Miller . . . First of all, paranoia is OK if someone is really "out to get you". I'm not out to get you, and certainly hope you stick around.

Your problem, however, is equivalent to a syndrome well-known in the intelligence business, called "falling in love with your agent". You have this guy who produces wonderful intelligence, you believe everything he says, to the point that you become blind to his shortcomings. Sorry, but comparing Thomas to Burrard on the "long shells in short chambers" issue . . . ALL BURRARD STATED WAS A CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS OK TO USE THEM (if properly loaded). With which I agree. However, Thomas did Burrard one better there, by providing an actual chart of a comparison test--which Burrard never did. That's one case where Burrard most certainly did not provide an excess of detail.

Both Burrard and Thomas needed better editors. What sometimes happens, with individuals recognized as "experts in their field", is that the people doing the editing feel unqualified to make any changes whatsoever. Both Burrard and Thomas, if taken out of context, can be interpreted as saying that you should not use long shells in short chambers, even though both of them reached exactly the opposite conclusion. I do agree with you that Bell is guilty of quoting both of them out of context. I have absolutely no problem "admitting" that. Unlike you and Burrard, I have not fallen in love with either Bell or Thomas to the degree that I cannot see shortcomings in their writing.

If you want to quote me, Miller, you might want to use the quote function--because your "recollections" are often erroneous. I did not say that Burrard related pressure to recoil. What I said was that his statement about an extreme constriction of a case mouth causing a significant increase in pressure can be read as an indirect indication that recoil will increase. I think you'll find that if there is sufficient constriction that you're blowing the mouths off the ends of hulls, that will indeed result in an increase in recoil. Or at least that's what both Thomas and Fergus say. Were Burrard around to comment, I doubt he'd question it either, because he was certainly aware of the problems due to excessive constriction of the case mouth by the forcing cone, since he made those comments in writing.