What bullet / propellant loads have you worked up and what is your most accurate?

[Prowler53]

I was going to limit this to 9mm but I figured I would leave it open to any caliber handgun. I ask this because I've seen hundreds of threads online in just about every forum regarding favorite powder or bullets. It got me to thinking....How many of these folks who recommended a specific powder or bullet have actually tried several different brands of each before making the conclusion that "Unique" or whatever brand works best for them? Maybe they are just your typical (Ford or Chevy guy) that will never switch brands. I'm only in this reloading for over a year and I have tried several different powder / bullet load workups. I'm actually in the middle of loading up more test rounds that I need to try. Last night I went through the records that I have already finished, and pulled out the targets that I used for each load workup. I separated them according to bullet brand / weight / profile and put each stack in order from best to worst results. All of them were fired from the same 9mm sub-compact handgun but with different powder drops and OAL's. Each round loaded in a single stage press and every powder drop weighed on a digital scale. I have a few other powder / bullet combo's to try but so far my results are different from what I thought they would be.

124 Grain Berry's RN Plated
Powders tested: Power Pistol, AA#2, W231,Bullseye,True Blue, CFE Pistol, Titegroup,
OAL's 1.135 and 1.150 for each powder

Most Accurate from best to worst @ 10 Yards
1. True Blue 5.5 Gr. @ 1.150 9 shot group 1.88"
2. Bullseye 4.0 Gr. @ 1.135 10 Shot Group 1.97"
3. True Blue 5.7 Gr. @ 1.150 10 Shot Group 2.3"
4. Titegroup 3.8 Gr. @ 1.135 10 Shot Group 2.5"
5. Power Pistol 5.3 Gr. @ 1.135 10 Shot Group 2.6"
6. True Blue 5.3 Gr. @ 1.150 10 Shot Group 2.68"
7. Titegroup 3.7 Gr. @ 1.135 10 Shot Group 2.74"
8. W231 4.4 Gr. @ 1.135 10 Shot Group 2.95"
9. True Blue 5.4 Gr. @ 1.150 10 Shot Group 3.10" (6 / 10 shots grouped .69")
10. Bullseye 4.2 Gr. @ 1.135 10 Shot Group 3.15"

CFE Pistol (which is what I've been using as my go to powder) did not make the top 10 targets
as well as AA#2.


125 Grain Brazos LRN Hi-tek Coated OAL 1.0725
Powders tested: W231, True Blue, Bullseye, CFE Pistol

Most Accurate from best to worst @ 10 Yards
1. W231 4.0 Gr. 6 Shot Group .90"
2. True Blue 5.0 Gr. 7 Shot Group 1.5"
3. True Blue 4.8 Gr. 10 Shot Group 1.65"
4. Bullseye 3.7 Gr. 6 Shot Group 2.0"
5. CFE-Pistol 4.5 Gr. 9 Shot Group 2.1"
6. True Blue 4.9 Gr. 9 Shot Group 2.4"
7 W231 3.9 Gr. 6 Shot Group 2.75"
8. CFE-Pistol 4.8 GR. 10 Shot Group 2.78"
9. True Blue 4.7 Gr. 9 Shot Group 2.85"
10. W231 3.8 Gr. 7 Shot Group 2.90"

Still running test rounds and I have WSF and Unique to add to the test's. So far It looks like True Blue, W-231, Bullseye. Brazos LRN's are looking good, Acme Bullets are on the way!

I have to mention Hornady 124 XTP's. I don't shoot many of them because of cost.
Power Pistol 5.1 Gr. @ 1.080 7 Shot group 1.09" (6 shot's grouped .77"

 

[fxvr5]

How are you doing the test? Off a bench or freestyle? What gun?

 

[jmorris]

Any caliber handgun is a pretty wide range but my XP-100 in 7mm BR will out shoot most of my rifles to 200 yards.

 

[Prowler53]

How are you doing the test? Off a bench or freestyle? What gun?

All my tests were done from a bench (no pistol rest) Just using bench top to help me steady. Springfield xd 9 mod 2 sub-compact.
When finished I will continue same test with my 3 other 9mm's.

 

[LiveLife]

All my tests were done from a bench (no pistol rest) Just using bench top to help me steady. Springfield xd 9 mod 2 sub-compact.

