I did. You just decided to discount it because it doesn't fit your needs. And that's OK - just don't suggest that your position is any better supported by data than others. I could just as easily say 'show me the data that all surviving Springfield 1903 rifles are universally safe to shoot'. Of course, you can't. You're acting on faith that anything that could have gone bad already would have, without actually knowing how any given example has / has not been used. You're making a faith-based decision, not a fact based decision. Again - that's OK. It's your life and your choices.
But you really shouldn't have the poor form to ask for facts when facts aren't what you want and aren't what you'll use to make a decision. It's disingenuous, at best.
You're moving the goal posts. Your original contribution that started the back-and-forth was simple:
You offered no qualifications - just a base assertion that valuing a higher-number 1903 was a myth. You deliberately picked a fight, and you're changing the conditions as you go, to cover your fanny. Well done.
Most of the folk on gun boards are more comfortable with risk than others, as exhibited by what we do both within and external to the firearms community. More to the point, there is a world of difference between prudent and thoughtful risk and uninformed 'hold my beer and watch this' risk taking.
You seem to be pushing back on folk who are advising prudent and fact-based risk taking. Being thoughtful may not be how you want to make decisions, but it's inappropriate to suggest to others than they emulate your approach unless you're willing to back up their choices for them.
