I'm reluctant to say much more, since I'm already dancing on the thin and crumbly edge of what I know about the subject. Besides, there's enough that's more easily knowable, that I can explore, to turn my attention to instead.
<br>
<br>Re ULA, my feeling is that merely getting away with reducing the strength of actions doesn't endorse that reduction as safe or sane, or its results "just as good." "Dangerous" and "maximum" don't mean that the first shot with 0.1 grain more powder -- or with 0.001 inch less surrounding steel -- will blow the gun to bits. They mean that the some-day certainty of a burst gun is some indeterminable number of rounds closer, with the same lack of any way to know when it's GOING to happen with the next round fired. The margin of safety is thinner, narrower, shallower. I prefer that it be thicker, wider, deeper. Even if we could know very accurately, to the nearest foot per square inch of peak pressure or the nearest fraction of an inch of enclosing steel, it'd still be just plain good sense to stay well back from anywhere near the edge. So this discussion holds no interest for me. It's of no practical use or application that I can see -- especially in light of the great number of useful questions and well known subjects that so many handloaders and shooters seem woefully uninterested in thinking about or paying any attention to. I just don't understand the propensity of so many to ignore or minimize known good sense and safe practice, to spend instead so much time and thought wishing and wondering about how to play around with the impractical and dangerous.
<br>
<br>There are already enough tigers waiting in the weeds to snag us, without any wisdom that I can see in putting more tigers out there.
