Apr 2007
A revolver I'll bet you've never seen!
This week is just absolutely
stuffed. Since I don't have the time to write anything profound,
I'll just link to an article about this:
Hell In A Handbasket has the full story on this unusual revolver.
(Oh, and Tam has yet another revolver on her blog. I don't know what's gotten into her lately, but I hope she keeps with it!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Hell In A Handbasket has the full story on this unusual revolver.
(Oh, and Tam has yet another revolver on her blog. I don't know what's gotten into her lately, but I hope she keeps with it!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
|
FRIDAY SURPRISE: Is he your 2nd cousin once removed, or 1st cousin twice removed, or...?
Friday, April 27, 2007 Filed in:
Friday
Surprise!, Completely
irrelevant
The changing social behavior of
Americans is having an interesting side effect: certain types of
knowledge are becoming extinct. I'm not talking about the kind of
information you'd expect to disappear: how to build a barn, how to
drive a team of horses, or how to make butter. No, what I'm
referring to is less obvious.
Prior to World War II - and even, in some place, for a decade or so after - people grew up in a specific area, got married, and settled in that same area to live out their lives. They might travel occasionally to see other locales, but they always returned to what they called "home" - where the rest of their family lived. Over generations, there would come to be a large number of folks in that area who were related to each other; large extended and interrelated families who knew each other well, even if they didn't always see eye-to-eye.
After the War, people started moving around the country in larger and larger numbers as the idea of going "away to college" became accepted. This lead to the practice of chasing a career across the nation, and as a result new families were being started a long way from the families which begat them. After a while, enough of these disconnected families existed that it became common for one member to not know his or her relatives in the other branch of the family, even at the first cousin level.
Without these large numbers of related people in a specific geographic area, our perceived need to know how we're related to someone else has diminished. After all, if you don't know who your cousins are, why do you need to know who the less-close members of your family are?
The upshot of this whole thing is that the common knowledge of how to place yourself (and everyone else) in the family tree is quickly fading away. Most people know how their cousins are related - but can you tell what a second cousin is? How about a third? What does "once removed" and "twice removed" mean?
Don't sweat it! Thanks the the miracle of the internet, you can find out everything you ever wanted to know about how families are structured. Check out these sites:
The Cousin Chart
Canon Law Relationship Chart
Simplified explanation of cousins
Yet another chart for determining relationships
A thorough explanation of relationships
What is a cousin? (Wikipedia)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Prior to World War II - and even, in some place, for a decade or so after - people grew up in a specific area, got married, and settled in that same area to live out their lives. They might travel occasionally to see other locales, but they always returned to what they called "home" - where the rest of their family lived. Over generations, there would come to be a large number of folks in that area who were related to each other; large extended and interrelated families who knew each other well, even if they didn't always see eye-to-eye.
After the War, people started moving around the country in larger and larger numbers as the idea of going "away to college" became accepted. This lead to the practice of chasing a career across the nation, and as a result new families were being started a long way from the families which begat them. After a while, enough of these disconnected families existed that it became common for one member to not know his or her relatives in the other branch of the family, even at the first cousin level.
Without these large numbers of related people in a specific geographic area, our perceived need to know how we're related to someone else has diminished. After all, if you don't know who your cousins are, why do you need to know who the less-close members of your family are?
The upshot of this whole thing is that the common knowledge of how to place yourself (and everyone else) in the family tree is quickly fading away. Most people know how their cousins are related - but can you tell what a second cousin is? How about a third? What does "once removed" and "twice removed" mean?
Don't sweat it! Thanks the the miracle of the internet, you can find out everything you ever wanted to know about how families are structured. Check out these sites:
The Cousin Chart
Canon Law Relationship Chart
Simplified explanation of cousins
Yet another chart for determining relationships
A thorough explanation of relationships
What is a cousin? (Wikipedia)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Interesting people
Wednesday, April 25, 2007 Filed in:
Personal
opinions, General gun
stuff
The firearms world attracts the
most interesting people. I'm not talking about my business,
specifically, but in general; shooting attracts good, solid
citizens who often have a great story to tell.
