Not quite that much of a mismatch, Jim. "As with the previous magnum load, the 3" hulls that emerged from the 2 1/2" chamber looked terrible. Several had portions of the star crimp area torn off. All had ragged cone-shaped mouths." And no, they were not fired from the shoulder. "I was glad we had the use of the strong test receiver and barrel for this stunt. You would have to be a complete idiot to do this to a real lightweight game gun."

Jim, if you don't believe that an increase of 1500 psi and blown ends on shells might also result in an increase in recoil, why don't you try it for yourself and see? Sort of in Bell's "Finding Out For Myself" mode. Personally, I am more than willing to accept the reports from Thomas and Fergus that long shells fired in short chambers with short cones produced similar visible results to the ends of the shells; so why is it unlikely that they also produced similar increases in pressure? And in both cases, they reported significantly increased recoil. And in Fergus' case, he fired the same long shells in another gun, also with short chambers but with longer forcing cones, with totally different results: no blown ends on the hulls, no noticeable increase in recoil. He also reported that true 2 1/2" hulls worked fine in the gun with the short cones.

Generally speaking, as Burrard, Thomas and Bell all agree, I don't think a 2 3/4" hull loaded to appropriate low pressure will result in anything other than a slight and inconsequential increase in pressure when fired in a gun with 2 1/2" chambers. I do it all the time with my own 2 1/2" guns. However, I have heard enough "exceptions to the rule" to accept that there are indeed exceptions to the rule, and that the exception appears to be the result of guns that not only have short chambers but also very short forcing cones.