Many members will agree that until you can remove shooting variables by resting the pistol on a rest, shooter input could be influencing group size.

Shooting off hand at 10 yards with sub compact pistol, we could be seeing shooting variables stacked on top of reloading variables (mentioned below) and not necessarily powder/charge factors to make a determination which powder/charge is producing greater accuracy.

Have you determined your powder metering variance? Like how much charge to charge weight variance using calibrated scale verified by check weights so we are not seeing powder metering variance tainting your range testing - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...andling-measuring.841882/page-2#post-10932763

And have you measured your finished rounds for bullet setback, which will affect chamber pressure and increase your group size?

IMHO, based on reloading over 600,000 rounds of various bullet types, plated and coated lead bullets seemed to have greater weight and nose profile (bullet seating depth) variance than jacketed bullets to overshadow powder charge variance you seem to be testing. I would suggest utilizing more consistent weight and nose profile (Ogive in relation to bullet seating depth consistency) variance bullets like RMR FMJ for testing purposes (reason why I think ELEY chose RMR bullets for their match ammunition)

FYI, many coated lead and plated bullet weights can vary by 1-2+ grains while many jacketed bullets vary less than 1.0 gr (RMR in-house FMJ vary around .05 gr). And more consistent nose profile of RMR in-house jacketed bullets can produce OAL variance down to .001" while plated/coated lead bullets can produce greater variance in OAL resulting in varying bullet seating depth that will affect chamber pressures/group size - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/bullet-seating-is-inconsistent.860452/#post-11322917

And testing at 10 yards, some member could raise the issue that what you are essentially measuring is deviations from other reloading/shooting variables and not powder charge variance.

 

[Howland937]

All my tests were done from a bench (no pistol rest) Just using bench top to help me steady. Springfield xd 9 mod 2 sub-compact.
When finished I will continue same test with my 3 other 9mm's.

Agree with above statement that without a true rest, it's hard to determine if any deviations are load or shooter related. Not questioning your shooting ability though. I shoot at 15 and 25 yards and cannot shoot my handguns off a rest worth a crap.
But I do know that I shoot a load of 8.3gr of HS-6 under a 124gr Speer TMJ or 124 MG HP more accurately than I do any of the loads I've tried with BlueDot,LilGun, CFE Pistol, or Unique.

ETA. 38 Super, not 9mm

 

[Prowler53]

Many members will agree that until you can remove shooting variables by resting the pistol on a rest, shooter input could be influencing group size.

Shooting off hand at 10 yards with sub compact pistol, we could be seeing shooting variables stacked on top of reloading variables (mentioned below) and not necessarily powder/charge factors to make a determination which powder/charge is producing greater accuracy.

I agree! But someone has to start somewhere to determine what works for them and their handgun. This wasn't intended to be a scientific test by any means. I'm sure their are many variables that come into play, but I can only use what I have in front of me. I think the biggest variance would be me as the shooter. I'm only shooting handguns on a regular basis for a little over a year. I know many on this forum can shoot better groups than I can. Probably shooting freehand vs me shooting from a rest.

Have you determined your powder metering variance? Like how much charge to charge weight variance using calibrated scale verified by check weights so we are not seeing powder metering variance tainting your range testing - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...andling-measuring.841882/page-2#post-10932763

All of my test rounds were individually weighed on a calibrated scale with check weights. Powder was dipped by hand and trickled to get consistent weights. I didn't record those weights on the Berry's but I do have the weights on the Brazos. 10 bullets were weighed at random
128.36
128.28
127.64
127.40
127.18
126.78
127.54
126.76
127.68
127.14
Lowest weight to highest weight = .92 grains

Bullet lengths
.5680
.5650
.5660
.5675
.5650
.5660
.5680
.5645
.5655
.5645
Shortest to longest = .0035"

And have you measured your finished rounds for bullet setback, which will affect chamber pressure and increase your group size?

I took random measurements from each group. Variance of +/- .002"

Keep in mind that I don't load 9mm rounds in this manner. I'm using a pro 1000 for normal loading. I know the variables with powder drops, OAL, will be greater using a progressive press. I used my Rockchucker for loading my test rounds to keep them as consistent as possible.