I've yet to meet the pensive, frightening loner; the crazed, wild-eyed revolutionary; the bloodthirsty, gleeful animal slaughterer; or any of the other stereotypes that the media cooks up to "represent" gun owners. I have, however, met a lot of well-adjusted, happy folks who just happen to like shooting, and occasionally are just iconoclastic enough to lead an out-of-the-ordinary life.
This week, I ran into one such person.
This fellow does a couple of things for a living. First, he buys and sell aircraft (planes, helicopters) and related parts. (Do you know what a starter motor for a Boeing 737 costs? Whole bunches of money, and he's sold them.) That's out of the ordinary, and no doubt about it, but it's the other thing he does that catapults him into the "interesting" category: during the summers, he runs a mobile military surplus store!
He's got this box truck that he's outfitted as a store selling BDUs, canteens, caps, and other such materiel. He travels around California from June through about October, setting up on street corners and empty parking lots. He'll spend a couple of days in one place, then move down the road. By the time winter has set solidly in, he's back home where he spends the coming months divesting himself of the airplanes and parts that he's come up with during his trip.
For those of you living in, or perhaps traveling through, the state of California, be on the lookout for the mobile military surplus store on a streetcorner near you. It's easy to recognize: next to the door of the store he's got a female mannequin dressed in BDUs. Stop in, perhaps buy something, and be sure to tell him that Grant says "hi."
-=[ Grant ]=-
I've yet to meet the pensive, frightening loner; the crazed, wild-eyed revolutionary; the bloodthirsty, gleeful animal slaughterer; or any of the other stereotypes that the media cooks up to "represent" gun owners. I have, however, met a lot of well-adjusted, happy folks who just happen to like shooting, and occasionally are just iconoclastic enough to lead an out-of-the-ordinary life.
This week, I ran into one such person.
This fellow does a couple of things for a living. First, he buys and sell aircraft (planes, helicopters) and related parts. (Do you know what a starter motor for a Boeing 737 costs? Whole bunches of money, and he's sold them.) That's out of the ordinary, and no doubt about it, but it's the other thing he does that catapults him into the "interesting" category: during the summers, he runs a mobile military surplus store!
He's got this box truck that he's outfitted as a store selling BDUs, canteens, caps, and other such materiel. He travels around California from June through about October, setting up on street corners and empty parking lots. He'll spend a couple of days in one place, then move down the road. By the time winter has set solidly in, he's back home where he spends the coming months divesting himself of the airplanes and parts that he's come up with during his trip.
For those of you living in, or perhaps traveling through, the state of California, be on the lookout for the mobile military surplus store on a streetcorner near you. It's easy to recognize: next to the door of the store he's got a female mannequin dressed in BDUs. Stop in, perhaps buy something, and be sure to tell him that Grant says "hi."
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: Why us?
During World War II, Oregon had
the singular distinction of being attacked by the Empire of Japan
not once, not twice - but on three separate occasions. It would seem that the war
planners in Tokyo had it out for us!
In early 1942, Fort Stevens - which stood guard at the mouth of the Columbia River - was shelled by the Japanese submarine I-25. Just a few months later that same submarine, this time fitted with an underwater aircraft hangar, launched a small airplane and bombed our southern coast. Finally, in 1944, the Japanese military launched a series of balloon bombs against North America, most of which landed in the forests of Oregon. One of those balloons landed in south-central Oregon, and killed 6 people - the only war casualties to occur in the mainland United States.
So, why Oregon? Basically, because we were the most convenient yet lightly defended target available to them. There is a lesson in that...
-=[ Grant ]=-
In early 1942, Fort Stevens - which stood guard at the mouth of the Columbia River - was shelled by the Japanese submarine I-25. Just a few months later that same submarine, this time fitted with an underwater aircraft hangar, launched a small airplane and bombed our southern coast. Finally, in 1944, the Japanese military launched a series of balloon bombs against North America, most of which landed in the forests of Oregon. One of those balloons landed in south-central Oregon, and killed 6 people - the only war casualties to occur in the mainland United States.
So, why Oregon? Basically, because we were the most convenient yet lightly defended target available to them. There is a lesson in that...
-=[ Grant ]=-
Speaking of the people who are supposed to protect you...
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 Filed in:
Current
Events, Personal
opinions
It seems that a Secret Service
agent's weapon just up and fired all by itself. At least,
that's the way the media is reporting the
incident.
