Guns and Ammo just did a hatchet job on BP revolvers.

[armoredman]

The conversion sheet I have access to, dunno if it's right, says 30gr of 777 is equal to about 37gr of Goex FFFG, and 30gr of 777 is what MAC said he was loading in his ballistics test.

http://www.curtrich.com/BPConversionSheet.htm

Is that correct? That would most likely be rather unsafe in my brasser 1851, I am guessing. I am thinking maybe 30 tops? Curious - I didn't buy a holster for this baby to watch her hang on the wall!

 

[LoonWulf]

Let’s say you do this in a ROA. You studied pressure curves, educate yourself far beyond what anyone but an engineer will do, determine a safe load (they do this in merry old England you know in guns and cylinders designed for target loads of smokeless powders.) and nothing bad happens. Rugers are strong, much stronger than the 58 Remington your buddy is shooting but he thinks, “a gun’s a gun. They even look similar” he grabs a container of H110 or 231 ball, “hey, it’s grey!” Loads her up and touches off a hand grenade. His fault right?

I know it can be done safely. But I bet you and maybe anyone else on this forum doesn’t have the engineering background to pull it off. The numbers are in my favor...

My question is specific to what makes it dangerous to use smokeless powder in place of black powder.

Pressure curve, pressure spike due to compression, maximum pressure, burn temperature, flame cutting, thrust (small threaded parts taking direct pressure) etc?
Is it as simple as user / experimenter error an application or technique?

Why are cartridge arms built for black powder also safe for low pressure loads of smokeless powder?

Why are conversion cylinders that fire smokeless cartridges safe in black powder revolvers?

Is it a combination of the above....something like a cartridge completely seals the chamber, and provides a specific volume?



Without the reasons WHY you shouldnt do something, ya Might as well just make a sign that says
"DONT"
..... You could hit people with it!
(Stole that from one of my favorite video games)
No insult intended. Just annoyed at the lack of information available on the subject

Obviously we're getting way off track of the original post.

The conversion sheet I have access to, dunno if it's right, says 30gr of 777 is equal to about 37gr of Goex FFFG, and 30gr of 777 is what MAC said he was loading in his ballistics test.

http://www.curtrich.com/BPConversionSheet.htm

Is that correct? That would most likely be rather unsafe in my brasser 1851, I am guessing. I am thinking maybe 30 tops? Curious - I didn't buy a holster for this baby to watch her hang on the wall!

From what I've read 777 loose is 15 to 20% more energetic than an equal volume of black powder or pyrodex.
Pelletized 777 is formulated to match the volumetric label printed on them.

I actually weigh my charges of 777 and use 83 grains by WEIGHT which is slightly over 100 grains volumetrically. This is proven to be the most accurate load in my specific gun.... A rifle, ah don't think you cram 83 grains into a revolver... And I wouldn't shoot it if you did...

there's a noticeable jump and velocity with the loose 777 and slightly higher than 100 grain charge as compared to a volumetric charge of 100 grains of pyrodex, or 2 50gr grain 777 pellets.

 

[woodnbow]

The conversion sheet I have access to, dunno if it's right, says 30gr of 777 is equal to about 37gr of Goex FFFG, and 30gr of 777 is what MAC said he was loading in his ballistics test.

http://www.curtrich.com/BPConversionSheet.htm

Is that correct? That would most likely be rather unsafe in my brasser 1851, I am guessing. I am thinking maybe 30 tops? Curious - I didn't buy a holster for this baby to watch her hang on the wall!

30,grains of 777 would be perfectly safe for the brasser, the cylinder would hold it just fine. It would batter the bejeebers out of the frame though...

 

[woodnbow]

My question is specific to what makes it dangerous to use smokeless powder in place of black powder.

Pressure curve, pressure spike due to compression, maximum pressure, burn temperature, flame cutting, thrust (small threaded parts taking direct pressure) etc?
Is it as simple as user / experimenter error an application or technique?

Why are cartridge arms built for black powder also safe for low pressure loads of smokeless powder?

Why are conversion cylinders that fire smokeless cartridges safe in black powder revolvers?

Is it a combination of the above....something like a cartridge completely seals the chamber, and provides a specific volume?