IMHO, based on reloading over 600,000 rounds of various bullet types, plated and coated lead bullets seemed to have greater weight and nose profile (bullet seating depth) variance than jacketed bullets to overshadow powder charge variance you seem to be testing. I would suggest utilizing more consistent weight and nose profile (Ogive in relation to bullet seating depth consistency) variance bullets like RMR FMJ for testing purposes (reason why I think ELEY chose RMR bullets for their match ammunition)

FYI, many coated lead and plated bullet weights can vary by 1-2+ grains while many jacketed bullets vary less than 1.0 gr (RMR in-house FMJ vary around .05 gr). And more consistent nose profile of RMR in-house jacketed bullets can produce OAL variance down to .001" while plated/coated lead bullets can produce greater variance in OAL resulting in varying bullet seating depth that will affect chamber pressures/group size - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/bullet-seating-is-inconsistent.860452/#post-11322917

And testing at 10 yards, some member could raise the issue that what you are essentially measuring is deviations from other reloading/shooting variables and not powder charge variance.

I agree 100% on everything you have stated here, however....setting all variables aside, If I run 20 different sets of test loads at 10 rounds each and I notice that in each and every set their is one or two powders that produce consistent accuracy over others on a regular basis, I'm going to have to assume that the powder / bullet combo is working better for me over the others. I probably fired 1000 rounds in the above tests. Many others were not listed because I could spend two days listing each one. Said variables should effect every round randomly and in no way would you see a powder / bullet combo consistently group better than others without something of importance other than pure luck, and I'm not that lucky It will be interesting to see how the rest of my test loads go and I'll be sure to use a pistol rest from here on out.
Thanks for the input!

 

[AJC1]

You may want to try 3.9 or 4 grains of tightgroup as it seems to be broadly observed to be a sweet area. Loads of bacon swares by 3.9 an I find 4 to be equally effective and a nice round number.

 

[fxvr5]

I agree 100% on everything you have stated here, however....setting all variables aside, If I run 20 different sets of test loads at 10 rounds each and I notice that in each and every set their is one or two powders that produce consistent accuracy over others on a regular basis, I'm going to have to assume that the powder / bullet combo is working better for me over the others. I probably fired 1000 rounds in the above tests. Many others were not listed because I could spend two days listing each one. Said variables should effect every round randomly and in no way would you see a powder / bullet combo consistently group better than others without something of importance other than pure luck, and I'm not that lucky It will be interesting to see how the rest of my test loads go and I'll be sure to use a pistol rest from here on out.
Thanks for the input!

There is variation in group size even when shooting separate groups with the same ammo. For example, in the link below they found a 2.8 times difference between the smallest group (1.07") and the largest group (3.02") with 15-shot groups with the gun in a Ransom Rest (using 115 grain Zero bullets and Power Pistol).

https://americanhandgunner.com/handguns/exclusive-consistent-velocity-accuracy/

A given group size is a random selection from the aggregate group size of all the ammo of a given load that can be shot through a gun. Some of those groups will be small, some will be large.

https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2019/9/25/accuracy-testing-shortcomings-of-the-five-shot-group/

These are things to keep in mind when comparing group sizes.

 

[LiveLife]

setting all variables aside, If I run 20 different sets of test loads at 10 rounds each and I notice that in each and every set their is one or two powders that produce consistent accuracy over others on a regular basis, I'm going to have to assume that the powder / bullet combo is working better for me over the others. I probably fired 1000 rounds in the above tests.

That's what I thought too years back before I got more serious about accuracy testing and members like Bart B, jmorris, Nature Boy and others that shot long distance precision matches out to 1000 yards taught me that 5 shot groups I was using was simply a subset of 10 shot groups which were in turn were subset of 20 shot groups, etc. etc.

So for me to make a determination that one reloading variable showed difference on paper consistently, I needed to work on identifying all the reloading variables and remove/reduce their influence as much as possible to not overshadow/taint accuracy testing results. That's when I got serious and started really myth busting different variables to the point of repeatability/measurability to many THR members' satisfaction (And believe me, some are still not fully satisfied) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-and-discussions.778197/page-10#post-10966692

So now when I am testing something (either a reloading variable or shooting variable), I am careful to first identify the measuring standards like check weights down to .04 - .06 gr and pin gages/micrometer to .001" for weights and measurements along with sorted headstamp brass that did not produce bullet setback as bullet setback of several thousandths after being fed/chambered from the magazine will significantly taint the range testing.