See, it's the gun's fault. Always. This proves it. (I'm being facetious, for those who can't tell.) Expect more of this kind of reporting as the push for extended gun control gathers steam.
-=[ Grant ]=-
See, it's the gun's fault. Always. This proves it. (I'm being facetious, for those who can't tell.) Expect more of this kind of reporting as the push for extended gun control gathers steam.
-=[ Grant ]=-
On Virginia Tech
At first, I wasn't going to
comment on the sad crime perpetrated on the campus of Virginia Tech
this week. I figured that everyone, everywhere, was going to do so
(with varying degrees of erudition and insight.) I decided there
wasn't anything I could add. Until...
Listening to the news on the radio, I heard an interview with two students who said that they were in "the room where he was shooting." According to these people, students and faculty were hiding under and behind anything in the room that they felt would provide them some protection, or flat on the floor in the absence of same.
It's what they said next that prompted me to comment: as the gunman shot, he naturally ran out of ammunition, and had to stop to refill his magazines. After taking the time to refill then reload his weapon, he continued his unfettered spree.
He was out of ammunition, and had stopped to reload - why didn't someone, anyone, in the room take that golden opportunity to tackle the murderer? At that point the criminal couldn't shoot anyone, and the risk even to the person who would choose that course of action would have been relatively minor compared to letting him get his firearm back up and running.
The answer is as obvious as it is sad: our society has fully inculcated the victimhood and helplessness mentalities into the last several generations of people. They didn't do anything because they have been taught their entire lives to rely on someone - anyone - else for their safety and well being.
This is what the nanny state has given us. This is what our Founding Fathers, I think, understood when they listed the natural right to keep and bear arms in their Constitution: yes, it's about the ability to resist tyrannical governments. More importantly, though, is the choice inherent in the right.
You see, it's not the exercise of the right in and of itself that matters; it's the existence of the choice to exercise the right that is so very important. Even if one chooses not to exercise the right, in making the choice one has experienced the self-actualization that leads to great inner strength and a heightened sense of self-worth. The very personal decision - no matter what the decision itself is - is what makes for citizens who are self reliant, who can think for themselves, and cannot be corralled like sheep.
When the "transaction cost" of the individual choice is raised - when the ability to decide for oneself is restricted or controlled in any manner - the choice is made not by the individual, but by someone else. The benefits of making the decision are denied the individual, and he/she learns (bit by bit) how to be a subject rather than a sovereign individual. Given long enough, an entire people is conditioned to be subordinate themselves to authority figures; when the "badge" of "authority" is the firearm, the people will prostrate themselves to anyone who wields one. Even a crazed killer.
Milton Friedman was right.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Listening to the news on the radio, I heard an interview with two students who said that they were in "the room where he was shooting." According to these people, students and faculty were hiding under and behind anything in the room that they felt would provide them some protection, or flat on the floor in the absence of same.
It's what they said next that prompted me to comment: as the gunman shot, he naturally ran out of ammunition, and had to stop to refill his magazines. After taking the time to refill then reload his weapon, he continued his unfettered spree.
He was out of ammunition, and had stopped to reload - why didn't someone, anyone, in the room take that golden opportunity to tackle the murderer? At that point the criminal couldn't shoot anyone, and the risk even to the person who would choose that course of action would have been relatively minor compared to letting him get his firearm back up and running.
The answer is as obvious as it is sad: our society has fully inculcated the victimhood and helplessness mentalities into the last several generations of people. They didn't do anything because they have been taught their entire lives to rely on someone - anyone - else for their safety and well being.
This is what the nanny state has given us. This is what our Founding Fathers, I think, understood when they listed the natural right to keep and bear arms in their Constitution: yes, it's about the ability to resist tyrannical governments. More importantly, though, is the choice inherent in the right.
You see, it's not the exercise of the right in and of itself that matters; it's the existence of the choice to exercise the right that is so very important. Even if one chooses not to exercise the right, in making the choice one has experienced the self-actualization that leads to great inner strength and a heightened sense of self-worth. The very personal decision - no matter what the decision itself is - is what makes for citizens who are self reliant, who can think for themselves, and cannot be corralled like sheep.
