Miller, once more a whole bunch of bandwidth . . . and while you criticize Thomas for making assumptions about the IMI test (which I admitted, on rereading, that he did not conduct himself), you end up making even more assumptions than he did. Like it's a bulk powder vs a more modern, denser type. Well . . . if we assume (please note: here I admit that I'm making an assumption) that whatever the two types of powder IMI tested cost the same based on weight--and I would note, at least where I buy my powder, that RD/GD/AS all cost the same (thus punching a large hole in your "premium price" argument)--then it would be bass ackwards for IMI to promote the faster burning powder, because that's bad for their bottom line. (Remember my "eureka" post, when I pointed out that from a "bottom line" standpoint, Alliant has a very good reason to promote GD or AS over RD? You use more GD or AS; Alliant sells more powder; Alliant makes more money. Simple as that . . . and certainly makes sense from a propaganda/advertising point of view, at least.) Of course I suppose those crazy Brits could be bass ackwards. Just nice guys, doing the shooters a favor by saving them money on powder, assuming the fast burning stuff sells for the same price as the slow burning stuff--which it does, on this side of the pond.

And Miller, once you untwist yourself, you'll find that in fact you AGREE with Thomas' conclusion, because he also concludes that the faster powder recoils less. It's just that you don't happen to agree with his "sensation" theory, but that's pretty much immaterial, since you haven't been able to disprove it either. But you both end up in the same place, albeit having taken different roads to get there.