a reply to: projectvxn
I am watching the video right now.
Now, as you no doubt are aware, I am not familiar with weapon handling. But I am familiar with engineering, and many of the parts I deal with as a
locksmith, although their purpose is obviously different, have certain things in common with the parts you will find in guns. They, like parts for any
mechanism, have to be able to move perfectly together, in order to produce effective and efficient operation of the mechanism. They also rely heavily
on spring pressures, and good design, in order that they can pass where they need to pass, engage where they need to engage, and that the materials
will only wear down at as slow of a pace as possible.
Too much tolerance, where gaps between parts are concerned, will create problems, too little will also create issues, too much resistance in one
material means that another may wear too fast, get gouged up. Burs on parts from bad machining will result in failures, no matter what manner of
object is involved. And then you have the design itself. The fact that the slide release was only effective on one side of the pistol, and the frankly
idiotic construction of the release mechanism itself, indicates that not only is the design of the pistol stupid, but the execution of that design has
no merit to it either. Put simply, the tensile strength of it is not enough to produce the desired effect. Of course, even if it was, you can see in
the video that the slide release on the right side of the gun engages with elements which are not present on the left hand side. Why should that be?
Further to that, the fact that the thing jammed up so often indicates that there is too much tolerance, too much travel under recoil, combined
probably with an unwise choice of spring tension in the magazine. In short, even a non-gun guy like myself (steel before lead is my preference) can
see that as a piece of engineering, the thing falls flat on its arse. This should have been perfectly obvious to anyone involved in the manufacturing
of this gun. Now, when a lock fails because of a design or engineering flaw, it is aggravating, but rarely involves an immediate, potentially deadly
or maiming threat to the user, in fact I would go as far as to say that for such a thing to pose such a threat, would be nearly unheard of, for
obvious reasons. But when the task is to create an object which launches lumps of metal at supersonic speed, by way of detonating a small explosion
behind it, in what amounts to a pressure vessel of some sort, there are obvious risks associated.
It simply cannot be the case, that a company as well known as Remington (even by non-gun guys like me), fail to understand the risk they are
presenting to their customer base.