While you may not recognize that as important, as someone with a hard sciences degree, I certainly do.
I have a "hard sciences" degree and I actually work at a research lab (I'd point out your comment above starts to venture into ad hominem territory). Would I prefer more details on their testing? Sure, I'd love gun magazines/publications to do analysis at a high level and then even have it peer reviewed. Lets even throw in tests of statistical significance. But what is the likelihood of that? Given the limitations of time and the nature of their capabilities I think they made a modest effort to ensure some level of repeatability and consistency when they tested each of those pistols. Could it have been better? Again yes, but I think calling them "bubbas" again ventures into the territory of arguing by ad hominems. Even SIG themselves doesn't deny that there was a potential problem in those specific circumstances so the results aren't even unexpected. And the other manufacturers that were tested have additional features, specifically in the form of those trigger intertial safeties, to mitigate these issues. There's demanding scientific rigor, and then there's simply disqualifying sources that conflict with your narrative.
There is no way anything Omaha Outdoors did had any effect on the decision to meet the higher drop standards than the industry requires.
I don't remember claiming they did. I remember using them as an example.
Again, SIG engineers where addressing the higher than required drop safety standards long before Bubba started launching pistols.
Not something I ever denied. We already knew SIG was working on this beforehand.
You are not going to get that until the standards are raised.
Which is something I've pointed out multiple times in this thread and advocated for those many months ago.
Last edited: