doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com AI and how we can use it

Work has introduced me to using AI and I often use to check my work and also to revise emails to make then sound more professional and organized. I encourage people to play with and see if it is of use.

Some of you have read the thread about resizing RMC hulls. I took "resizing RMC brass shotgun hulls" and dumped into Microsoft Copilot and here is the answer:
Resizing RMC all‑brass shotgun hulls is a very different process from resizing modern plastic hulls, and it catches a lot of people off‑guard. These hulls are essentially turned brass cases, closer to rifle brass than to traditional drawn‑brass shotshells like old Winchester or current Magtech.

Here’s the full, practical rundown so you know exactly what works—and what doesn’t.
🧭 First: What RMC hulls actually are
RMC (Rocky Mountain Cartridge) hulls are:
Machined from solid bar stock, not drawn
Thicker and stronger than Magtech or old balloon‑head brass
Sized to match chamber dimensions, not SAAMI brass dimensions
Designed to be fire‑formed to your gun, then loaded with minimal resizing

This last point is the key: RMC hulls are not meant to be fully resized every cycle.

🔧 Do you need to resize them?
Usually no—or only minimally.
RMC’s own guidance has always been:
Fire‑form the hull in your shotgun
After that, only resize the mouth if necessary
Do not attempt to full‑length resize unless absolutely required

Why?
Because the hull walls are thick, and full‑length resizing requires enormous force. Standard shotshell dies simply cannot do it.

🛠 If you do need to resize, here are the working methods
1. RMC’s proprietary resizing die (best option)
RMC used to sell a dedicated resizing die that:
Works in a standard reloading press
Resizes only the upper portion of the hull
Is designed specifically for their brass dimensions
If you have one, use it. If not, they are hard to find but occasionally appear on forums or auction sites.

2. A custom full‑length resizing die (rare, expensive)
A few machinists have made:
Full‑length resizing dies
Push‑through dies
Hydraulic dies
These work, but:
They require a heavy press (Rock Chucker or larger)
They require case lube
They are slow and labor‑intensive
Most shooters never bother.

3. Partial resizing using a steel sizing ring
Some people use:
A steel ring sized to the chamber
A press or arbor press to push the hull through
This only works if the hull expanded slightly. If it expanded a lot, you’ll never get it through without damaging it.

4. Annealing the mouth only
If the mouth is slightly out‑of‑round:
Light annealing
Then use a tapered mandrel or expander plug
This is the most common “resizing” done on RMC hulls.

❌ What doesn’t work
Standard shotshell resizing dies (MEC, Lee, RCBS shotshell dies)
They are made for thin drawn brass or plastic bases. RMC brass is far too thick.

Magtech brass dies
Magtech brass is balloon‑head and much thinner. Completely different dimensions.

Hammer‑type Lee Loader tools
You will damage the hull.

📏 Why resizing is rarely needed
RMC hulls:
Don’t expand much
Are extremely strong
Are designed to be used in one specific gun
If you keep them dedicated to that gun, you may never need to resize them at all.
If you switch guns, you might need to resize—but often the new chamber is close enough that they still fit.

🧩 The practical advice most experienced loaders follow
Fire‑form once
Load and shoot
Only fix the mouth
Avoid full‑length resizing unless absolutely necessary
Most people who try full‑length resizing eventually stop doing it because it’s too much work for too little benefit.

But the key is that the >>Correct<< method of >>whatever<< must be available online & available to be scanned. Otherwise the answer is garbage. Too, AI/KI must be pressed from several sides to get the correct answer plus sources must be attached as with a technical paper, thesis, whatever. Just Basic QA/QC but @ lighting speed.


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

You have to already know a little about what you are asking, but the scope and scale of the answers is frankly... amazing. It is so useful for legal and medical information it is putting a fair number of behind the scenes folks out to pasture (researchers).

College students use it now to shamelessly to write their class papers (& we were worried about DEI pilots?). Test it by asking it about some obscure gunmaker sometime and see if it matches what you already know from your own research.

I use AI for my personal sommelier when I'm trying to match game foods and their accompanying dishes to a particular wine. Then I run up to Costco to match that answer as closely as I can from their now vast (& mostly cheap) world-wide selection.

It is being used to write technical reports and in some cases stories and articles. You can even ask AI to craft your story in a "Hemingway style."

In my day we called it plagiarism.

Interesting video on Youtube, I couldn't bring myself to watch it, on the illustrious firm of John Purdey and Sons. The picture in the opening of the video is AI created and showed a remarkable boxlock that looked like a snake that had just consumed a large meal.

AI certainly can be useful. I cleaned up some photos of a vintage Kynoch print using it, quick and excellent results. I tried researching a bit on an original owner of a rifle I have, AI got most of it wrong but with some gentle correcting it finally churned out some interesting and from what I can tell, correct info on the gentleman.

At its most basic form, AI is a great & very fast search engine, spelling & format checker.

At a slightly higher level it's great for reviewing my work. I work for a major insurance company loading contracts and benefits into the software we use. I get QC'd on both the solution document that I write and the actual load. Copilot has definitely decreased the number of QC errors I get on my solution document and has made my emails better.

I've only been working with Microsoft Copilot for maybe a month and I am definitely still learning what I can do. I am computer literate, but not a techy, but I'm interested in finding out what Copilot can do when I can move multiple work files into Copilot and have it do more of the "drudge" work for me.

