That is essentially what I said Larry. The British had resolved the matter at least by the end of the 1940s. Burrard essentially made two statements concerning chamber lengths for which he has been accused of issuing conflicting statements. This accusation came purely from the lack of understanding the statements were made at different times & pertained to different circumstances.
In his first statement, he emphatically advised against firing a shell longer than the gun was chambered for. At the time this statement was made it was entirely correct due to two circumstances. First, it was made at a time when shotshells were closed with a fold crimp. A 2 3/4" shell in a 2˝" chamber is apt to extend into the cone "Before" firing which should not be done for the reason stated. The second factor was at that point in time the 2 3/4" shells were loaded heavier & for a gun carrying a heavier proof. When the fold crimp was developed & the British gunmakers & ammunition loaders set out to determine if the hull could within safety factors be lengthened without lengthening the chambers it was proved to be feasible. Burrard gave full coverage of this new factor.
I have read both Bell & Thomas' accounts & for whatever reason, neither seemed able to comprehend this & strongly "Implied" it was totally unknown until they brought it to light. This is about as absurd as trying to say that Samuel Colt "Invented" the Revolver. Colt did at least "Improve" the revolver, which is what his original patent stated. All either Thomas or Bell did was to state some facts which had already been proven for at least a decade & a half prior to Thomas' 1964 work & far longer before Bell took it up.
I acquired a copy of Burrard in the 1960s & I knew this before I ever heard of either. I had no problem at all understanding the two different accounts Burrard made nor any problem separating them from one another. They very clearly applied to different circumstances & were written at different points in time, which he made quite clear.
