Larry;
lets just say that with 75 years under my belt I'm suspicious of any thing which is carried pout which results in a stated "Advantage" for something which someone has to "Sell". Now if they got a unanimous result in a blind test then some factor caused that one load to recoil less than the other one. Now all down through the years 99.999% of folks are pushing that a slower powder results in less "Felt" recoil than a faster one, the exact opposite (180° apart) of what IMI reported. Man put your thinking Cap on for a change. They "DID NOT" get unanimous results shooting two loads with a 3 grain difference in powder charges. The only obvious conclusion that could result in a heavier recoil for the slower powder was that it used a heavier charge. What slower powder would have used a charge significantly heavier other than the bulk powders. I believe that bulk powders were much more popular to a later date in England than they were in the US. I will, have to say you seem to be totally ignorant of Advertising Technics. How better to give their "New Range" of powders a kick start than compare one of them with an old standby & show it would push an equal charge of shot to equal velocity & produce less "Kick" in the process. "IF" they did not accomplish this by using a powder carrying a "Significantly" heavier powder charge then the only other conclusion is they were totally dishonest & gave that "Other" powder more velocity to ensure it recoiled heavier. I am not accusing them of that, but it is totally understandable how they accomplished their purpose. Still awaiting an explanation from you as to how they did it, instead of just always knocking a totally reasonable one, apparently just because it comes from ME. All I can say is man Don't Worry 'Bout the Mule Just Load the Wagon, I'll Pull It.
