Larry;
I am going to TYPE this in Real Slow so even you can perhaps understand.
AUG 18, 2018 (4 days ago) is the first time you ever mentioned this last Bit of Info, under the 800x thread. You have simply Twisted the fact I probably mis-worded a bit when I said "This" thread when I was actually referring to the one I had just moved from to start the new topic, which I explained why I did so.
Now would you explain to me why all these years this topic has surfaced YOU had stated that an IMI represenative carried two types of shells to a firing range, club whatever & asked the shooters to fire them & give their impression of the recoil. No mention of "Thousands of Rounds" nor of special guns equipped with accelerometers had ever before been mentioned.
I personally read Thomas say he could only conclude the reason for the lesser recoil with the faster powder was because it recoiled "So Much Faster" the shooters didn't have time to feel it it as much. That statement as well as your comparison to getting a shot in the arm with a needle in trying to defend it are both Utterly Ridiculous.
I pointed out earlier I was not in full agreement that fast powder automatically gave less recoil, & cited a possibility where it would not. The powder charge is only one link in the chain, its the total ejecta weight which includes powder, wads & shot which determines recoil. See you have Mis-Quoted me again.
Larry I do appoligize for using the term Ignorant, that probably is an untrue statement. A Conniving, Squirming Snake in the Grass would actually be far more factual.
As I have said so many times before concerning the Facts we know of this test, We don't know what powders were used, don't know what the bores measured, lengths of cones etc & etc & NOW, we find this test was done with guns equipped with accereometers, but we have No Idea what those accelerometers actually recorded nor in what way they proved the validity of the tests.
Total summation of the values of these tests & of what benefit they are to us is Still a Big Fat 0.
If you would like to stop this interchange Larry, then quit bringing up these tests. As long as you continue to do so I promise I will point out they have proved Nothing to us as We have no knowledge of how they were actually done, no Data as to loads used or "Actual" results only Heresy.
Only thing we have is they were "Unanimous" in their results. I can pretty well guarantee that if you supplied a group of shooters with two loads with same weight of shot to same velocity,such as the Red Dot & Green dot loads you cited that the conclusion would not be unanimous, the difference is simply too slight for that.
That one aspect of these tests alone make it Extremely Suspicious to me. My real conclusion of these tests is, if they were conducted at all, is they were rigged by IMI to make certain the results desired were obtained. I know you will deny that Larry, but that's fine as I also know you cannot produce any evidence to prove it wrong.
As to the ridiculous statement you have made so many times as to WHY IMI would extol one of their products over another, Obviously you ignore Advertisement Technics. I could ask the same question as to why Hercules/Alliant powder company advertised both American Select & Red Dot as being the "Best" in the same Handloader's Guide. American Select was New at the time, they wanted to promote it, but they were Not Dropping Red Dot so they continued to extol its virtues. Advertisement Larry, Pure & Simple. That argument is purely Grasping at Straws on your part to uphold these tests as actually being legitimate which I sincerely doubt.
As to helping with research, what have you given us, again a Big Fat Zero as you can give us no data at all.
