I guess it is just my opinion that there are six holes in the cylinder that accept the round intended for the gun, further it is only my opinion that the hammer will impact the round in each of these with the required force to cause the round to fireEither way its your assumption that this revolver was intended to be carried with 6 and neither one of knows whether that is the case.
And we are not talking about Sam Colts design we are talking about Gary Reeder's (?) design. He had resources not available to Col Sam
Are you saying that it is merely my opinion that the 1911 was designed to be carried cocked and locked?According to you. See above.
If so you're joking, right?
I never claimed that the defense team was a bunch of idiots. I said that I was very surprised at the verdict since they had a bunch of things in their favor from the get go.
I realize this, but given the really high standard for firearms, the attorneys for FA must have been asleep at the wheel.
Paint it however you want you definitely questioned their competencyEither they sucked, or thought they had it in the bag.
I must have missed the SECOND time you answered, but the first only vaguely resembles thisAs far as there being an advantage to the non transfer design this is the THIRD and last time I'm answering your question. Its easier to disassemble, its easier to work on and its less susceptible to malfunction. These are strictly technical elements and they wholly ignore the issue of consumers wanting an authentic revolver.
But it is not easier to disassemble or work on and the transfer bar is no more susceptible to breakage than an exposed firing pin.
I have done all of these things, which is advised against in those instructions you hold so highly
Again you offer weak speculation as to why people buy the gun Why couldn't it be simply that they want a gun capable of blowing a man's leg off and are merely settling for for the design offered
The below version does not answer the question of actual advantage of a non transfer bar design it simply says that you don't personally like them for personal reasons, some of which have nothing to do with the actual design
First, on principle I don't usually purchase things that have been adjusted solely in response to litigation. Secondly, I like simple effective designs. They are easier to break down, easier to maintain and easier to improve. For the same reason I don't buy series 80 1911's I only purchase traditional SA revolvers. If you take a hi-power and remove the mag disconnect everything feels much better. The same with the transfer bar. Its feels like an SA should.
Finally, there is also an appearance issue. One of the reasons that older S&W revolvers have gone up in value is because they don't have the lock. In 99% of the cases the S&W lock has no effect on performance. However there is still a gaping hole in the side of the firearm. Similarly, I really don't like seeing a hammer without a firing pin or some ridiculous bar in between the firing channel.
Most importantly, unlike probably many members here I've actually done several hundred miles on horseback with a SA rig. Surprisingly I stll ahve all my fingers and toes. Any idiot who has spent more than 5 minutes around these types of guns understands that you don't load 6. Its in every western movie, its joked about, and its almost common knowledge. Its so bad sometimes that I've seen people WITH a transfer bar load 5 when carrying.
Well, after getting to that waterhole I find it to be a toiletMy comparisons to other designs have been to show you that your argument is legally flawed, and after leading you to the waterhole I can see your mouth is still dry.
You offer nothing but what would be called speculation if I was being generous, most of which is easily disputed through common sense and at best is simple inductive leaps
I realize that lawyers prefer uninformed people on the jury then complain about getting them later, but it give them someone to blame when their speculative arguments don't pan outBut exactly how much of a conversation do you believe we would have during jury selection? You are really a lawyer aren't youI doubt you'd make it on my jury.
Then how come they got them 5 holes there (we're talking about the FA orange not the SAA apple here)And this is why attorneys pull their hair out at night. If this is a products liability case, the implied warranty of merchantability has nothing to do with anything. That warranty guarantees that goods are reasonably fit for their ordinary purpose. Its beyond all argument that this revolver was reasonably fit for its ordinary purpose BECAUSE ITS ORDINARY PURPOSE DID NOT INCLUDE BEING CARRIED WITH 6. Apples meet oranges.
Your entire argument hinges on the fact that the gun was not designed to carry to it full design capacity and that guns are exempt from safety protocols because they are inherently dangerous
neither of these are washing
The gun is obviously design to hold a full load of five rounds
And by your other reasoning Remington could come out with a line of Damascus shotguns next year and Olin could start loading the .45LC to full capacity without fear of liability
Merchants have a responsibility to produce products safe for the general public to use if they don't they can be held accountable in one way or another
CEOs should know this and protect their companies and shareholders in a responsible manner