Well Miller . . . you ARE wrong when it comes to dynamic/measurable recoil. You don't need as much fast-burning powder to produce the same velocity with the same shot charge as you do slow-burning powder. AND THAT IS FACTORED RIGHT INTO THE FORMULA USED TO COMPUTE RECOIL. Science . . . not what anyone feels or does not feel. Thus, the slow burning powder is already starting out in a hole when it comes to recoil. I'll admit it's not a particularly deep hole, but science does show that the slow-burning powder produces more measurable recoil than a fast-burning powder. Excellent example from the Alliant website:

12ga, 1 oz load, AA hull, Win 209 primer, CB 1100-12 wad. 1200 fps. 16.9 grains Extra Lite--near the top of Alliant's fast burning powders--will get you there. Takes almost 3 more grains of Green Dot (19.8) to match it. And you're now counting on what people FEEL (or what YOU think they should feel) not only to compensate for that scientifically established deficit, but to produce less recoil with the slower burning powder than the faster burning powder. And where would we find your scientific evidence to support that belief??

As for the accelerometers, you must be assuming (and you know what happens when you ASS-U-ME) that the shooters were checking the results shown by the instruments. Why would that have to be the case? Would seem more likely to me--I admit that I'm also assuming--that a powder company employee is checking and recording what the instruments show, making sure they're working, being reset if necessary, etc. If that's the case, then the shooters don't know what they're shooting, and if they don't read the instrument, they don't know what it's recording.

But easy enough to prove you're right--if what you believe is that it's chiseled in stone that a slower-burning powder in two loads of equal shot charge producing equal velocity will produce less recoil. Show me the results of a test proving that to be the case. And if we were to hold you to the same standard that you wish to hold Thomas, then you would have had to be present at the test to verify that you have first hand information on how it's carried out and on the results.

Last edited by L. Brown; 08/19/18 05:45 PM.