John, all you’re doing, now, is adding further to your numerous quasi-authoritative rationalizations; only, at this point, you’re getting yourself farther and farther out.
If I were to use your logic then, today, I’d give up driving a car because it’s obviously dangerous; and there’s plenty of hard evidence to support the fact that drivers often make mistakes — dangerous mistakes!
I can tell that you’re not going to stop. So I think I will. It matters not one sou to me what you or anybody else does with his polygonal barrels. I know what to do with mine; and THAT is all that matters.
So, I’m going to close this out with a direct reply to one of your more inane remarks ‘
In all fairness, calling something a technical bulletin doesn’t make it technical. Not sure how people get the idea that “ I've done it a lot and never blown up a gun.” is technical data.’
When Tim Sundles made those TECHNICAL REMARKS he was putting, both, his own opinion and the existence and financial wellbeing of the remarkable company he’s built ‘
on the line’. Consequently, I'd have to say that whether or not formal support data is included in Sundles’ above referenced technical bulletin, the one man who has done MORE with lead-based ammunition, AND pushed hard-cast lead (mostly pistol) bullet velocities to previously unheard of extremes also disagrees with the personal opinions you are expressing, here.
The sole basis for your, now, apparently adamant personal opinions are based on the results of one unverified and academically
unaccepted test study that (as far as I’m aware) hasn't been accepted by ANY ammunition manufacturer ANYWHERE!
I’ll go even further: Let me add that when so much as even one — ONE — ammunition manufacturer attaches a statement to a box of hard-cast lead-based bullets saying ‘
IT IS UNSAFE TO FIRE THIS AMMUNITION THROUGH A POLYGONAL BARREL’ then, I’d be willing to take another look at this discussion, BUT, not until then — Understand?
Know what? Unless YOU go into the ammunition business, John, it ain’t ever going to happen! What is more, Glock GmbH/Inc. had (past tense) their own peculiar reasons for warning customers away from the use of ‘
lead bullets’ (generic terminology) in their hot salt bath, Tenifer-treated, ‘
polygonal’ barrels. The average Glock purchaser is NOT an experienced handloader and/or bullet caster, and knows ‘
next to nothing’ about using any sort of lead bullet in a polygonal barrel. Tenifer treatment is, also, known to increase the surface adhesion of treated metal and to, thus, increase bullet drag.
Still, as Sundles points out in what HE CALLS his '
Tech Articles':
‘
Provided you use real hard cast bullets, that are properly sized and utilize good lube, you can shoot them all you like in polygonal barrels without causing lead fouling deposits at the front of your chamber or anywhere else in the barrel.’ ‘I have fired literally thousands of properly alloyed, lubed and sized hard cast bullets from my various Glock pistols and have never experienced any metallic fouling build-up of any consequence.’
There you have it! As far as I’m concerned — and with the proviso that gas checks should be added to the bullet bases — the obvious success of an ammunition manufacturer like Buffalo Bore speaks very well for itself! Furthermore, and speaking for myself: I’d be more willing to place credence in a published public statement from Buffalo Bore Ammunition than I would in the INFORMAL test results of (what is actually) a largely undocumented test study done by a (no matter how well qualified) hobbyist.
Once again, John, I used to earn a significant part of my living testifying against and correcting the technical errors of some very well educated and academically well qualified technical analysts. I KNOW BETTER THAN TO ACCEPT the informal results of anybody’s casual tests at what amounts to nothing more than mere face value.
We're still on the internet, right! OK, then, MarkCO's informal tests, your opinion, and my own as well are, at the present time, ALL OF EQUAL VALUE. So, one more time: In the absence of any rigorously presented, formally documented, and academically verifiable test results, the most viable and correct answer to this question continues to be,
‘IT FRIGG ‘IN DEPENDS.’
HERE, take a look at this, and reflect for a moment upon the curious fact that: Sako, Tikka, Heckler & Koch, Steyr, and Sauer ALL USE polygonal rifling in their products. All of them, and all of them without any published warnings about the use of lead-based bullets! Furthermore, here in the United States, Sturm-Ruger has also started to use hammer-forged polygonal rifled gun barrels in Ruger products, too. I’m still waiting for that published warning, John, still waiting, and waiting, and waiting!
PS:
HERE is one more technical article for you to ruminate over.
(It’s good information, John; and it does allude to the fact that polygonal rifling DOES produce a better combustion gas seal against the bullet’s base; but, upon careful analysis, it doesn’t actually support any of your previously stated opinions. What it might do, though, is substantiate some of MarkCO’s
informal conclusions. Still, there ain’t no ‘
brass ring’ at the end of the ride!)
Do or say whatever you like. I’m done with this now.