Without the reasons WHY you shouldnt do something, ya Might as well just make a sign that says
"DONT"
..... You could hit people with it!
(Stole that from one of my favorite video games)
No insult intended. Just annoyed at the lack of information available on the subject

Obviously we're getting way off track of the original post.


From what I've read 777 loose is 15 to 20% more energetic than an equal volume of black powder or pyrodex.
Pelletized 777 is formulated to match the volumetric label printed on them.

I actually weigh mine charges of 777 and use 83 grains by WEIGHT which is slightly over 100 grains volumetrically. This is proven to be the most accurate load in my specific gun.

there's a noticeable jump and velocity with the loose 777 and slightly higher than 100 grain charge as compared to a volumetric charge of 100 grains of pyrodex, or 2 50gr grain 777 pellets.

you got it in one... bp deflagrates relatively slowly with or without pressure to contain it. Pressures thus seem to peak in sporting arms at less than 20,000 cup (copper units of pressure) usually much less. Numbers for black powder revolvers peak around 11,000 lup (lead units of pressure) Smokeless powders burn rapidly and produce huge volumes of gasses which when contained pressurize rapidly to exceed 55,000 cup. Smokeless powder has much more energy potential than black and in target load application (the only smokeless powder you’re going to consider for a percussion revolver) it is very sensitive to not only case volume but projectile weight and the weight of the charge itself.

Here’s a for instance, Lyman #45 reloading guide gives this Bullseye load for a 235gr cast (#454309)
starting 4.0gr, 575fps, max 6.8gr @ 905fps in Rem cases, Rem 2-1/2 primers. Change one variable, case brand (volume) primer potency or projectile weight and you have a pressure spike which can destroy your Uberti SAA... if you went through the calculations and came up with a safe charge for your percussion revolver but inadvertently changed a variable from primer to case volume to charge weight it’s all out the window. That is a very simple explanation because I’m a very simple guy. There are other people on the board who can get into the nitty gritty. I won’t attempt it...

 

[LoonWulf]

you got it in one... bp deflagrates relatively slowly with or without pressure to contain it. Pressures thus seem to peak in sporting arms at less than 20,000 cup (copper units of pressure) usually much less. Numbers for black powder revolvers peak around 11,000 lup (lead units of pressure) Smokeless powders burn rapidly and produce huge volumes of gasses which when contained pressurize rapidly to exceed 55,000 cup. Smokeless powder has much more energy potential than black and in target load application (the only smokeless powder you’re going to consider for a percussion revolver) it is very sensitive to not only case volume but projectile weight and the weight of the charge itself.

Here’s a for instance, Lyman #45 reloading guide gives this Bullseye load for a 235gr cast (#454309)
starting 4.0gr, 575fps, max 6.8gr @ 905fps in Rem cases, Rem 2-1/2 primers. Change one variable, case brand (volume) primer potency or projectile weight and you have a pressure spike which can destroy your Uberti SAA... if you went through the calculations and came up with a safe charge for your percussion revolver but inadvertently changed a variable from primer to case volume to charge weight it’s all out the window. That is a very simple explanation because I’m a very simple guy. There are other people on the board who can get into the nitty gritty. I won’t attempt it...

Good info, far more and better than ive gotten to date, Thanks!

 

[Loyalist Dave]

They have an article on "Cap & Ball Revolvers" in their april 2021 issue and on page 74 they say "The power of these cap and ball revolvers is anemic by today's ballistic standards."

A rem 1858 (8 inch barrel) with a heavy but perfectly safe load of 40 grains BP has the muzzle energy of a factory load in 44 special or 45 ACP (not a +P).

An ROA has a slightly larger powder chamber and as strongly built as it is, could likely handle 50 grains of BP, though i've never tried that myself. In fact i suspect an ROA could even handle low pressure smokeless powder. Of course ruger says that's suicide. but they have to say that. It would be dangerous with a rem 1858 which is a true Civil war replica gun, but the ROA is much much stronger.

Well the choice of the word "anemic" is a poor choice, that's all.

If you consider a .375 caliber 160 grain projectile according to the black powder table posted above..., it's shown at 816 fps. I just looked up Nosler data for a .357 158 grain projectile using HS-6, and it is shown at 810 fps. Factory self defense ammo offered by Fiocchi is listed at 850 fps, Hornady at 800 fps, Magtech at 807 fps, Buffalo Bore at 854 fps, and Federal at 830 fps.

