Originally Posted By: 2cool
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Ah yes, YouTube.
When I am searching for that empirically accurate analysis, that objective comparison, that unbiased insight, my first resource is YouTube...how better to further my understanding?
Sorry you disagree with other's opinions, gmurra, but using all caps and hiding behind YouTube isn't exactly bolstering your case...
+1 And I refused to sell them after witnessing several reasons including witnessing slides that crack. They are cheap in my opinion, not just inexpensive. They use zinc in place of proper ordnance steel in several places and that does not sit will with me knowing the strength and properties of that material. Personally I don't care if you buy my opinion or not. But I do know that my opinion is based on more knowledge than You Tube. When you give conference papers on small arms design and receive a masters degree for a thesis on it, then you can question my knowledge. Panels composed of technology historians and engineers saw fit to approve of my knowledge at several points in my academic career.
Mr. Robenstein, I appreciate your education and background. Even in engineering matters, experience and prejudice influence judgment. I'm pretty sure that Beeman Mfg. had degreed people do calucations, and I imagine they built more than a few prototypes and conducted more than a "couple of shots" to test the design. Remember that there were quite a few well educated and experienced naval engineers that claimed the Titanic was unsinkable.
If that argument makes one feel confident about shooting guns with extensive use of zamak pot metal, then that is fine with me. It is not my life nor my extremities on the line.