Quote:
|
Or do you not trust your own powers of reasoning and observation?
|
I don't trust my ability to tell barrel steel spec by looking at it. Sorry, nobody has taught me to tel 4140 from 4150 by looking.
I also don't trust my ability to tell if my bolt was MPI'd. Maybe you can't see that, huh?
I don't trust myself to understand how the barrel extension was made if I'm holding an M4 in the store.
So yea, I guess I don't trust myself.
This is the same problem figuring out which bolt action rifle will shoot .5 MOA or better just looking at it.
On the other hand, do you think LMT or Colt would continue to participate in a manufacturers association where some other company was pushing to have a sub par gun called hard use? Basically, I think the companies would agree behind the scenes what would make a gun "hard use". Then they could get the designation without saying that they build their rifles by a certain process which allows them a $.35 cost down to the Colt method, but actually performs better. The independent acting, but company supported association would be able to test, sign non-compete, non-disclosure docs which would allow them to know what everyone was making without disclosing how something is made.
As a side note, there would be a huge benefit for all of the non-Colt, non-LMT, etc makers to show they can make "hard use" guns for less. Same goes for accuracy and low cost. Maybe Colt would get the plinker designation by doing something like the big pin fiasco again and have to fix it or redesign the AR model to be lower cost.