a scary story - blown up gun.

[Canute Rex]

Okay Jumpshot, perhaps I shouldn't have relied on context. I wasn't even remotely trying to suggest to anyone that they should try smokeless even once.

I assumed that anyone who read 1) the thread with pictures of a blown up rifle, and 2) that one shot with smokeless (an obvious gamble, see 1)) would distort the steel past its point of return, rendering the ML useless for all time, would use 1+1=2 logic and not do it the first time.

I'm trying to imagine someone, after reading down the thread to my post, thinking, "Yeah, just for spite I'm going to fire one high-risk shot in my rifle with smokeless and then pitch it in the trash." I can't.

Now, may I please have a volunteer to balance this apple on his head? It's perfectly safe. Anybody? Really, I've been practicing.

 

[David W.]

Me! Me!

Now, may I please have a volunteer to balance this apple on his head? It's perfectly safe. Anybody? Really, I've been practicing.

 

[Jumpshot]

I wasn't even remotely trying to suggest to anyone that they should try smokeless even once.

I'm glad to hear it. Thanks for clarifying. But even though you weren't trying to suggest that, that's exactly what you said. Sound unreasonable? Maybe, if I hadn't heard it before. We all know how many myths about muzzleloaders there are out there. I've heard no less than two people in the past claim you could shoot smokeless in a muzzleloader once without hurting it. So I have reason to speak up when I see someone write the same thing.

Lots of noobs browse this forum. This general muzzleloading section doesn't even require a person to be logged in to read it. What happens when some anonymous person out there sees someone here saying you can get away with it once? They might think "Oh, then I guess I can try it just this once, since no once around here sells blackpowder and all I have is smokeless."

One word can make a big difference. If you choose the wrong one, it can change the intent of a comment, as I showed in my reply to bpd303's post. Like I said, saying you can get away with it once wouldn't be such an issue for me if I hadn't heard people say it before. Saying you may get away with it once if you're lucky is a different matter entirely, but that's not what was said.

I do apologize for the mix-up, I wasn't trying to cause a fuss. But to be honest, I'm surprised I'm the only person who caught it. To those who think I take things to literally, no, I don't. Context can be changed and things misunderstood when typing on the computer rather than talking face to face. If I see someone say something wrong that could lead a beginner to try something dangerous, I will call that person out on it. Don't like it? Then choose your words more carefully. Zonie seems to have understood that. I regret that he's the only one who did.

 

[cynthialee]

your beating a dead horse so you can hear your own voice. Please stop with this false sermon.

 

[Jumpshot]

I'm responding to him and clarifying my position, nothing more. Like I said I would. Perhaps you missed my apology for the misunderstanding. I wouldn't leave it unresolved, so I explained what I meant.

 

[crockett]

Just had an interesting idea- if you both are in PA- send/email those photos to who ever puts on the hunter safety education program. Maybe they will use those photos to show new hunters the devastating effect of loading a muzzle loader with smokeless powder.