*
sigh*
I didn't say the frame was the problem. I did say...
on the mid-sized (357Mag) frame
This is the same as saying "I built a 500Alaskan
on a Ruger No. 1" or "I built a shed
on a concrete slab". Describing the platform
on which something is built, not that something itself.
Ruger has built their fixed sight guns, obviously since we're discussing this, on two different frame sizes. The frame size descriptor was just that, a description. It is an easy way to tell the difference between the two guns, other than the roll mark, and (I thought) remove any confusion betwixt them.
To expand and explain my original thoughts since inferences are apparently a no go, the smaller frame means the cylinder is a smaller diameter. Since it is a point of contention, that
does mean that the chamber walls, and more importantly the timing notches cut in the OD (that's Outside Diameter), are a failure point as opposed to the larger OD and thicker chamber walls on the 'large frame' guns. See what I did there?
My original post was a PSA. It was strictly intended to keep folks from shooting the +p loads in a gun that it would be dangerous to shoot them in. My description of Factory loads as 'Cowboy' loads was a little ill-advised, admittedly, since most folks think of 'Cowboy' loads as low-pressure loads. Vern Humphries pointed it out and I clarified later. My bad. The 'PSA' comment was in no way directed at you, or any other member here, nor did I mean to imply or infer that any member in this discussion would advocate a shooter doing something that was potentially dangerous. No disagreement. No word twisting. Sorry. Untwist the panties.
The sarcasm
was directed at you. Obviously. I found the referenced post a little condescending, since the implication was that I had no idea what I was talking about.
Happy now? Did I clear everything up to your satisfaction? Yes, that was sarcasm again.
Reading comprehension might have avoided this whole shootin' match.
