|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 10, 2020, 01:59 AM | #76 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,972
|
Quote:
We now have proof from multiple sources that bullets do, indeed, hit the feedramp during the feed cycle. It boggles the mind that such proof was necessary—one wonders what a feed ramp is for if not to direct cartridges into the chamber and how it could do that if fed rounds never made contact with it—but the proof has now been provided. Quote:
We now have proof that at least one firearm manufacturer does provide a warning about setback. If you want to attempt to find more sources, you’re welcome to do so, but their presence or absence doesn’t change anything. Because the claim was sweeping (i.e. NO firearm or cartridge maker warns against setback) only one counterexample was required to debunk it. Quote:
Quote:
If you want to find further warnings against setback, you should spend your own time doing your own research to satisfy your own curiosity. An official warning from a firearm manufacturer has been provided and that was all that was required to prove the claim was false. Quote:
Example 1: You claimed that bullets didn’t leave marks on feedramps. Pictures were posted to show that they do. You dismissed them as “cooked” even though they were from multiple sources and even though you could have easily verified their validity by finding other examples. And at the same time you made some nonsensical remarks about zigzags on the feedramp that don’t relate to any claims made on this thread or any pictures posted. Example 2: You claimed that no firearm or cartridge maker warned against setback. Proof was posted that Glock has published an official warning about setback. Then, instead of accepting that your claim was false, you started asking about warnings in other Glock published materials or in books about Glocks published by other companies even though no one had made any claims about warnings existing in those materials. Example 3: You claimed that setback is merely internet myth. Multiple firsthand accounts of setback in various guns and with various ammunition have been provided on this thread and yet you apparently dismiss all of them out of hand. Example 4: You recommended looking at slow motion footage of a 1911 feeding. That footage was provided (before you recommended it, by the way), showing clearly that the round is driven forward into the feedramp and hesitates there upon impact, then the slide drives it forward and up the ramp into the chamber, clearly slowing due to the significant amount of energy required to accomplish that task. Apparently in spite of mentioning it repeatedly you either failed to look at it carefully (which seems likely given that you misidentified the gun in the footage as a Glock instead of accurately noting that it was a 1911) or simply dismissed the obvious visual evidence for no other reason than that it disagreed with your opinion. Example 5: In post #60, you claimed that no one had explained about why no other rounds in the mag typically showed setback even though there was an explanation provided in post #58. And so on... If this thread is just going to become an exhibition of how creative one person can be in their attempts to dismiss substantive proof and/or in their attempts to change the subject/standard of proof as one after another of their claims are shown to be incorrect, then it's the definition of pointless.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||||
January 10, 2020, 12:37 PM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,679
|
I was at the range yesterday with my shooting partner. After about 300rounds fired he had occasion to field-strip his pistol (a Smith M&P 2.0).
There was a clear drag mark up the center of the dirty feed ramp. This was clearly caused by rounds sliding up the ramp. How anyone can claim there is no contact between the nose of the bullet and the feed-ramp is beyond comprehension. As was stated above...what is the FEED ramp for, if not to FEED the round Last edited by JohnKSa; January 11, 2020 at 12:42 AM. Reason: . |
January 10, 2020, 01:45 PM | #78 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,814
|
focus....
The original question was
Quote:
Somewhere between 1 and infinity. Period. The exact number is unknown and unknowable. It is not something that must happen. It is not something that will happen if you chamber X number of times. It is not something you can say does not happen, it is an observed fact. It is a RANDOM thing, and is COMPLETELY dependent on a specific combination of factors that are not knowable in advance. Every single round chambered in every centerfire semi auto COULD have setback, only a very, very, VERY tiny fraction of a percentage of them do. Every gun, and every round of ammo has a different combination of factors. There is no predictability. I think we have answered the original question, and are done here.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 10, 2020, 09:10 PM | #79 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,459
|
The question has been asked and answered as well as possible, so this discussion is closed. Certain posts have wandered into the realm of personal attacks and have been made to disappear. Certain members would be advised to review the forum rules regarding personal attacks.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
|