So while you may think you are seeing an accuracy trend or pattern, you could be seeing stacked reloading variables overshadowing different powder charges.

And if you started with components that inherently exhibit variance (Like bullet weight and ogive), you are going to taint your accuracy testing results.

When I wanted to do comparison test of 22LR to see which brand/model was more accurate, I embarked on a 16,000+ round journey and 2 new rifles (10/22 Collector #3 and Thompson Center T/CR22) along with my 10/22 Take Down while testing over 20 different ammunition capturing every 10 shot group from out of the box at 25/50 yards. What I learned after thousands of rounds shot repeating 10 shot groups after 10 shot groups is that accuracy trend could deviate on several factors and sometimes without reason and I am still working to remove/reduce these factors.

So starting a "What bullet / propellant loads ... is your most accurate?" thread will raise many questions on reloading/testing variables as we have entertained many accuracy related myth busting thread over the years. Now, if your thread title was "Range report of various bullet/powder combinations at 10 yards offhand", then we would cut you a lot of slack in the "consistency" department.

BTW, exhaustive 10/22 Collector #3 testing capturing every 10 shot group (round count 2960 and counting) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...rrel-ruger-10-22-collector-3-break-in.859106/

T/CR22 testing (round count 600 so far) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...mmo-comparison-break-in.864241/#post-11405487

Sorted accuracy trend/pattern of various 22LR after 16,000+ rounds in several 22LR rifles and ARs with CMMG 22LR conversion - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...15-20-500-shipped.853059/page-3#post-11534906

 

[Prowler53]

Thanks for the links LiveLife.....All good info.

 

[Texas10mm]

My buddy related this to me.

Years ago when there were a bunch of guys who were really serious about 50 yard accuracy of the 45 ACP one of them built a test gun from a Remington 700 action.

They ended up with a 12 lb single shot 45 ACP with a 5" 1.5" barrel. This fixture was designed to be bolted to the shooting bench. This monster when torqued down to the bench eliminated ALL outside variables.

When push came to shove it turned out that out of this fixture there were very few 45 ACP loads that didn't shoot into one ragged hole for a 10 round group at 50 yards. Some of the loads those guys were using shot well inside an inch at 50 yards. Almost all were inside 2".

 

[ojibweindian]

My buddy related this to me.

Years ago when there were a bunch of guys who were really serious about 50 yard accuracy of the 45 ACP one of them built a test gun from a Remington 700 action.

They ended up with a 12 lb single shot 45 ACP with a 5" 1.5" barrel. This fixture was designed to be bolted to the shooting bench. This monster when torqued down to the bench eliminated ALL outside variables.

When push came to shove it turned out that out of this fixture there were very few 45 ACP loads that didn't shoot into one ragged hole for a 10 round group at 50 yards. Some of the loads those guys were using shot well inside an inch at 50 yards. Almost all were inside 2".

Fascinating. It can inferred, then, that the selection of a particular powder becomes more a matter of desired performance (e.g. velocity) or comfort (perceived recoil), than accuracy.

 

[LiveLife]

out of this fixture there were very few 45 ACP loads that didn't shoot into one ragged hole for a 10 round group at 50 yards. Some of the loads those guys were using shot well inside an inch at 50 yards. Almost all were inside 2".

Fascinating.

I tell you. Things you learn on THR.

When I was doing load development for 9mm carbine loads, I thought I wasn't getting decent groups until a magazine testing of same Just Right carbine produced smallest 1.5" groups at 50 yards. Then I learned Atlanta Arms uses 1.5" 10 shot groups at 50 yards from test fixture barrel as accuracy standard for their Elite AMU match loads - https://atlantaarms.com/products/elite-9mm-115gr-fmj-match-amu.html

"Elite Ammo - 9mm 115 gr FMJ Match AMU - This ammunition is designed for extreme accuracy at 50 yards.

This ammo is used by the Army Marksmanship Unit and the Marine Service Pistol team for service pistol matches. Accuracy test requirement: 5 ten-shot groups at 50 yards with an average group size not to exceed 1.5 inches."
​

So I guess these groups are confirming what Texas10mm posted.

