Larry, science that is obviously bad is also something that can be observed by intelligent laymen, although it takes more brains than counting pellets. Maybe it's best that you just stick to your own skill level. But you attempted to discredit craigd and I in the recent Condor thread on the dubious notion that we are not experts in the field of Wildlife Biology. However, when so-called experts are all over the map on something as obvious as what constitutes a lethal blood lead level in ducks, eagles or condors... and the stated difference in ppm or mcg/dl is on the order of 20 to 50 times for a lethal dose between so-called "experts"... well it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to see that something is very fishy in the data being presented, and being used against us.
It is equally fishy when a big time professional outdoors writer such as yourself discounts such obvious discrepancies as some flawed "logic" rather than a valid observation, and attempts to discredit or demonize anyone who questions your equally obvious biases. We provided several glaring examples of flawed or false science, but you couldn't admit that the flawed data you cling to like a security blanket could be wrong. That behavior became even more egregious and laughable when you kept returning to your silly notions about the North Dakota Ground Venison study, which has been TOTALLY discredited by numerous other researchers including those in your own Iowa Fish and Game Agency. It has been known that the North Dakota study was flawed since before 2008. I kept dropping hints so you could check it out instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself. But you keep pushing that tired old dog to hunt. You, who was hiding behind the fact that craigd and I were not so-called "experts" was repeatedly showing us his own extreme prejudice and lack of knowledge or expertise. That's why I was happy to drag the discussion out rather than just hit you with all of your errors at once. Too bad the thread got locked. Read this, especially paragraph 9, and get to work on those powers of observation instead of just regurgitating crap:
https://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/leadcap1008.pdflarry;
I think you are totally confusing "High Pressure" with "High Back Thrust". What these guns you mentioned were Beefing up for was the higher ballistics of a heavy shot load at a higher velocity, not necessarily meaning a higher pressure.
3½ drams of bulk smokeless or 28 grains of Infallible or Ballistite pushing 1¼ oz of shot were not low pressure loads.
True these weren't the "Normal" but they may have been used far more often than we tend to imagine.
Max peak pressure is simply not the whole story in internal shotgun ballistics. 1 oz of shot @1 200 FPS with 10K PSI simply does not stress the actin as much as 1¼ oz @1300 fps with 9K psi, even though the pressure is lower for the heavier load.
Speaking of your lack of expertise, I was surprised you didn't go on and on for several days with Miller over the correction he gave you in the post above 5 days ago. Have you finally learned that Miller doesn't back down when he's right and you are wrong? Drew posts early smokeless shotshell pressures here all the time, while you mentioned vague unnamed contemporary sources that happened to be wrong, if they really even existed. Maybe you should try exercising your excellent powers of observation and leave the ballistics discussions to those who can do more than count pellets and holes in paper made by a single shotgun.
