Hamish
"Earlier in this thread, Larry Gibson posted wanting a rifle sent to him to be destroyed, and if I'm not mistaken, at least twice.
I stand by my earlier statement.
Exhorting a member to surrender a firearm for destruction and then making fun of that member for not doing so, in lieu of actually posting evidence to support their position is low class. "
I did not "exhort" nor did I make fun of Mr Humble.
What I actually said in post #125 of this thread is this;
"I have offered Mr. Humble the opportunity to obtain actual test produced facts whether S.E.E. is real or not and can be readily produced or not. Apparently Mr. Humble has decided not to participate to find a definitive answer through an actual test with a 6.5 Swede rifle. I will provide the test equipment, the time and the effort. Mr.Humble need only provide the test M96 6.5 Swede Mauser. I run the risk of damaging $6,000 to $7,000 worth of test equipment while Mr. Humble runs the risk of damaging his M96 if an S.E.E. is produced. If a S.E.E. is not produced then no harm or foul to either the test equipment or the M96 will occur. It is only I that would lose my time and effort. As the undamaged M96 will be returned to him and I will reimburse his shipping and related costs and return the M96.
I also invite Mr. Humble or anyone else to observe the test."
I also did not use "low brow intimidation tactics". Mr Humble does not think S.E.E. exists and is emphatic in his stating so. The fact is it does exist and can be readily reproduced both inside a laboratory and outside a laboratory. I offered Mr Humble an opportunity to prove it doesn't exist. If he so strongly believes it doesn't exist then what risk is he taking?
Hamish, you state; "I'd like to see some actual scientific evidence posted that proves the existence of the problem". I have the equipment to measure the internal ballistics before and up to an S.E.E. event. That is all well and fine but if we create an S.E.E event we must also understand that the firearm will be damaged.....probably catastrophically. Now I already know S.E.E. events are real as I have been directly involved in two events, have seen the results of several others and have produced the same pressure indicators Measured with an Oehler M43) that lead to an S.E.E. on several occasions. While I am willing to participate in creating an S.E.E. event I see no reason I need to destroy my own firearm to prove anything to Mr Humble or you for that matter. Bottom line here is that you must understand if want to "see some actual scientific evidence posted that proves the existence of the problem" that a firearm will be destroyed.
Fact is The Handloader article does post evidence (test results) that were conducted scientifically in an ammunition manufacturers test facility. That lot of 6.5 Swede ammunition used in that test was loaded with a non canister lot of 7828 and was recalled....another fact Mr Humble seems unaware of. Since I can also control the parameters of the ammunition and measure the internal and external ballistics during such a test what other "scientific evidence" would be required?
Now let me further add that if the internal and external ballistics indicate an S.E.E. is immanent I can stop the testing just as the technicians did in the Handloader article before the S.E.E. event occurs. Thus the M96 would not be damaged and I would return it. Would you and Mr Humble then agree to that evidence of an S.E.E. event existence? So you see the rifle does not need be destroyed unless you require proof positive of the events existence. My purpose to this is to simply provide Mr Humble and you the requested scientific testing/evidence to prove the existence of S.E.E. events.
Larry Gibson
As a post script let reiterate my earlier statement in my 1st post in this thread that I believe the topic 6.5 Swede rifle of this thread was destructed probably do to a double charge of powder. There is no indication it was a S.E.E. event nor any other of the theoretical causes.
|
   
   
|
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Hamish
