No, you are adding variables that obviously skew the results. You are attempting to say that if you download the 2400 load the power pistol load will make more velocity, well DUH!
Maybe it wasn't clear. The same load was fired in both guns with each powder. The only variable was the barrel length. I'm not trying to skew the results or "pull" anything.
Science and math are not black magic, and the science and math describing a closed bomb is well known and has been for years. A loaded cartridge in a gun is a closed bomb. The calculations do require higher math (calculus) because what is being calculated is change over time. But the calculations can be done and the results verified. There seems to be some resistance to accepting QuickLoad calculations. Perhaps it is because it is not well understood and seems to allow its users to avoid the tried and true methods of trial and error that eventually produce acceptable results and this somehow seems like cheating. Whatever. All I know is that it works and when used properly, provides results that are consistent with published data and real world measurements.
Here is the dirty little secret of published data. It is just as much an estimate as anything out of QuickLoad. Any manual is only accurate for the lot of powder used in the loads tested--and this lot is not identified, so the data has to be treated as an estimate because powder has many variables that vary from lot to lot. This is why loads have to be worked up in a particular gun and why manuals warn reloaders two repeat the workup when a new lot of powder is acquired.
So between QuickLoad and published data, we have dueling estimates that generally are close to each other for the limited data they have in common (velocity and pressure produced by a given load). But unlike a printed manual, QuickLoad can be recalibrated to each lot of powder by anyone with a chronograph.
This doesn't mean you don't work up loads. QuickLoad can't predict accuracy in a given gun, so you have to work up loads for accuracy the same way as with published data. In fact, neither source can predict accuracy in a given gun. Even though a manual may indicate a load that proved most accurate in testing, there is no guarantee that load will be the most accurate in a different gun. So the only way to load for accuracy with either source is to prepare a series of loads and head to the range. And with either source, you always verify the predicted results by observations.
The value of QuickLoad is that it provides so much more information than does a manual. When predicted velocity matches chronographed velocity, and visible signs of pressure are consistant with the levels calculated, one has no reason to expect the other calculated results which QL provides to be incorrect. This allows you to become even more efficient in your loading.
Just like when your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail, when no data is available other than velocity, velocity becomes the measure of everything. Two different powders may produce the same velocity at the same peak pressure. Is one a better choice than the other? Or do you just assume that equal velocity means they are equal?