@jwpzx9r Now you’re asking if something is wrong with me? Really? Ok. Well, I know where that kind of ‘if I can’t win the debate I’ll increase the level of personal insult’ campaign, goes.
Anyway. You again simply put forward your reduction of wall thickness as in your words put it “any engineers primary conclusion “
Is this not and example of “creating circumstances to fit your own narrative”?
I am an engineer and my first conclusion, balanced against the understanding that Teague have been modifying barrels for a good many years and this is unlikely to have been their first time. In fact I read of one such case that has been without issue for some 25 years!
Of course Mirouku have also been making barrels for a very long time too.
An issue here outside of the original OP is you seem to make a presumption of possible root cause based on the modification. Not entirely unreasonable, save for the evidence of previous successes with such modifications.
I as a “any engineer “ draw my first conclusion that the OEM more than likely did a job that passed muster.
My second conclusion is that give history of success with thin walls resulting from modifications to barrels that a root cause isn’t likely to be due to a simple matter of wall thickness reduction. Ample evidence to demonstrate this.
My third conclusion is that miss-use is a possibility. Given the evidence, and respect for the OP being a person competent in the care and maintenance of their gun, I’d move on to my fourth conclusion. Manufacturing defect.
We have been provided with a little evidence of manufacturing from the second choke tube and the manufactures assurance of quality procedures being followed. Therefore my fifth conclusion... material defect. Fifth conclusion. Not first
now having enough experience non manufacturing in genera, I believe I’m ever so slightly qualified to ask this reasonable question of “it’d be nice to have a metallurgical report” and raise the hypothesis. Now the report is a bit of fantasy to be fair as it’s cost is likely about as much as a barrel set. But again, it’s just a hypothesis and for the purposes of discussion.
It is this which you claim is BS and bluster. For what reason is not clear, but you do have a history as evidenced across multiple threads... and yet you ask “what is wrong with me?”
Well, I suppose the answer to that question is, kettle calling pan sooty ar$e
After defending my position, you carry on with the same and spurious counter claims which offer nothing further other than more churlishness.
I have over the years had metallurgical reports carried out for items of a safety critical nature produced by global OEMs of considerable resource and showing worthy due diligence and behold if it has not been discovered... a material defect. One such case, an automaker whose heat treatment process had been the root cause of a catastrophic failure.
Now, I’ll anticipate your response being something along the lines of this being irrelevant as whatever do cars have to do with guns bla bla bla... bs... bla bla bla... bluster... bla bla bla... thin wall... bla bla bla... snowflake... bla bla bla... rinse and repeat and a helping of “la la la la I’m not going to listen to anything that may be contrary to ones own notions.
Go for it. Knock yourself out. Be my guest.
I never shy away from a debate I find interesting and I find this case interesting. I’ll happily put forward my hypothesis, regardless of any flaws and more than open to scrutiny by peers or even would be peers, but I’ll defend my hypothesis against critique, more so if I feel such critique has no real foundation and I’m more than happy to be proven wrong. I’ve yet to be proven correct here and very unlikely to happen too, but I’m far far far from proven wrong by youR blustery bs!
just in my opinion of course
