. I've already typed in several examples to illustrate my findings, you could actually read them.

The fact that you feel I'm only 18 or so only proves that you've not read what I post and choose instead to post responses blind to the facts stated. I've a 12 year old son, going on 13 this year...he's the middle of six children, all raised on game meat BTW,and if I were only 18 nowthat would make me only 6 or 7 when he was born. You'll have to come upwith better than that if you wish to smugglypontificate on the internetabout my intelligence.

SinceI've explained my stance on OCWseveral times over now, I'll extend the same challenge to you.Please with your own knowledge and whatever facts you can muster, prove that OCW isnot the best method to find the sweetspot in a load work up. I don't needactual numbers to judgeyour methods, just an indepth explaination of the physics and how it acts upon the bullet and the bullets flight.

If you can show that you, better than me,understand the physics of usingrapid combustioninducedpressure to drive a projectile down a tube and get it to hit the same place twice then I'll shut up about it. If you have to lower your charges in July because they are too hot, or up your charges for December because they are too mild,then I'll be forced to continue my argument.

And, by your rude and obnoxious logic, any fool can stuff powder in a cartridgecasing and get it to fire.........