I still need to review what Copilot says and the errors are still mine, but even at this early stage it's helping me.

I've been using AI since it became available for free usage and it has really helped with a lot of things. I've managed to do a number of jobs that I could not have done without it. It's also given me some bad answers.

Just last week, I could not get the Maps card for Garmin fishfinder to update on my computer. I first tried to get Gemini to help me and nothing it suggested would work. I finally got disgusted and gave up.

The next day I asked Grok and it gave me a long answer with 4 or 5 different things to try. I told it to start over, give me one step to try, and I would do it and report back and then we could move to the next step. It took about 30 minutes with me typing in commands to my computer that I didn't understand at all, but the problem was eventually solved and I was finally able to download the data. I would have never gotten it to work on my own.

Another time I ran into a terrible traffic jam on an interstate, and I asked Gemini what was going on and what was my best way around it. It gave me information that related to construction that had long been completed and it's solution was terrible. You have always gotta use some common sense in considering the information it gives you.

A couple of months ago, I read an editorial in a cruising boat magazine. One of the editors owned a boat in the NYC area and made a couple of hundred mile trip every summer, every year. He had a list of courses and waypoints saved which worked well every year. He was testing a navigational AI system for accuracy (a system trained and optimized supposedly for this very purpose. He wanted to fine tune it to reflect the effect of some fast tidal flows at certain times of day and the month, variations of weather, latest posted navigational notices posted etc. He input his normal course into the system and asked it to optimize. The result was garbage. It showed the route travellingove land for more than half the trip.

In order to give the program a better chance he input a huge amount of data on weather records of winds, tides and weather along with moon data and historic information that might affect the work. It never gave a meaningful result. Continued to run the boat aground. You could claim it was a highly technical program which worked to an amazint level of pricision, but it gave useless answers.

I worked for a major oil company in engineering, designing the processes used in our refineries, which used the best process simulators on the market. Part of the people worked on the chemical design and processing simulations and another worked on the planning of the ongoing operations to maximize profits and product slates and specifications. AI system developments starting appearing on the horizon in the 80's as near as I can remember, and we regularly tested the systems as they were proposed and beta versions of the commercial work. Progress was very slow for the first couple of decades. Meanwhile we developed our internal models running on commercial modeling software and had some of the best custom models in existence. What set our company apart was the great detail we added to the predictive sections of the model. The models differed from AI in that you put custom predictive capabilities calibrated to our exact situation, based on real operational data.

The trouble I have with AI is that it started as an intentional fuzzy logic system and it still is. It is not a rigorous mathematical or scientific system but a system that looks at everything you decide to supply to it and let it come up with the best "most probable" answer. This is all well and good but if you train it on limited data, the answer is often wrong. If you turn it loose on the entire internet, it has to either include the incredible amount of bad information there or make ranking decisions at some point.

I think it is interesting that one of the obvious major players in the field was Google. They obviously have a lot of real vested interest because of the massive global search work they do. Work like this is totally related to the systems that correct grammer and improve your writing techniques. However, I notice occasionally Google blows it. I did a search as to the most common value of some parameter (I don't even remember the specific question) and I got a labeled AI response that had two paragraphs of background info and values for typical situations which was cogent and patently reasonable. However, the final summarization was diametrically opposed to all the background info and the final answer was obviously a reversal of every background discussion point. It was an obvious black is white answer.

To date it seems that the most work has been done to date on systems referred to euphemisticly as "Plagiarism Systems". They, relatively, should be simple as a punctuation and spell check system. The style issue has been carried pretty far but I notice a rather boring similarity from some authors that I have to attribute to an overuse and standardization of their work. It leads to a lot of tiresome reading at times. The other thing I have noticed in fictional literature is the somewhat regular inclusion of modifiers which are strictly grammatically correct but the case or sense is not something normally used in writing or conversation by most people. The AI correction inserts the strictly proper word but the writing as a whole becomes stilted and legalesque. The same sort of situation arises when these systems change synonyms. This is a problem that has always existed with authors trying to use the most catching phrasiology in their fiction work. It leads to wording that is simply wrong and questions the authors credibility on the subject. I am a huge fan of mystery works and read it constantly. My all time peeve was when one of the most famous mytery writers in the world wrote that the hero walked into a room where a murder by pistol had occured and was confronted by the intense smell of cordite. This was in the 1980's and within the next two years, every murder mystery on the market was exuding cordite smoke on the store shelves. Cordite, of course, was a specialty British propellant used in the late 19th to mid 20th century exclusively in cannon ammunition and in a limited number of large bore high volume large game cartridges. It wasn't a powder but was produced in a long stick resembling thin sphagetti. It also had no distinctive smell different than normal gunpowders. It was obvious that the original quote was the result of a simple thesauris check because the first research search would have produced a page of references showing the written passage would not be true as to application or smell.

The authors of the cordite era used the same techniques as bad AI systems, to little deep research and validation.

Regardless the name, it is NOT artificial intelligence . If it was really intelligence it could reason it's way to the most accurate answer. It can't, at least at this point. When it gets to where it can we better all be worried, because we have already been warned by defectors from some major AI companies that it will be possible for it to take control of itself and everything around it.

What was it called in the Terminator movies...Skynet?