i don't think burrard ever advocated anything ranking as crass stupidity, or any other kind of stupidity. and - going off memory as i don't have his books right in front of me - he actually stated the change to 2-3/4" shells was precipitated by the folded crimp. the shorter loaded length reduced the payload capacity and to get that back they lengthened the opened shell which gave a comparitive loaded length to a 2.5" roll crimp. all of which 2-piper explained in english that shouldn't be that hard to understand.
and nobody discusses shooting 3" shells in 2.75" chambers because in both cases - except for some possible really arcane examples - they're both folded crimp and also, the typical 3" shell is a magnum and thus violates the "same load as the gun was proofed for" caveat. one would not shoot a 2.75" magnum in a 2.5" chambered gun but a 2.75" shell that was loaded to same specs as a 2.5" shell the gun was proofed for is OK. there's 2 criteria that have to be met and the first one is "....same load...".
roger