When the "transaction cost" of the individual choice is raised - when the ability to decide for oneself is restricted or controlled in any manner - the choice is made not by the individual, but by someone else. The benefits of making the decision are denied the individual, and he/she learns (bit by bit) how to be a subject rather than a sovereign individual. Given long enough, an entire people is conditioned to be subordinate themselves to authority figures; when the "badge" of "authority" is the firearm, the people will prostrate themselves to anyone who wields one. Even a crazed killer.
Milton Friedman was right.
-=[ Grant ]=-
"It's perfect for the little lady" - NOT!
If you're here, it's probably
because you like (or at least appreciate) our friend the revolver.
My feelings, of course, are well known: I believe the revolver to
be the single greatest firearm that one could ever hope to own. I
believe that people who shoot revolvers demonstrate themselves to
be of above average intelligence, more refined sensibilities, and
generally better looking than those who do not. (I exaggerate, of
course. Except in my own case, where these things are certainly
true. I tell my wife so every day.)
However, even in my zeal I cannot recommend the revolver to every single person; it is not the best choice for everyone or every circumstance. I've said this before, and I'll probably being saying it again and again as time goes on.
I particularly cringe whenever I see some fellow buying (or hear someone recommending) that the revolver is always the "best choice" for a woman, hinting that women are incapable of operating a semiauto properly. Sometimes the revolver is the best choice for a female, just as it sometimes is for a male - though not always, and not even most of the time!
Not being a woman, I've been at a loss to explain my discomfort in any terms other than "that seems stupid to me." Luckily, over at the View From the Porch, Tam does a good (and concise) job of explaining just why.
-=[ Grant ]=-
However, even in my zeal I cannot recommend the revolver to every single person; it is not the best choice for everyone or every circumstance. I've said this before, and I'll probably being saying it again and again as time goes on.
I particularly cringe whenever I see some fellow buying (or hear someone recommending) that the revolver is always the "best choice" for a woman, hinting that women are incapable of operating a semiauto properly. Sometimes the revolver is the best choice for a female, just as it sometimes is for a male - though not always, and not even most of the time!
Not being a woman, I've been at a loss to explain my discomfort in any terms other than "that seems stupid to me." Luckily, over at the View From the Porch, Tam does a good (and concise) job of explaining just why.
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: I have GOT to get me one of these!
So, let's say that you were going
to buy me a new cel phone. What do you think I'd want?
How about a Blackberry Pearl? Too "Geek bondage." A Motorola Razr? They are SOOOOOO 2006. Nokia N80? If I wanted a slide-out I'd buy an RV. The Apple iPhone? Tempting, and it would go great with my Macs, but no - there's something even better.
The cel phone I really want is the Portable Rotary Phone from Spark Fun Electronics. Inside this antique is a fully functional cel phone module that utilizes all of the phone's original parts for their intended purposes: the handset, the dial, and even the two-bell ringer!
My Father, who was an inveterate prankster and a telephone company employee, would've loved this thing. It would be just the ticket to out-annoy the clods who use their phones in restaurants, and imagine the looks you'd get in meetings ("sorry, but I have to take this call.")
Besides, the whole retro-dial thing goes perfectly with my revolver persona, don't you think??
-=[ Grant ]=-
How about a Blackberry Pearl? Too "Geek bondage." A Motorola Razr? They are SOOOOOO 2006. Nokia N80? If I wanted a slide-out I'd buy an RV. The Apple iPhone? Tempting, and it would go great with my Macs, but no - there's something even better.
The cel phone I really want is the Portable Rotary Phone from Spark Fun Electronics. Inside this antique is a fully functional cel phone module that utilizes all of the phone's original parts for their intended purposes: the handset, the dial, and even the two-bell ringer!
My Father, who was an inveterate prankster and a telephone company employee, would've loved this thing. It would be just the ticket to out-annoy the clods who use their phones in restaurants, and imagine the looks you'd get in meetings ("sorry, but I have to take this call.")
Besides, the whole retro-dial thing goes perfectly with my revolver persona, don't you think??
-=[ Grant ]=-
Writer's block day
It's one of those days: I can't
come up with a decent topic. It's a combination of a lack of
creative urge, coupled with a ton of "real" work to be done. The
two conspire to give me keyboard constipation.
(Speaking of work - what's with all of the 9mm revolvers that are coming in lately? I've had a half-dozen in the last 4 months, with several more to come! And to think - I don't own one of my own. One of these days I'll have to look into remedying that oversight.)
