Rbernie, I can tell that you like to present your views on this subject but do not want dissenters to express their opinions. I wonder why? I thought that one of the major purposes of a discussion group was to present a variety of opinions. My qualifications to talk about the Cetme are at least as good as most of the other commentators. I have many firearms, I have shot them, I have worked on them, I have gotten them to work, etc. I have a good familiarity with FALs (I own three), Saigas, standard AKs, Mini 14s, SKSs, AR-15s, etc. I own two Cetmes, I have gotten them to work, I have bought and replaced Cetme parts, and I have read everything on bolt gap and ground bolt heads that has been posted on the Internet. I am not an expert but am as well versed on these issues as those who are telling people to rebuild their Cetmes. I think I have as much relevant knowledge of the Cetme, as, for example, the 23 year old man who is not a gunsmith but who is constantly advising others on all of their Cetme problems on multiple websites. At any rate, interested people can read my messages as well as those which express contrary opinions and judge for themselves.
I am not offering gunsmithing advice; I am disputing the views of unqualified individuals who persist in making the same claims over and over without any support whatsoever. If someone gets a rifle made by Century, and it works fine, and is under warranty, there is no reason, in my opinion, to listen to every self-appointed expert who wants to tell you that your rifle is unsafe, that you must replace parts, that you must rebuild the rifle, etc. The burden of proof is on those who are making all of these claims. The burden is on those who are advancing the positive view. I am merely pointing out that they have not made a case. And you haven't done so either. By the way, if you do your research, you will find that there are several qualified experts on roller-delayed blow back rifles that support my position. I have cited them and quoted their statements in several of my posts on this subject. My opponents have yet to cite any authorities. And they cannot cite any examples of blow-ups or case separations caused by ground bolt heads nor can they explain logically why there could be any danger in using them. If you and your colleagues would limit yourselves to saying that you PREFER to repress barrrels or replace trunnions rather than use a ground bolt head, I would have no problem with that.
Drakejake
