I grew up reading articles by men such as O'Conner, Carmichael, Keith, Askins, etc. I understand that in their early years, they often had to "fly by the seat of their pants" developing loads, etc. From what I've read Keith tinkered and experimented beyond that level of a informed hobbyist. I would not question the results of the H.P. White tests you cite. If all of Keith's loads, etc. were tested in a similar manner, there would be no questions as to safety, etc. But anecdotal statements are one thing while qualified laboratory results are quiet another. In my own experience I've loaded round for handguns and rifles that were safe in those particular firearms... loads that were not safe in other firearms chambered for those cartridges for which those loads which I developed. In my library I have manuals from major reloading companies that recommend loads that 30 years later are simply not at all considered safe. To a large degree this is because of better equipment that is more available and accessible. Nowadays, measuring case head expansion, eyeballing primer extrusion, stiff bolt lift, etc. are mighty poor means to determine the relative safety of a load. I have and maintain every respect for Elmer Keith. His book Hell I Was There was one of the first three books I ever bought from the Outdoor Life Book Club... along with Nonte's Pistolsmithing and Carmichael's The Rifle. One reason I now own a 21-4 is the influence of Keith, Skelton, etc. who spoke so highly of the .44 Special. I do not in any way mean any disrespect for any of these men. However I cannot equate their experiments in load development for their firearms with loads qualified by controlled experiments conducted by the trained staff of the manufacturers of ammunition and the major reloading companies. Sincerely. brucev.

__________________
<><