I love science. Why? Because it has always answered Yes/No, black and white questions for me. I struggle with grey. I have always struggled with it. 50+ years and counting.
If we get gray, we revise the tests until we get B&W, and then a confirming.
No one should ever be saddened or upset about the discussions raised here. The science is the science, and we are all better for it.
Pressure vessel testing relies on known behavior of the vessel. Not on vessels unearthed from excavation sites.
All I meant to point out was that you can't say that because a pressure test vessel of a known construction says a cartridge creates pressures of X, you can safely fire said cartridge in some other unknown vessel, and expect the same results.
But I dare say that you can take it to the bank, that within the known margin of error of the tools being used above, that the people performing the tests are performing quality, reproducible, challengeable, defensible science.
And I am electronically applauding.
I have a particular interest because, I have 2, 32" Ithaca Flues shotguns that the chambers are 50% different in wall thickness. Well, lets just say visibly, substantially, thicker. It would be nice to have an inkling short of detonation, of what the more robust of the two could digest in terms of modern ammunition.
It was built for fowling, and it'd be nice if it could be fed modern steel shotshells.
And you can't get that answer from the tests above.
