I finally went to the Upland Journal thread that inspired this one. Larry Brown's argument there jogged loose all the schlerotic buildup of Newtonian commonplace, accepted expression, received wisdom, and cant which tends to clog up little brains like mine. Maybe the argument about the history of SAAMI pressure standards is cohesive and easier to follow there where less standpatter ire and less point by point special pleading are in evidence.

I took for granted that service pressure ceilings are adopted to protect gun and shooter from catastrophic failure and nothing more. Time to look once again at the product of better minds than my own. Many thanks also to Rocket and Pipes, who, if I'm not mistaken, can swallow the words "imparts energy" (backthrust) without wretching.

I'm currently stuck on how one would establish a formula for proportionality between chamber pressure and threshold and rate of battering damage? Is onset of perceivable cumulative damage to the closing and locking components of a break action gun only related to an either/or of recommended acceptable pressure vs. over-pressure? What role does the "rule of 96" play in damping interface battering as well as "unitized" recoil? Should it have changed at some historical point to a Rule of 96 and then some? Arguments here about weight of target guns indicate that it has. Is "high-pressure" lube really more of a necessity in the mechanical interfaces of these old guns than some of us (me) have thought?

jack