From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
I can accept a failure of ammunition
that is resonably beyond the shooters control
(unless perhaps he didn't excersise due care
when re-loading it), but I still find it difficult
to accept equipment faliures.
[...]
Mechanical failure is not uncommon.
Some parts, if not properly hardened,
or if a specific lot of parts has the improper
formulation of metallic elements, failure can
occur.
The same goes for the machining processes
which can themselves introduce fatigue points
artificially into the parts, when done too fast, or
with the wrong tool.
And that applies to primers as well.
I liken a firearm to yet another internal
combustion engine. The stresses are essentially
identical, with the exception that pressures are
higher, and you blow a piston every time you start
the engine!
If every manufacturing process is
presumed to be perfect, then your statement
is true. But, since nothing we can do is 'perfect'
from the standpoint of there never being an
imperfection in what is made, then the question
resolves to repeatability of the incident, and evaluation
of the actions of the operator.
If a sear breaks and causes a discharge,
that isn't likely to be detected by a normal external
evaluation of the device before hand.
But I'll agree that it is the human element
which causes most problems, if only because the
mechanical motions of the human body are mostly
lacking exact repeatability, where as the motions of
a mechanical device are mathematically predictable
within fixed limits. And too, simple machines have
no will, whereas humans are controlled by random
thought processes, and have neurons which affect
what might otherwise be precise movements.
ET
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
