That's very simple.
First, Rick's info is an admitted second hand info, some stuff released by a company that I will unlikely ever trust again. I would have taken his own testing reports as credible.
Second, the gun community for us old timers is more closely knit than one would think. There are people who have been involved in this subject who know each other personally. For example, if a former HK sponsored shooter posts that he was able to reproduce this thing on his guns, and this is a guy I've shot matches from locals to Nationals, hung out with, had dinners with, and can vouch for, I sure as hell not going to treat him with "video or never happened" attitude.
In general, on gun sites the trolls and shills who keep posting systematic disinformation get outed, get labeled, and sometimes get banned. Some people have lost decades-earned reputation with one web post. Given that these reports have been posted by long standing community members, they are endowed with some amount of trustworthiness.
“When you wake up in the morning, Pooh," said Piglet at last, "what's the first thing you say to yourself?"
"What's for breakfast?" said Pooh. "What do you say, Piglet?"
"I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?" said Piglet.
Pooh nodded thoughtfully. "It's the same thing," he said.”
The wording does seem vague and does not have any objective evidence but rather his overall perspective is on this matter. I would rather have the numbers. I am focused more on the Sig Sauer test than on his opinion.
Reusing pins that small, is like reusing toilet paper. It's a crappy idea, and you don't save enough money to make it worth it.
I guess that means I hit it pretty hard
Last edited by RDA; 02-13-2020 at 05:58 PM.
If a gun has a predisposition to AD I don't know why any company would not want to fix that. Sig sauer got sued big time when their p320 AD'ed into a police officer's leg. I am sure that Glock determined that their gen 1's did not have a tendency to AD. But you could be right.