Joe D said:
I tend to have little respect for "experts".
Clearly!
Joe D said:
I have asked the person that did all of those "pressure test" to publish his actual findings.
A very reasonable request. Therefore, I make the same very reasonable request of you. Please publish your "testing protocol." Please let us know "the type and model of your testing equipment."
Joe D said:
My question to you is do you even own a Glock. If so have you ever tried lead bullets or do you just accept what the "experts" say as gospel.
I own 4. I will not shoot lead bullets in my Glocks because what the experts say makes perfect sense to me and because I don't have the pressure testing equipment to prove otherwise. I don't always accept what experts say--as you point out, they're not always right. But this time it makes sense.
As far as proving anything by shooting lead in my Glocks, it's like the old saying goes, One doesn't have to actually eat an egg to know it's rotten.
Anyway, simply shooting a few rounds of lead in my Glock would prove very little--the forensic engineer admits that it took him over 20,000 rounds to blow up his Glock. Only THEN did he do the pressure testing that showed him why it happened. AND why it could happen with far fewer than 20,000 rounds if one were unlucky.
Joe D said:
I will continue to refute those, like you, that claim one cannot shoot lead through a Glock.
JohnKSa said:
Of COURSE you can shoot lead bullets in Glocks. You can also play golf in a thunderstorm or cross the street without looking both ways.
Joe D said:
It sounds like you are comfortable living in a "safe little cocoon" never questioning the "experts". It is probably hard for you to admit you could be wrong. That's OK.
Nope, anyone who knows me would laugh at a statement like that. I don't blindly accept what experts say--but I don't blindly dismiss whatever they say either.
As far as admitting I'm wrong, I'm sure you could find a few instances on THR or TFL. I'm wrong at times and when I am, I admit it. But Joe, this isn't about ME being wrong. I'm just telling you what the barrel maker says--what the manufacturer says--what the forensic engineer's pressure testing says--what various other experts say. Your quarrel is with THEM, not me. All I'm doing is pointing out that your position is in direct opposition to what these experts have to say.
Joe D said:
Why does one barrel lead and the other, that is supposed to, not?
Nobody says that Glock barrels are SUPPOSED to lead. The problem is that they
tend to be more prone to leading and, more to the point, when they DO begin to lead, the situation rapidly becomes dangerous. Furthermore, it's not as easy to tell if they are leaded, so if they begin to lead so the shooter may not realize what's happening. As far as why one barrel leads and another doesn't, there are lots of reasons for that--I'm sure you know them all. As to why you haven't had problems yet--like Mr. MacMillan says--if you haven't had problems yet, just be patient.
Joe D said:
I am certainly willing to listen to your reasons.
MY reasons? Listen to Mr. MacMillan's reasons. Listen to the forensic engineer's reasons. Listen to Glock's reasons. Why would you accept my reasons (some anonymous guy on the web) over the high-powered experts out there who have given far better reasons than I could.
Joe D said:
BTW I do not believe in luck.
The rain falls on the just and the unjust.