Well Lary I will go slightly back on my word & reply just once more. My memory Larry is perhaps a little better than yours. The first mention I ever heard of Thomas "Recoil Theory" (I had heard of Thomas, but not read him) came from you. You in fact made a post here some good time back in which you stated "HE" had done a blind test & found that faster powders gave less "Felt" recoil than slower ones & as this seemed to cantradict what others were stating what would account for that. At the time I responded & stated that most likely there was enough difference in tt of the powder charges that the slower powder loads did in fact give an "Actual" heavier recoil. You then stated this could not account for it as the small change of charge wts would certainly not give enough difference for a unaimous decision. Later I did have opportunity to read Thomas for myself & learned He didn't actually perform the test but reported on one done by a Commercial ammunition maker of unstated date & no particulars of the actual loads used etc, etc quoted. When the subject camde up at a later date I "Opined" that no doubt this "Test" was staged by IMI as "Propaganda to enhance sales of a particular line for them & that most likely it compared a load containing a dense powder against one of the older bulk type. You again flatly denied this could have even been a possibility & further stated they would have had no reason to do so as they made "Both Types" of powder. You then flatly denied that Alliant would have cited one of their powders as giving less Felt recoil than another powder they themselves produced, until faced with irrefutable facts to the contra, then you tried to twist it to make it conform with Thomas' "Theory". Finally upon being proved wrong about that you have now decided that was "Your" stand all along. My stand has been totally consistent IE that IMI "Staged" a test guaranteed to put a line of sheels they were making in good light, & that further Alliant jumped on the bandwagon of increasing "Propangada" on this "Felt Recoil" bit to introduce & promote a "New Powder" @ a "Premium" price. As one claiming to be conversant with "Propangda" this should be readily understandable, even I can grasp it with no difficulty.
If we take a 1oz shot wt, an estimated wad wt of 35grs & a powder charge wt of 18 vs 20 grs (RD vs GD) the total ejecta wt varies by .4% rather insignificant. I have no way of citing an actual diference in rate of acceleration, but in this case would also be very slight & in an offsetting direction to the charge wts. My stance Larry has been, is & will continue to be, unless shown by provable facts that recoil with any powder suitable fo a given load is primarily dependant upon total wt of ejecta & actual velocity of the load. All other factors make up only a very minor & virtually insignificant portion of it. These factors are both measurable & calculatable. So-called evidence I have seen opposing this has been for the most part simply lacking in significant data to support the claims. No Larry my stance has been totally consistent & has not been "Proven Wrong". I am not the one resembling a "Cornered RAT". To see that you need only take a gander in a mirror.

Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra