Aha, I do believe someone or ones did provide the straw as I perceive a hint or two (perhaps from Rocket who disappeared down his silo)that non-catastrophic physical destruction of guns was somehow directly attributable to chamber pressure developed (without an intermediary called recoil) and someone sure as the devil was off on a sideways insinuation that SAAMI or IPC are on a mission to protect our guns from wear and tear by setting service pressure standards. Or maybe I'm blind?

Larry, with reference to your final two sentences, third graph, reply #547410 above, please tell me once and for all that SAAMI has or has not done something to "protect our guns" from non-catastrophic wear and tear. From the description earlier of the adoption of the 1.5oz load in 2.75" 12 ga., I would tend to believe that it has done nothing to that end; rather the dual service pressure scheme tied to chamber length was a consistent attempt to prevent catastrophic failure in two classifications of guns without obsolescing one classification by stating their inadequacy to meet the standards of another.

jack