Larry;
The Statement that "Burrard Should Have Said" was from a book which was an assemblage of articles Thomas had written for, I believe "The Field". As I said I do not now have the book to cite you exact reference, But, He did in fact make the Statement. You will note that nowhere in the writing quoted by Snipe Hunter, does Thomas direct readers to the proper section of "The Modern Shotgun" where Burrard explained the exact things Thomas was covering. Burrard stated when the normal 2½" load was put up in a 2 3/4" case & closed with the fold crimp both pressure & velocity were for parctical purpose unchanged (paraphrased, not direct quote). Thomas' data shows this to be true, not arguing that. He did not However explain that the statements he quoted from Burrard applied to an altogether different shell & were as true in his day as they were when written. The "True 2 3/4" " shell mentioned was one carrying the heavier load designed for guns carrying 2 3/4" chambers. It was put up in a 2 3/4" case & closed with a roll crimp. Loaded length of this shell would have been about 2 5/8". The chamber depth of a nominal 2½" gun depending upon exact time of build & makers whims could be from an actual 2½ up to 2 5/8", thus from an exact shell length to an 1/8" short. Cones of the era were short & steep. Chambers of the day would have simply been marked 12C, so the "Average" owner would not likely have even known the exact length in his gun. Pushing a loaded shell 1/8" into a steep coned chamber can indeed increase the resistance it has against opening. Pressure rise could be dramatic.
My question boils down to If either Thomas or Bell were going to cite Burrard at all (Both Did) why did they cite only that part which was not applicable to their discussion & totally omit that which was. Again "WHY"??. Ego?? about all I can come up with, I don't think either were/are that ignorant.
Personally I find such actions simply inexcusable.
Last edited by 2-piper; 08/14/08 04:12 PM.