Back to the non-topic: since I can't seem to do any "thinky", I'll do some "linky": Tam finally puts a revolver in her blog. Is the world as we know it coming to an end?
-=[ Grant ]=-
(Speaking of work - what's with all of the 9mm revolvers that are coming in lately? I've had a half-dozen in the last 4 months, with several more to come! And to think - I don't own one of my own. One of these days I'll have to look into remedying that oversight.)
Back to the non-topic: since I can't seem to do any "thinky", I'll do some "linky": Tam finally puts a revolver in her blog. Is the world as we know it coming to an end?
-=[ Grant ]=-
Winchester recalls .22 ammunition
Found this notice on the
Winchester website:
Checked my stash...luckily, all of my Xpert ammunition was from the same lot, and is not subject to the recall. Check yours carefully!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Olin Corporation, through its Winchester Division, is recalling several lots of its WILDCAT® 22 (Symbol Number WW22LR) and XPERT® 22 (Symbol Number XPERT22) 22 Long Rifle rimfire ammunition.
Lot Numbers containing Letters: XN, YA, YB or YC
Through extensive evaluation Winchester has determined the above lots of WILDCAT® 22 and XPERT® 22 ammunition may contain double powder charges. Double powder charge weight ammunition may cause firearm damage, rendering the firearm inoperable, and subject the shooter to a risk of personal injury and/or death when fired.
To determine if your ammunition is subject to this notice, review the Lot Number. If the Lot Number contains the letters XN, YA, YB or YC return the ammunition to Winchester.
Checked my stash...luckily, all of my Xpert ammunition was from the same lot, and is not subject to the recall. Check yours carefully!
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: How to corrupt a town
I fell in love with the short
story format back in high school. While I cannot stand reading a
whole novel - non-fiction isn't really my "thing" - I do enjoy the
short story. It forces the author to work carefully on character
and plot development, and requires the reader to concentrate on the
storyline.
While my favorite author in this format is Stephen Vincent Benet, Mark Twain proved himself a master of the short story. One of my favorites is "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg."
Hadleyburg enjoys the reputation of being an “incorruptible” town, known for its responsible, honest people that are trained to avoid temptation. However, at some point the people of Hadleyburg manage to offend a passing stranger, and he vows to get his revenge by corrupting the town.
You can read the entire story online, or you can download it as an e-book.
Enjoy!
-=[ Grant ]=-
While my favorite author in this format is Stephen Vincent Benet, Mark Twain proved himself a master of the short story. One of my favorites is "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg."
Hadleyburg enjoys the reputation of being an “incorruptible” town, known for its responsible, honest people that are trained to avoid temptation. However, at some point the people of Hadleyburg manage to offend a passing stranger, and he vows to get his revenge by corrupting the town.
You can read the entire story online, or you can download it as an e-book.
Enjoy!
-=[ Grant ]=-
More on the Dan Wesson .22
Wednesday, April 04, 2007 Filed in:
Revolvers, General gun
stuff
In response to Monday's blog
post about
.22 accuracy, a couple of readers asked about the loads that had
proven to be accurate in the Dan Wesson .22LR Model 15-2.
Before I answer, you need to keep in mind that your individual DW may not like the same ammunition mine does. With that understanding, my DW likes the Remington Match Target (subsonic, LRN bullet) and the Remington "Golden Bullet" bulk pack. Of the 23 different rounds I tested in the gun, these two came out on top in their respective categories (target ammunition and hunting ammunition.)
This is quite surprising to me, as Remington rimfire ammo is not generally held in high regard by experienced rimfire shooters. It is often criticized for lack of accuracy and consistency, but in this gun those two loads work extremely well. The "Golden Bullet" also exhibits excellent terminal effects on small game (ground squirrels) as well as being accurate.
Oddly, the Federal Gold Medal Match - a terrific load that shoots well in just about everything - doesn't do well in this gun. Why? Who knows? That's the joy and mystery of the rimfire addiction!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Before I answer, you need to keep in mind that your individual DW may not like the same ammunition mine does. With that understanding, my DW likes the Remington Match Target (subsonic, LRN bullet) and the Remington "Golden Bullet" bulk pack. Of the 23 different rounds I tested in the gun, these two came out on top in their respective categories (target ammunition and hunting ammunition.)