The 140 grain .454 round ball is doing 945 fps, and the 60 grain heavier at 200 grains, .429 from a .44 special in the Nosler loading data at their highest load is doing 977 fps. I also checked and 200 grain self defense loads from Blazer are listed at 875 fps, Underwood at 975 fps, Sig Sauer at 700 fps (surprised me for sure), and Speer at 875 fps.

GRANTED, the two loads for the black powder revolvers were maxed, and there were no hollow points coming from them while the modern factory ammo is loaded as hollow points, AND with the modern factory ammo there is room to go further into +P loadings ..., while as I just wrote, the black powder revolvers are maxed out.

Still the loadings are closer than I'd have guessed after reading the word "anemic" in the article, especially after finding factory loadings for self defense ammo in .44 special that are slower than the comparable black powder round.

LD

 

[LoonWulf]

Well the choice of the word "anemic" is a poor choice, that's all.

If you consider a .375 caliber 160 grain projectile according to the black powder table posted above..., it's shown at 816 fps. I just looked up Nosler data for a .357 158 grain projectile using HS-6, and it is shown at 810 fps. Factory self defense ammo offered by Fiocchi is listed at 850 fps, Hornady at 800 fps, Magtech at 807 fps, Buffalo Bore at 854 fps, and Federal at 830 fps.

The 140 grain .454 round ball is doing 945 fps, and the 60 grain heavier at 200 grains, .429 from a .44 special in the Nosler loading data at their highest load is doing 977 fps. I also checked and 200 grain self defense loads from Blazer are listed at 875 fps, Underwood at 975 fps, Sig Sauer at 700 fps (surprised me for sure), and Speer at 875 fps.

GRANTED, the two loads for the black powder revolvers were maxed, and there were no hollow points coming from them while the modern factory ammo is loaded as hollow points, AND with the modern factory ammo there is room to go further into +P loadings ..., while as I just wrote, the black powder revolvers are maxed out.

Still the loadings are closer than I'd have guessed after reading the word "anemic" in the article, especially after finding factory loadings for self defense ammo in .44 special that are slower than the comparable black powder round.

LD

Some of that toned down energy from the self-defense loadings, I think is also because of the weapons usually used.
I load 240 grain MBCs I just under a thousand feet per second from my 5-inch GP100.
I've had a number of people decline to shoot that revolver more than a couple of times running those loads. My larger 44 Magnum SBH running the same 240s at nearly 1500 ft per second on the other hand is actually enjoyable and easy to handle. The 44 special loads are an absolute joy.

Stick those thousand FPS loads in a smaller gun like a charter arms, and I put money that the shooter gives before the gun does.

 

[entropy]

They are. Don't mug me for insulting the Holy Black, but it is true that standard black powder revolvers, as much as we love them, are not exactly the cutting edge of technology. Many men fell to the Sopwith Camel, but nobody is going to fly a WWI biplane in modern air combat. The fearsome Tiger tank was murder on the battlefields of WWII, but would be a chew toy for an M1 Abrams. However, any man killed by either of these tools is still as dead as if hit with an APFDS Silver Bullet.
Put it in perspective - the June 2182 issue of Phasers and Blasters has an article about primitive chemical powered sidearms, "The power of these ancient cartridge firearms, such as the Colt 1911 or Beretta 92, are anemic by today's standards. Heck, they won't even vaporize the target, much less a guaranteed death strike first shot!"
Would I carry my little Pietta 44 as a primary sidearm? You know what, in some circumstances, yes I would, and I would feel just fine doing it. G&A doesn't like them? So what.

Dang it, armoredman, you slipped and let the time travel cat out of the bag. You know the protocol; The Team will arrive shortly to extract you and flash the memories of all who have ever had contact with you. Nice knowin' ya.

OH CRAP! I just outed myself! And I was so eager to place my bet on the next Super Bowl- Spoiler-The Vikings beat the Steelers. <door knock> Ok, guys, give me a few minutes to gather up all my antique guns here.......

 

[DocRock]

You don't know that.

Yes, I do know that because Bill Ruger, who did it, said so.

 

[swg1]

The only thing in the article that made me uncomfortable was the advice to carry the fully loaded with six loads with the hammer partially cocked. I'm thinking it's better resting between chambers or down on an empty chamber. Otherwise it was another of many, many entry level discussions regarding black powder revolvers.

