MNMikeW wrote:
> Baker wonder twin wrote:
Lame namecalling: as per Bell's Law, a sure sign that the
poster has lost the debate on its own merits.
> >> In the industry, they are referred to as hulls.
> >
> > Merely a niche term from just the shotshell part of the industry,
> > but which proves nothing about what terms have been commonly used
> > within the larger small arms industry as a whole (eg, all calibers).
>
> It's NOT a niche term dumbass. YOU calling them "brass" is a niche term.
Are .223 cases called "hulls"? Are .308s? Or Caliber .50? Rimfire?
9mm? .45 ACP? Any pistol caliber for that matter, or centerfire rifle?
Nope, nope, nope. The facts of the matter are that the world of small
arms encompasses a lot more breadth than merely shotgun shells.
> > You're free to try to pedantically make a big deal about it, but
> > all you're really doing is advertising that you're a small fish
> > in an even smaller pond.
>
> Calling them brass shows you are a poseur.
Calling them anything other than a case is pedantically incorrect,
yet well-rounded people recognized that alternative and slang terms
for many such items do exist. Another example is that classical
small caliber dispersion tests are called "accuracy" even though
they're actually (pedantically) a dispersion test method. Similarly,
a lot of bubba shooters try to impress their buddies on how good
their gun supposedly is by firing 3 or 5 shot groups and measuring
extreme spreads without any understanding of statistics, particularly
as applied by Grubbs.
Golly, silence from Mike. Dare one point out that the
implications are of this that Mike apparently doesn't even
know enough about the overall industry to even understand
how it disproves his claim?
> >>>> And it is Winchester who makes AA's, not Remington.
> >>>
> >>> Ah, I think you're correct. My bad.
> >>>
> >>>> Guess we know who the poseur is.
> >>>
> >>> Weak. The industry's been through quite a bit of change
> >>> over the years, including ownerships and who has which
> >>> contract for what plant, such that there's not any good
> >>> reason to bother to keep close track of it unless it has
> >>> some direct impact on daily life...which it doesn't.
> >>> Even so, if I still do have that stuff around, I known that
> >>> I'm not going to be reloading it anytime soon so I should
> >>> really just get rid of it on general housecleaning principles.
> >>> Ditto on some other stuff: found some old stuff including
> >>> a "tri-tround" the other day. Know any collectors who would
> >>> want to buy one? PITA to demil.
> >>
> >> With the price of metals these days (lead or steel). Reloading for trap
> >> does not make a lot of sense unless you REALLY enjoy reloading. You can
> >> literately buy a case of Federal Top Guns for less than the price to
> >> reload them. Was not the case a decade ago.
> >>
> >> My shotshell reloader has quite a bit of dust on it.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. Prices went up during the war ramp-up and jitters,
> > but escalated to stupid crazy with all of the "Obama is going to..."
> > kook rants which lead to shortages which drove the panic higher.
>
> I'm guessing your have never reloaded any type of cartridge or shotshell.
Golly, how ironic it is that Mike "guesses", despite having just read
a prior post which offered to give away some old reloading supplies.
-hh