 

[fxvr5]

My buddy related this to me.

Years ago when there were a bunch of guys who were really serious about 50 yard accuracy of the 45 ACP one of them built a test gun from a Remington 700 action.

They ended up with a 12 lb single shot 45 ACP with a 5" 1.5" barrel. This fixture was designed to be bolted to the shooting bench. This monster when torqued down to the bench eliminated ALL outside variables.

When push came to shove it turned out that out of this fixture there were very few 45 ACP loads that didn't shoot into one ragged hole for a 10 round group at 50 yards. Some of the loads those guys were using shot well inside an inch at 50 yards. Almost all were inside 2".

What's missing here are the details, and the details are very important. What specific loads did they try? How many different loads did they try?

Maybe they only tried 5 loads. Maybe those were already proven to be very accurate.

Without this information we can't determine the usefulness of this information.

 

[ojibweindian]

What's missing here are the details, and the details are very important. What specific loads did they try? How many different loads did they try?

Maybe they only tried 5 loads. Maybe those were already proven to be very accurate.

Without this information we can't determine the usefulness of this information.

Anyone willing to go through the process of rebarreling a 700 action and coming up with a 12 lbs single-shot bench gun in 45 ACP most likely would've tested much more than 5 loads.

 

[fxvr5]

Anyone willing to go through the process of rebarreling a 700 action and coming up with a 12 lbs single-shot bench gun in 45 ACP most likely would've tested much more than 5 loads.

How many loads did they test? Were you there?

This is how 'rumors' get started. "I read on a forum where some guy said some other guys did a test and they found that, "When push came to shove it turned out that out of this fixture there were very few 45 ACP loads that didn't shoot into one ragged hole for a 10 round group at 50 yards. Some of the loads those guys were using shot well inside an inch at 50 yards. Almost all were inside 2".""

As it stands, this is a rumor. It can't be verified. There is no specific information posted. It has no value.

 

[ojibweindian]

How many loads did they test? Were you there?

This is how 'rumors' get started. "I read on a forum where some guy said some other guys did a test and they found that, "When push came to shove it turned out that out of this fixture there were very few 45 ACP loads that didn't shoot into one ragged hole for a 10 round group at 50 yards. Some of the loads those guys were using shot well inside an inch at 50 yards. Almost all were inside 2".""

As it stands, this is a rumor. It can't be verified. There is no specific information posted. It has no value.

Doubt it's a rumor. I'll take him at his word. And, honestly, I'm not really all that OCD about it.

 

[JFrank]

JC- Tough crowd!
Remind me not to post any test results until my skin gets a bit thicker.
To the OP...
Thanks for taking your time and resources to test and post your findings.
J

 

[Texas10mm]

Anyone willing to go through the process of rebarreling a 700 action and coming up with a 12 lbs single-shot bench gun in 45 ACP most likely would've tested much more than 5 loads.

Where did you get the idea they only tested 5 loads? They tested hundreds over a few years. They did some crazy things, like loading SWC bullets backwards, loading FMJ backwards, and other fun projects.

A Ransom rest will show you the mechanical accuracy of your pistol. That has to be taken into account when doing load development.

The monster test rig shows the actual accuracy of the load. Almost all loads tested were more accurate than the pistols used and tested on a Ransom rest.

 

[LiveLife]

JC- Tough crowd!

Remind me not to post any test results until my skin gets a bit thicker.

I discussed that issue with moderator Walkalong and I think our technical load development work, especially various myth busting threads, are getting increasing amount of attention (Just Google "mythbusting digital scales") to the point where we owe ourselves in "High Road" manner to present a higher level of technical discussion.

I was surprised and flattered to see various THR Handloading and Reloading threads being referenced on other gun forums, even on Brian Enos, to counter incorrect notions and internet myths (that we busted many times on THR).

So over the years, there's been less acceptance of casual superficial postings where subjective assumptions (And we all know about assumptions) and internet folklore, particularly posting of incorrect information regarding load development and accuracy testing as greater focus has been made towards actual objective measurable/repeatable data obtained by verifiable standards to higher resolution.

So when I saw OP's "most accurate" bullet/powder load thread title, I anticipated challenges to OP's premise as "measure of accuracy" as to how various reloading and shooting variables would be isolated and verified - Which OP obviously did not.

