No the only thing I've done is answer your question with my opinion. You've concluded that you are the expert in the matter. I've simply concluded that you're pompous.
The definition of pompous is verifiable also.
Is that really necessary
You have already proven your lack of ability when it come to debate
You have answered no question, you have simply tried to divert from a straight forward simple question because you lack the integrity to admit that you are wrong and are not knowledgeable in the subject being discussed
Post 87
No, the gun isn't flawed. If loaded with an empty chamber under the hammer it will not just go off(per the manufacturer's instructions)
I did not ask for you to outline the flaw, but by doing so you admit that it is there
The manufacturers instructions on how to circumvent the flaw do not correct the flaw
That is also the comment where you exposed your flawed knowledge of the subject at hand
If the hammer was pulled back and the trigger pulled it will go off the same as any other revolver. Does that make all revolvers inherently flawed designs? Transfer bar or not, if you cock it and pull the trigger it goes bang.
The point is that the FA and SAA will go off if the hammer is not pulled back and the trigger pulled.
That is the flaw that we are talking about.
The accepted practice of carrying 5 rounds has been in use for over 100 years. There is a difference between better design and flawed design.
The accepted practice of circumventing a flaw does not lessen the flaw. many time a better design is implemented because the old design was flawed, as is the case with the transfer bar
And sometimes the better design exposes an inherent flaw in the old design
You stated that the 1911 is safe the way it was designed. I asked if that is true why do they now have a firing pin block?
Yes it is as according to the way it was
designed
And yes I gave you a simple and direct answer to that question
Post 129
Beats the hell outta me.
Why do any manufacturers make design changes.
It certainly wasn't to prevent NDs when the gun was used to it's full potential as designed
Notice the part about using the gun as it was designed, as in according to design parameters not following the suggestion by the company as to how to cover up their faulty design. Also notice where I said if that were true, I didn't want to point out to you that not all 199 have firing pin safeties, you got your feeling hurt when I pointed out your other mistake
No, it hasn't been answered in the way your pompous egomaniac personality prefers.
More ad hominems but still no direct answer to a simple question, you know those are against the rules right?
Carry anyway you like. I'll stick with 5 loaded hammer on an empty chamber.
And why would you need to take that extraordinary precaution if the gun was safe to carry as designed?
You're assuming all holes must be filled. If the maker of the gun makes 5 holes in the cylinder and tells you to only put 4 rounds in the gun and leave the hammer on an empty chamber, it's working exactly as they designed it.
No you are helping them to cover up the known flaw in their gun, The gun was designed to hold five rounds, to argue otherwise is disengenuous and absurd, in other words your style
See above referencing 5 rounds. Since no matter how you load it you should be following the four rules so all I can say about this is you should rethink you're handling practices if you think you don't need to follow the four rules just because you have a hammer block.
Again with the simplistic twisty attempts where have I said that is unnecessary to follow the four rules with ahammer block.
Is carrying in a holster a violation of the four rules, that's where the gun was when it blew the guys leg off. If it is then who will be the first to implement the class action lawsuit against Galco and Bianchi?
Sorry to be blunt but the entire your entire post is the definition of pompous. I thought at first you were having a bad day, but as I read other threads with your drivel in them I realized you were just too pompous to realize your not an authority anywhere but in your mind.
What did you do copy and paste this ad hominem, you've already told me this very same thing last time you made an ass of yourself by acting like a spoiled screaming baby
Joab you're now on ignore.
And you have told me that twice already
Now that one of the children have gone to their room can we continue with the adult portion of the discussion
If you disagree with my points then by all means show me where I'm wrong, don't just scream that I'm a dookie head and throw a temper tentrum
I actually do like to be PROVEN wroing