I didn’t compare them, I just made a statement.
You compared them or assumed I had.
Being so much better informed than me, you assumed that I didn’t know the difference and was making a direct comparison. I wasn’t, I just didn’t have the data to hand in the same units.

I don’t make any claim. I am simply reporting A squares data.

“Any shot you want” 1996 Pg. 550.

2158 fps @ 26,000 CUP

ibid. pg. 548 Pressure allowable MAP 35,559 CUP

= 73.11%

False claim.? I expressed it as an opinion. Many older cartridges have their MAP or MIP set low because of the age of the firearms that they may be discharged in. The 45-70 is a notable one.
I would be amazed if in setting a MAP and MIP for the 450#2 due consideration was not given to such matters.

Inconsistent nonsense.

In changing from base thrust to an entirely different measurement of chamber pressure, I can only assume, not being an insider, that a cartridge of known base thrust was fired in a chamber that allow the recording of piezo psi. I may be wrong but it seems the only logical method of transferring from one standard to another. That chamber pressure happens to be higher than the .470 NE. Where did I ever say that it was not so?

Quote “The intent was to restate the original standards, not change them” End quote
They didn’t restate the original standards. A new method was used, one cannot simply restate empirical data if one uses a different method.. They were standardised or re-standardised by a new method.

Quote “You don't know what you're talking about anyway. If the chamber pressure of the .450 No. 2 is lower than all other flanged nitros in the same performance band “ End quote.

I have not stated that, throughout the entire thread, I have never stated that or used any combination of words that suggest that.
In fact if you refer to my post #92663 several lines above you will see that in answer to the original poster I gave the approx. MIP as 45.000psi
Ibid. pg. 548

No my sarcasm was clearly not wasted it was well aimed and seems to have hit the mark as the tone of your response indicates for all to read.

Quote ”Are you just now discovering this?” End quote

Why would I be the one just discovering this ? Is it another trade secret that only a few are allowed to know? Oh dear is it like the magicians guild have I just broken the golden rule?

I am however, glad that you acknowledge it. I must also take it then, having picked at almost everything else I wrote, that you are not at issue with the essence of that paragraph about the near impossibility of duplicating another’s pressure test data given different parameters. Thus rubbishing A squares data based on anthers test results under different circumstances was an unwarranted, unsubstantiated act.

Quote “Not even a good try. Some of the information I get from the trade is confidential, and you knew that when you posted the above.” End quote

How on earth would I know that. I do not know you. You do not say who you are and just keep referring to your highly confidential sources. This appears to be manifesting as some form of megalomania.

Quote “I had a copy of their manual, and destroyed it because I didn't trust their data.” End quote

Destroyed it? What couldn’t trust yourself not to read it again? Afraid that aliens would get hold of it and contaminate all of the rest of your loading data.? What did you do, take it in the yard, burn it and stamp on the ashes?
Bit of an extreme reaction wasn’t it?

I must return then to your unsubstantiated attack on A Square.

Are we now given to understand that your distrust of A Squares loading data and your reference to them as an “insider joke” is based on nothing more than your admittedly unpleasant, experience of bad cases and incorrectly weighted heads and that Ross Seyfreid has said it twice.
Did you discuss these problems with A square ? and if so what was their response?

Pissing contests.
If you go back and read your post 93020 You will see that you jumped down my throat and got all smartarsed over what was humour. You see the smiley and the next line that starts “ But seriously”. “But seriously” may be taken commonly to mean that what was said before was not serious.
Not a polite “ I disagree with your data and can you explain your position” but a tirade about how useless A square are.
What you did not comment on and should of, was that I mistyped 3 instead of 2 when discussing the Lott.
Ibid. pg. 554 2251 fps @ 58,500 psi

Quote ”Clearly a lie.” End quote

It is also manifesting as paranoia. If you read the rest of the paragraph I stated that I was prepared to believe you if you could substantiate what you said. Clearly you cannot. As my pals in Missouri would say “Show me”
If you think that resorting to sarcasm is an attack, then I suggest that you re-read your post. I can think of no better response when somebody bases their position upon “secret” information. That is a crock and you deserved to be called on it.
It wouldn’t work in medicine or engineering, imagine posting that “Fred Bloggs and co. is rubbish, the bridge they built will fall down. I can’t tell you how I know but don’t ever drive over it” or “ Don’t have the Flu vaccine this year, I have good inside information that its going to make you sick, they got the mixture wrong. I cant reveal my sources you just have to trust me on this.”
Would you expect any reasonable person to take this seriously?

To close.
I have no connection what so ever with A Square aside from owning one of their books.
It however, ill behoves anybody I believe to purport to be an expert and to attempt to ruin somebody’s business without good evidence.