I kinda started the "Pistol - Advanced Reloading Concepts and Discussions" thread to be the rough worksheet project that perhaps will be honed, detailed with more verification and repeatability to work towards a reference guide to perhaps set "Best Practices" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-and-discussions.778197/page-10#post-11419509

They did some crazy things, like loading SWC bullets backwards, loading FMJ backwards, and other fun projects.

Are we doing that again? BTW, all of these reliably fed and chambered from the magazine. Ahhhh, good times.

 

[JFrank]

@LiveLife

I could reread the entire thread but I think I would come to the same conclusion.
in my opinion there is just as much conjecture on THR as anywhere else.
I would also like to see some of these Internet experts on the 1000 yard firing line putting there money where their mouth is.
Respectfully
J

 

[ojibweindian]

Where did you get the idea they only tested 5 loads? They tested hundreds over a few years. They did some crazy things, like loading SWC bullets backwards, loading FMJ backwards, and other fun projects.

A Ransom rest will show you the mechanical accuracy of your pistol. That has to be taken into account when doing load development.

The monster test rig shows the actual accuracy of the load. Almost all loads tested were more accurate than the pistols used and tested on a Ransom rest.

I didn't. I said anyone willing to go through the effort to put together a bench gun for a 45 would most likely have tested much more than 5 loads.

You have an issue with fxvr5 who said:
↑
"How many loads did they test? Were you there?

This is how 'rumors' get started. "I read on a forum where some guy said some other guys did a test and they found that, "When push came to shove it turned out that out of this fixture there were very few 45 ACP loads that didn't shoot into one ragged hole for a 10 round group at 50 yards. Some of the loads those guys were using shot well inside an inch at 50 yards. Almost all were inside 2".""

As it stands, this is a rumor. It can't be verified. There is no specific information posted. It has no value."

 

[Texas10mm]

I didn't. I said anyone willing to go through the effort to put together a bench gun for a 45 would most likely have tested much more than 5 loads.

You have an issue with fxvr5 who said:
↑
"How many loads did they test? Were you there?

This is how 'rumors' get started. "I read on a forum where some guy said some other guys did a test and they found that, "When push came to shove it turned out that out of this fixture there were very few 45 ACP loads that didn't shoot into one ragged hole for a 10 round group at 50 yards. Some of the loads those guys were using shot well inside an inch at 50 yards. Almost all were inside 2".""

As it stands, this is a rumor. It can't be verified. There is no specific information posted. It has no value."

As I would have been 13 years old at the time and living 2000 miles away I can only tell you want I was told.

Bullseye shooters are very accuracy oriented. They aren't going to shoot loads that don't have a high degree of accuracy. It's not surprising that almost all the loads they tested were extremely accurate in the bolted down test fixture. Any loads that didn't have high accuracy potential had already been weeded out.

What they were trying to do was to find the most accurate load possible by eliminated any mechanical accuracy problems.

As this was related to me by one of the people who was there and participated in the tests I have faith what I've been told is true.

If I were to follow your path then unless there is photos or video it didn't happen.

 

[LiveLife]

As to bullseye match shooters, my reloading and match shooting mentor was one and boy was he OCD about consistency. While I struggled to get 2" groups at 25 yards, he was getting better groups at 50 yards.

As to OP's "most accurate", this bullseye match load article outlines components and powders that produced sub 2" groups at 25 yards - https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/loads-for-the-bullseye-shooter/99418#:~:text=The powders used by Bullseye,45 ACP.

like to see some of these Internet experts ... putting there money where their mouth is.

Believe me, I have been on the receiving end of THR peanut gallery and yes, I agree that it is easier to armchair quarterback and critique but much harder to actually do it in real life instead of theorizing.

unless there is photos or video it didn't happen.

I have found holes on target speak volumes. In many myth busting threads I have conducted, often what we theorized didn't necessarily translate to actuality and holes on paper. And it is actual objective measurable/repeatable data verified by known standards that ultimately matter, not our internet chatter.

Example: How do we know bullet setback relates to case wall thickness? We measured case wall thickness at multiple points and fed/chambered rounds from magazine repeatedly.

And as always, if you really vehemently disagree and feel strong about the issue, you are more than welcome to start your own thread and show us how it should be done.