Skidrow's right -- which brings to mind the undeserved bad rap that "product liability" has been getting so frequently in discussions like this.
<br>
<br>THINK about it -- if the loads published in earlier manuals are NOW known to be unsafe enough to raise liability concerns, what kind of logic can justifiably consider them acceptably SAFE and imply that the company lawyers who get nervous about 'em are Chicken Littles?
<br>
<br>Only the illogical and illusory influence that I call the sanctity of print can support such "thinking," and only very flimsily. Assertions do not become unassailable, unquestionable facts merely by appearing in print. MUCH that appears in print -- NOT excluding published load data -- is dangerous.
<br>
<br>As his Editor, I used to have to delete dangerous load data from a very famous writer's articles before I published 'em.. His other Editors didn't dare do the same or didn't know to, so much of his very dangerous data continue in print, held to be Holy Writ by his many fans. They're just as dangerous as if they'd been deleted from his data tables -- just as dangerous today and tomorrow as they were when they bulged his rifles' chambers.