 

[mjsdwash]

My question is specific to what makes it dangerous to use smokeless powder in place of black powder.

Pressure curve, pressure spike due to compression, maximum pressure, burn temperature, flame cutting, thrust (small threaded parts taking direct pressure) etc?
Is it as simple as user / experimenter error an application or technique?

Why are cartridge arms built for black powder also safe for low pressure loads of smokeless powder?

Why are conversion cylinders that fire smokeless cartridges safe in black powder revolvers?

Is it a combination of the above....something like a cartridge completely seals the chamber, and provides a specific volume?



Without the reasons WHY you shouldnt do something, ya Might as well just make a sign that says
"DONT"
..... You could hit people with it!
(Stole that from one of my favorite video games)
No insult intended. Just annoyed at the lack of information available on the subject

Obviously we're getting way off track of the original post.


From what I've read 777 loose is 15 to 20% more energetic than an equal volume of black powder or pyrodex.
Pelletized 777 is formulated to match the volumetric label printed on them.

I actually weigh my charges of 777 and use 83 grains by WEIGHT which is slightly over 100 grains volumetrically. This is proven to be the most accurate load in my specific gun.... A rifle, ah don't think you cram 83 grains into a revolver... And I wouldn't shoot it if you did...

there's a noticeable jump and velocity with the loose 777 and slightly higher than 100 grain charge as compared to a volumetric charge of 100 grains of pyrodex, or 2 50gr grain 777 pellets.

I've been given the "no smokeless because..." for decades. Pushed on it, every time, it comes down to "That what I heard from a guy" or "I don't know, it seems like a bad idea". I'll tell you the best reason. Odds of screwing up are much higher, and the consequence are as bad as they say. I have heard that smokeless will bounce the hammer after firing, and I can't say if it will or not, but its the closes to a rational explanation I have ever heard. There is no other rational explanation for why 8K in smokeless is more dangerous than 8K in real black powder.

There is an issue with seating depth. Seating a bullet on smokeless is known to be dangerous (for the low pressure powders you would be running) and rams don't necessarily keep you from doing it. I have seen at least one very low pressure smokeless cylinder with ledged bores to keep you from doing that on a European page. They don't seem to have the hammer bounce, magic "pressure spike" or any of the other problems, but I don't know where to look.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Some of that toned down energy from the self-defense loadings, I think is also because of the weapons usually used.
I load 240 grain MBCs I just under a thousand feet per second from my 5-inch GP100.
I've had a number of people decline to shoot that revolver more than a couple of times running those loads. My larger 44 Magnum SBH running the same 240s at nearly 1500 ft per second on the other hand is actually enjoyable and easy to handle. The 44 special loads are an absolute joy.

Stick those thousand FPS loads in a smaller gun like a charter arms, and I put money that the shooter gives before the gun does.

Yes, no doubt. Especially the Charter Arms.

The article is also sorta "fluff". Gee Whiz, you mean a handgun powered by black powder has less umph than one powered with smokeless powder and a modern designed hollow point bullet?
SHOCKING! Perhaps we should now nominate the author of the article for a Nobel Prize in physics?

So the overall theme from the article was that modern handguns work better at self-defense than 150 year old tech...., OK moving along now...

LD

 

[Tommygunn]

I just read the article last night. I really didn't have any problem with it. I agree with Loyalist Dave; it was really just "fluff."
It's true that bp is weak compared to modern guns .... of course many Civil War soldiers were killed, it was a nasty bloody civil war. It was this nation's bloodiest war.

I recall being told that Mafia hit men like the .22 rimfire. Why? They go up in back of the victim, empty the pistol into his skull, the bullets enter and bounce around and puree the brain. Effective .... yea....

But it doesn't mean one should use a .22 on a Grizzly Bear ....

 

[rodwha]

I just read the article last night. I really didn't have any problem with it. I agree with Loyalist Dave; it was really just "fluff."
It's true that bp is weak compared to modern guns .... of course many Civil War soldiers were killed, it was a nasty bloody civil war. It was this nation's bloodiest war.

Ummm, actually it was...

Oops! Just realized I misunderstood you. Sorry.

 

[ThomasT]

I recall being told that Mafia hit men like the .22 rimfire. Why? They go up in back of the victim, empty the pistol into his skull, the bullets enter and bounce around and puree the brain. Effective .... yea....

