Seems I opened a can of worms, without intending to do so! Seems, if I am understanding all the responses correctly, that the double rifle Austrailian guys seem to be a bit "put off" by U.S. double rifle writers, or some such thing, and I had no idea that was the case, nor do I really care about things like that. When I first bought that book by Wright, soon after that first edition came out, after reading it, I was quite surprised and disappointed in a few things I read in it, especially those items I menstioned in my original post here, regarding what was in the book. I too have, in the past, received very good positive responses from Marrakai regarding double rifle issues, so I too had a good impression of him, UNTIL I read his rather heated comments about what I had written about the Wright writings, and he, clearly lashed out at some things I had to say, and did it in a way that is uncalled for, and no, Marrakai, I wasn't ever trying to be "muddying the water," as you put it. No, Marrakai, I did not overlook what Wright wrote on pg 65-68, but thought that he, Wright, could have been a bit more specific in what you call a warning on those pages. I took what he wrote to be such that many guys, inexperienced, might not take what he wrote as a warning, exactly! I, and many others in this country, were handloading and shooting double rifles way before Wright wrote his book, and when the book came out, I thought that one explanation for the "misinformation" as I saw it, in the book, was due to fact that the Australians were way behind the Americans in shooting doubles. Elmer Keith I knew, and he gave me a lot of my early information on handloading for doubles. Yes, he was from a different era, but the doubles we shoot and handload for today, are the same ones, and handloads needed, from that era---some things don't change much. No, I don't know Seyfried, and I certainly don't worship him or anyone else, but I do know what he has written, especially regarding double rifles and handloading for sames, and, in my view, you are right Mickey, when you say he "knows his facts." My view is that we would all be well advised to listen and follow what he has to say. What he has to say is exactly what I have found to be true as it relates to double rifles and handloading for same. Yes, 4831 has blown several fine doubles, and I think I know why, after reading some rather interesting tests done with it some time back, but I don't want to go into all the details about that. Contact Champlin firearms, for they, for years, quit using that powder because they had found it to be unsafe, and were warning others to not use it, and they have about as much experience as anyone with double rifles, believe me. In double gun Journal, Owen, the excellent and rare Tennessee double rifle builder (highest quality doubles, that is), wrote one article warning against using 4831, and I was delighted to see it, for others have repeatedly been writing about using it, and I know that it works a lot of the time, or seems to work), but AT TIMES will indeed blow rifles. Too bad that some people can only learn by trial and error on their own!