This is quite surprising to me, as Remington rimfire ammo is not generally held in high regard by experienced rimfire shooters. It is often criticized for lack of accuracy and consistency, but in this gun those two loads work extremely well. The "Golden Bullet" also exhibits excellent terminal effects on small game (ground squirrels) as well as being accurate.
Oddly, the Federal Gold Medal Match - a terrific load that shoots well in just about everything - doesn't do well in this gun. Why? Who knows? That's the joy and mystery of the rimfire addiction!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Accuracy from your .22
Monday, April 02, 2007 Filed in:
Revolvers, General gun
stuff
I've been shooting a lot of .22LR
on a recreational basis lately, and am reminded how fickle this
round can be.
Many people seem to be unaware that you can't put just any old .22 round into a gun - be it rifle, pistol, or revolver - and expect it to function correctly, let alone hit where it is aimed!
It is not unusual to find that any given .22 firearm will not function with certain ammunition. I've seen guns that didn't have enough firing pin energy to detonate certain brands of ammunition; autoloaders that wouldn't load and eject certain bullet shapes or velocities; and guns that would shoot tight groups with some ammo but shotgun-like patterns with everything else.
This would all be a lot easier if it were predictable by gun brand and/or model - sadly, it just isn't. You can take two identical guns and one will shoot incredibly accurately with a specific round, while the other gun throws them every which way; I've seen it happen with a pair of Ruger 10/22 rifles.
Some guns are more picky than others regarding their ammunition preferences. The Dan Wesson Model 15-2 in .357 is renowned for its accuracy, but the same gun in .22 is regarded as very inaccurate. I suspect that this reputation has more to do with ammunition that with any fault of the gun. I have one, and had to test many different .22 rounds before I found a couple that it would shoot well. The difference wasn't minor, either! With most ammunition it will shoot 3- to 4-inch groups at 25 yards; with its preferred ammunition, it will quite literally put a cylinder full into one ragged hole at the same distance. There seems to be no middle ground with this gun!
Bullet velocity also plays a role. Generally, it is assumed that the higher velocity rounds don't shoot as well as their slower brethren - but not always! My personal Marlin 39A, for instance, has a surprising preference for the hyper-velocity Quik-Shok round, which is widely considered to be a very inaccurate load.
The moral of the story is that you have to test - and sometimes test again, and keep testing - until you find the round(s) that shoot and function well in your individual guns. When you find that/those loads, buy a case (or two or three...!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Many people seem to be unaware that you can't put just any old .22 round into a gun - be it rifle, pistol, or revolver - and expect it to function correctly, let alone hit where it is aimed!
It is not unusual to find that any given .22 firearm will not function with certain ammunition. I've seen guns that didn't have enough firing pin energy to detonate certain brands of ammunition; autoloaders that wouldn't load and eject certain bullet shapes or velocities; and guns that would shoot tight groups with some ammo but shotgun-like patterns with everything else.
This would all be a lot easier if it were predictable by gun brand and/or model - sadly, it just isn't. You can take two identical guns and one will shoot incredibly accurately with a specific round, while the other gun throws them every which way; I've seen it happen with a pair of Ruger 10/22 rifles.
Some guns are more picky than others regarding their ammunition preferences. The Dan Wesson Model 15-2 in .357 is renowned for its accuracy, but the same gun in .22 is regarded as very inaccurate. I suspect that this reputation has more to do with ammunition that with any fault of the gun. I have one, and had to test many different .22 rounds before I found a couple that it would shoot well. The difference wasn't minor, either! With most ammunition it will shoot 3- to 4-inch groups at 25 yards; with its preferred ammunition, it will quite literally put a cylinder full into one ragged hole at the same distance. There seems to be no middle ground with this gun!
Bullet velocity also plays a role. Generally, it is assumed that the higher velocity rounds don't shoot as well as their slower brethren - but not always! My personal Marlin 39A, for instance, has a surprising preference for the hyper-velocity Quik-Shok round, which is widely considered to be a very inaccurate load.
The moral of the story is that you have to test - and sometimes test again, and keep testing - until you find the round(s) that shoot and function well in your individual guns. When you find that/those loads, buy a case (or two or three...!)
-=[ Grant ]=-