But it doesn't mean one should use a .22 on a Grizzly Bear ....

Sorry but 22 bullets don't "bounce around" inside of anything. After impact they are spent in the tiniest fraction of a second. They don't have the time or momentum to bounce around. And Grizzlies have been killed with 22s. A famous event was a Grizzly killed by an indian woman with a single shot 22 rifle. And get some of the books by Russel Annabel who lived in Alaska from the 1920s and beyond and he wrote of killing a couple of Grizzlies with a 22 pistol. Plus wolves on occasion with a 22 handgun. Besides what do .22s have to do with an article on BP revolvers?

It was a lot of work for me to get the new Sheriffs model NMA Pietta I have now. I didn't do all that work to blow it up with smokeless powder. I don't even care to have a conversion cylinder. If I wanted to shoot smokeless I would have bought a gun designed for smokeless. Shooting a BP gun of any style with smokeless powder in a cylinder designed for BP is just asking for a wrecked gun and maybe a wrecked hand. Why would anyone do that in the first place?

 

[CraigC]

G&A hasn't been worth the paper it's printed on in a long time.

The Ruger cylinder is a casting so I'm not sure how many assumptions I'd make with regards to its strength.

BP pistols are anemic by today's standards. Energy is a meaningless number.

 

[Tommygunn]

Sorry but 22 bullets don't "bounce around" inside of anything. After impact they are spent in the tiniest fraction of a second. They don't have the time or momentum to bounce around. And Grizzlies have been killed with 22s. A famous event was a Grizzly killed by an indian woman with a single shot 22 rifle. And get some of the books by Russel Annabel who lived in Alaska from the 1920s and beyond and he wrote of killing a couple of Grizzlies with a 22 pistol. Plus wolves on occasion with a 22 handgun. Besides what do .22s have to do with an article on BP revolvers? ....

First, I said "I was told ...." which should indicate that the story is apocraphyl. Lots of people have ideas about guns and bullets that aren't true; why should Mafia hit men be different? Maybe the .22 is liked because it's usually a cheap gun and they like to toss them in the East River after they shoot the victim?

Anyway, I'm not sure how "being spent in the tiniest fraction of a second" prohibits ricochets; they happen "in the tiniest fraction of a second" too.
I've heard of a circus elephant being killed with a .22 because the shooter knew where it's skull could be penetrated by one .... and a African big game hunter who used a Nitro Express on an elephant only to knock it unconscious and be killed when it regained consciousness and stomped him dead cuz he did not hit that one vulnerable spot.

Lastly, my point in bringing .22s into the matter was to point out even amongst modern guns there are those that are not super-magnums. Not really a hard concept to understand ..... I should think .....

 

[woodnbow]

I've been given the "no smokeless because..." for decades. Pushed on it, every time, it comes down to "That what I heard from a guy" or "I don't know, it seems like a bad idea". I'll tell you the best reason. Odds of screwing up are much higher, and the consequence are as bad as they say. I have heard that smokeless will bounce the hammer after firing, and I can't say if it will or not, but its the closes to a rational explanation I have ever heard. There is no other rational explanation for why 8K in smokeless is more dangerous than 8K in real black powder.

There is an issue with seating depth. Seating a bullet on smokeless is known to be dangerous (for the low pressure powders you would be running) and rams don't necessarily keep you from doing it. I have seen at least one very low pressure smokeless cylinder with ledged bores to keep you from doing that on a European page. They don't seem to have the hammer bounce, magic "pressure spike" or any of the other problems, but I don't know where to look.

Absolutely. The Europeans have muzzleloading revolvers based on S&W double actions, the Ruger and Uberti Remingtons. They use target loads of bullseye and other similar powders behind round balls and light the charge with 209 primers. It’s practical for them because cartridge firearms aren’t widely available in many countries over there. Here? I don’t know why anyone would bother. Especially since we don’t have access to the cylinder made for the application. Trying this in a standard bp cylinder is courting catastrophic failure. (It says so right there on the barrel!)

 

[ThomasT]

First, I said "I was told ...." which should indicate that the story is apocraphyl. Lots of people have ideas about guns and bullets that aren't true; why should Mafia hit men be different? Maybe the .22 is liked because it's usually a cheap gun and they like to toss them in the East River after they shoot the victim?

