A couple of points:
First, everyone seems to assume that Mr. Bell has no "degree" in engineering, therefore his research is invalid. I have corresponded with him on numerous occasions, and can confirm that he is, in fact, a degreed engineer. Even if he weren't, I've seen recent research (in other fields) from degreed scientists that was pure junk, and I've seen other research done by laymen that was flawless. A degree doesn't equal competence, it's just a starting point. I immediately see red flags when someone tells me to "believe what I say because I have a degree". I have those degrees, too, and I know colleagues with the same degrees that I wouldn't trust to have sense enough to come in out of the rain. They are the ones who seem to crow the loudest about their degrees (insecurity, perhaps?).
I have seen the term "fools" and similar used in this thread describing the practice of using longer shells in shorter chambers, even though they are low pressure. I have seen real data produced to support the practice from several sources done by different organizations at different times (eras, even), but oddly, NO data of any kind that shows it to be unsafe. If it is such an obvious danger, where is the data that shows it? Surely if it is such common knowledge, someone had to have proved it somewhere. In the case of Bell's research, they used an industry-standard test barrel (Mr. Armburst's), not some home-made device. If that data can't be trusted, then how could we trust any data from the industry?
Someone already pointed this out, but the analogy of 2-3/4" shells in 2-1/2" chambers is the same as 3" shells in 2-3/4" chambers is completely ignorant of the situation as it exists. There simply are no low-pressure 3" shells produced anymore (they all say "magnum" on them). The reason we don't do this is the inherent PRESSURE of the shell, even when fired in a 3" chamber, not the length.
Someone mentioned that it was equally stupid to shoot a gun that is out-of-proof. OK, then most of the early American guns are out of the question, because they were never in-proof, even when they left the manufacturer. But do we really believe that these stout-barreled, heavy guns can't handle the pressures of the little lightweight British and European game guns of the same era with proof marks on them?
If you feel, or "know" that the practice of 2-3/4" shells in 2-1/2" chambers is unsafe, or you just aren't comfortable with it, then fine. I support your decision to avoid the practice. But unless you can provide data to prove the results, please refrain from the smugness and name-calling. As the saying goes, money (or data) talks, and the other stuff...walks.
I just re-read what I wrote. JEEZ I've gotten crotchety. It's gotten way too late and I've got a gobbler to chase at dawn tomorrow. I'm off to bed, so no more tirades from me to suffer through. I'm sorry, fellas, I'm really not that grumpy!
