Sig advertises the P365/X/XL/SAS as having a 10+1, 12+1, and 15+1 capacity. Yet nowhere in the P365 manual does Sig instruct how to put that extra round into the firing chamber.
There's a detailed procedure in the manual for loading the pistol--which, of course, includes how to put a round into the firing chamber. Your contention has no merit whatsoever.
I measured the lateral force, required to move the extractor claw outward far enough to clear the shell case rim, at about 2.9 lbs.
1. That has little bearing on the amount of force required to cam the extractor out of the way when the force is applied in the direction of slide travel. You've already been told this and you said you understood it.
2. It has almost no relevance to the amount of impact force applied to the extractor to bounce it out of the way by slamming the forward face of the extractor against the rim of a cartridge. You've already been told this too.
The dynamic force applied to extractor will of course be higher than 8.5 lbs because the slide is moving. Force = Mass x Acceleration. However, the recoil spring just isn't capable of pulling the slide closed that fast, so there is not going to be an outrageous amount of force applied to the extractor. Furthermore, the very low mass spring loaded pivoting extractor is not in a fixed position and most of the energy applied to the extractor will be transferred through it into the extractor spring and dissipated by the spring when it flexes, and very little energy will actually be absorbed by the extractor.
The force applied to the extractor face will be directly proportional to the momentum of the slide at impact and inversely proportional to the time it takes to dissipate that momentum. (I leave it as an exercise for you to relate that explanation to the equation you quoted.
)
Determining the time over which the momentum is dissipated requires understanding how the extractor face will flex on impact as well as how the rim of the cartridge will deform/flex. Even if the slide momentum is quite small, if the time it takes to bring that momentum to zero is very short, then the force applied can be very large.
It has virtually nothing to do with the extractor spring strength because the force is applied directly to the extractor face as a nearly instantaneous impact, not as a gradual "camming" force where the spring's resistance could play a significant part.
Your "analysis", along with your previous attempts at analyzing the problem, reveal that you have a completely inadequate understanding of the physics involved. I have to admit that I am somewhat surprised at that--I really thought there was a good chance that by now you would have made some significant progress with getting a handle on the physics. Maybe not actually solving the problem since it's a bit complicated, but at least getting to the point that you had a grasp of the basics.
You would need to measure to be sure, but I suspect that the stress on the extractor isn't going to be that much different between normal extraction or manual chambering.
The force on the extractor during extraction isn't an impact force.
There's no force at all applied to the extractor face during normal extraction.
The extractor is specifically designed to handle forces in the direction of normal extraction.
So yes, there will be a lot of difference between the two in terms of the amount of stress, the type of stress, and in whether the stress is applied in the direction that the part is made to handle or in the opposite direction.
Again, your commentary reveals that you don't even understand the basics of the processes you are claiming to know more about than the manufacturer does.
It's far safer to point the P365 downward, lock back the slide, insert a cartridge into the firing chamber, ease the slide onto the cartridge...
As you already know since you read the manual, it explicitly forbids riding the slide forward. That said, yes, it is less likely to cause damage to the extractor than dropping the slide on a chambered round.
So YES, Sig's response IS both PATHETIC and INSULTING!
Their response was surprising. I'm surprised that they responded to such a condescending email. I really thought they would ignore it as they did your previous attempt at contacting them, and for the same reasons.
So at this point who is more credible, Sig who REFUSES to say whether or not they have EVER performed ANY manual chambering testing on the P365, or me, who HAS actually performed manual chambering testing and has posted his test results?
You're really serious, aren't you?
- You don't understand the physics.
- You don't understand the processes you are trying to analyze.
- You haven't even mentioned what methods are used to manufacture the extractor (MIM, casting, forging, etc.) nor how those methods might relate to failure from impact fatigue. That's actually a pretty big piece of the puzzle.
- You have made and continue to make all kinds of clearly ridiculous claims with no backing other than your obviously flawed reasoning and a firm conviction that you must be correct and that anybody who disagrees with you must be wrong.
Then, to top it off, you actually believe that sitting around repeatedly engaging in a process that the manufacturer says is potentially damaging to your self-defense firearm has INCREASED your credibility level to the point that it exceeds that of the manufacturer.
It's literally mind-boggling.