Thats one of the hazards of repeating second and third hand information. I did shoot one deer with a 22 rifle. The bullet ranged from the last rib on the right and went through the lungs and stopped on the far side of the deer. The bullet was undeformed and the bullet path was straight as an arrow. And yes a 22 (or any other bullet) can be deflected by bone or even just take a curved path. But bullets don't "bounce" around inside of heads or anything else.

I for one consider a 22 a damn deadly weapon. My uncle was a homicide cop and spoke about how effective a 22 is when shot in the right spot. Even a poorly placed shot can be a killer down the road as he said after you lay in the hospital for a while and then die of pneumonia.

Do a little research and you will find that sickness and disease killed more than half of the civil war soldiers. And cannon fire killed more than rifles and pistols did.

http://www.pbs.org/mercy-street/uncover-history/behind-lens/disease/#:~:text=Of the 620,000 recorded military,was probably closer to 750,000.

 

[mjsdwash]

Absolutely. The Europeans have muzzleloading revolvers based on S&W double actions, the Ruger and Uberti Remingtons. They use target loads of bullseye and other similar powders behind round balls and light the charge with 209 primers. It’s practical for them because cartridge firearms aren’t widely available in many countries over there. Here? I don’t know why anyone would bother. Especially since we don’t have access to the cylinder made for the application. Trying this in a standard bp cylinder is courting catastrophic failure. (It says so right there on the barrel!)

yep, I don't do it either. I over oil to keep rust away, since I don't shoot more than every few years on it, and when I do, sometimes its pyrodex so rust issues are waiting. Smokeless is far more sensitive to oil contamination than black, and I'm not sure a cap would light off smokeless unless you wadded to the extreme rear of the cylinder, even then, unsure.

 

[arcticap]

G&A hasn't been worth the paper it's printed on in a long time.

The Ruger cylinder is a casting so I'm not sure how many assumptions I'd make with regards to its strength.

BP pistols are anemic by today's standards. Energy is a meaningless number.

Every other Ruger cylinder is said to be machined from bar stock, and I don't believe that they would make ROA cylinders any differently.
Their frames are made from investment castings.
Even Classicballistx states that his ROA cylinders are made from certified forged stainless or chrome-moly steel.

 

[CraigC]

The Old Army is the only one done differently. It's also the only Ruger percussion cylinder with chambers machined from the front. All others are cut from round bar stock.

Ruger and His Guns, p. 126.

 

[arcticap]

The Old Army is the only one done differently. It's also the only Ruger percussion cylinder with chambers machined from the front. All others are cut from round bar stock.

Ruger and His Guns, p. 126.

Thanks, now I learned something new today.
From a thread on the same topic, it was posted that it's the alloys used for casting that's important as well as the heat treatment.
It may also be why the ROA cylinder was initially proofed with a full load of Bullseye powder.
Also mentioned is that Ruger casts their SR9 semi-auto pistol barrels. --->>> http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=114698

Here's a quote from another thread:
"Quoting Harry Sefried speaking of the Ruger Old Army, from page 126:"...we even investment cast the cylinder as well." and a couple of paragraphs later: "The gun was of incredible strenth, as Bill always insisted. I decided the logical way to test these was to do so with Bullseye smokeless powder-definitely not recommended to the public!"

He goes on to explain that a percussion cap would NOT ignite the Bullseye and that they had to drill out the nipples in order to get enough flash into the chamber for positive ignition. He also says that he couldn't get enough Bullseye into a chamber to blow the cylinder and then emphatically states, "(Again, not to be tried at home!)" --->>> SEE POST #19 https://www.rugerforum.net/threads/hardened-ruger-revolver-capable-of-firing-smokeless.71535/

 

[CraigC]

As you can see in that thread, I was as surprised as you are. The ROA cylinder may very well be the strongest on the market. I'm just uncomfortable with the generalizations when there is no data to support it.

 

[whughett]

That's what they tell ya. You can shoot any tier 1 ammo you can find in the ROA with a Kirst conversion cyl. That's the strongest conversion by far!!

Mike

Agreed and I do just that with any of my four. And I have a 45ACP cylinder also as well as the 45C.

However....... I believe they are then not cap&ball and apparently that’s what the article was limited to. Just saying.....