[mykeal]

ClemBert - I don't criticize your interest, I criticize the meaning, or perhaps the construed meaning, of the numbers. Let's try it this way: what does "1026 fps from 50 gr ffg Goex under a .495 rb spit patched with 0.018" pillow ticking" mean?

I have no doubt Lyman used calibrated instrumentation (although they've never published the calibration data, which they certainly should have), and I know for a fact that much, if not all, their testing was done under well controlled conditions (which they did publish). But, all these other guys doing their own measurement with inexpensive backyard equipment are not, so how much can they actually determine when they attempt to compare their numbers with the Lyman data, or even worse, each other?

Look, if you want to compare your loads with different powders, or different loads with the same powder, or different projectiles with any number of the same or different variables, using your own equipment under consistent conditions which you define, more power to you. I think that's fine; I even concede it's probably meaningful if you really understand the variables. But publishing those numbers on the internet as though they would have meaning for someone using different equipment under different conditions, well, I think that's stretching it a bit. The comparison is perhaps useful (eg, "I got 12% higher velocity using Brand B over Brand X."), but the actual numbers to 3 significant figures, sorry, I just don't get it.