Well Miller . . . I guess you felt it necessary to start a new topic just so you could misquote me (and denigrate Thomas) multiple times. (Careful reading might have avoided those problems.) To wit:
I denied "the different in charge weight was not enough to make a difference." Nope. Never. Not once. I did refer to it as a minor consideration (multiple times, including in one of my quotes you used above) which it certainly is in comparison to shot charge and velocity, but I never said it never makes a difference. Obviously it does, because that difference can be measured. And after all . . . a headache may be only a minor consideration . . . but, on the other hand, it could be a brain tumor.
Thomas did not specify what powders were used; therefore, I could not specify either. Nor could you. But Thomas did state--and you even quoted him above--that "powders of various rates of burning" were used. That's the best either of us can do on that subject. I never suggested anything else.
I did not say the shooters did not know what they were testing for. Thomas may have been a Brit, but his King's English is pretty clear on the subject: "The shooters did not know what they were firing, but were merely required to give marks for recoil. Simple enough to do that while keeping it "blind". Tom Roster did the same thing in a "blind" test he conducted using three different steel shot loads, testing for lethality on pheasants. They were color coded for the 3 different shot sizes he tested. Similarly, in this test, even the powder company "officials" themselves wouldn't have had to know what the shooters were shooting. You hand them a green shell, a black shell, and a red shell. They simply report which had the most recoil. You simply record that by color . . . and it can be blind even from the people recording the data. Only those later ANALYZING the data know what green, black, and red mean in terms of the powders used. Is that blind enough for you? Sure is for me.
And exactly what is it that you've been touting all along is true? If you agree that it's quite logical that loads with faster burning powder recoil less than the same load with slower burning powder . . . then what the heck are you arguing about, and why do we need a new topic . . . other than so you can misquote and misrepresent what I've said? Even when you've got my quotes included right along with your analysis and misquoting.
