Shoot it or pull it down?

[bigbossman]

No.he said it too....are you not able to keep up?

I'm sorry you don't like facts. Perhaps you should stop responding since you aren't really bringing anything other than personal attacks.

No personal attacks, just facts. You made a video, and you want us to take it as gospel. But, it does not prove anything. It was designed from the jump to bolster your opinion. The opposing video was much better, whether you think so or not.

Let me ask you a question - You are presenting your video as settled fact, and advocating not to be cautious when using other than milspec ammo. When someone takes your advice as gospel and damages their gun, are you gonna stand tall and fix it for them? Or are you dissemble and blame it on a bad spring, poor maintenance, etc.?

[Jeremy2171]

No personal attacks, just facts. You made a video, and you want us to take it as gospel. But, it does not prove anything. It was designed from the jump to bolster your opinion. The opposing video was much better, whether you think so or not.

Let me ask you a question - You are presenting your video as settled fact, and advocating not to be cautious when using other than milspec ammo. When someone takes your advice as gospel and damages their gun, are you gonna stand tall and fix it for them? Or are you dissemble and blame it on a bad spring, poor maintenance, etc.?

*chuckle* you are confused on facts and now what a personal attack is....you should probably stop now.

So you want me to fix someone's rifle who they claim is damaged by "other" than milspec ammo regardless of the condition it's in?


The opposing video is misleading and lacking in detail using only one data point of a known weak M2 loading.

[NapalmCheese]

that and the claim that commercial ammo was dangerous.

But you haven't debunked that, you haven't proven that. You've so far only found the same results as those other guys and then come to a different conclusion.

Are you now being disingenuous on purpose? "Garand safe" ammo is commercial ammo that is marketed as "garand safe". Because until they marketed it ...it was ALL garand safe.

"Garand Safe" ammo is ammo that is safe to shoot in the Garand without risk of bending the op-rod. You say it's all safe, other people don't. Nothing disingenuous, just clarity. Were there many 3000 fps 150 grain .30-06 loads in 1950? Were they being shot regularly in Garands? Were people breaking their guns? Or were people generally still just shooting M2 Ball for the most part?

I'm not sure why I have to keep pointing this out...
If milsurp ammo and commercial ammo move the oprod at the same velocities why do we need adjustable dodads or "garand safe" ammo?

Because, as seen in your own video, on your own spreadsheet, they don't move the oprod at the same velocities? Because those increased oprod velocities might lead to problems?

I didn't mention chamber pressure...you did.. I was speaking about "port" pressure.

If that's how you want to be, you just said "pressure".

been done ad nausem

No, in fact you have not clearly stated your thesis. You've scattered bits and pieces of it in different posts never once clearly stating anything. Put it together in one or two clear sentences in your next post.

The fact you don't understand what I'm getting at is telling....I still find it odd that someone who thinks the oprod hits the back of the receiver is lecturing ME on the garand.

One or two sentences, clearly stating your thesis, that's what I want. The closest thing we have so far is you saying you've "debunked" the "myth" that commercial ammo can damage your Garand by showing that commercial ammo can produce oprod velocities in excess of M2 Ball, but that's totally fine, we should just trust you. Where's your proof that increased oprod velocities can't damage the rifle?

A clear thesis followed by clear proof.

[NapalmCheese]

No.he said it too....

I asked about it specifically because it's one of the things you never mentioned "debunking" (though it was mentioned in the other video) but actually could in the hopes that you might better understand that "debunking" is more than just "yeah, well, those guys are wrong even though I just did an experiment that had the same results they did".

[Jeremy2171]

I asked about it specifically because it's one of the things you never mentioned "debunking" (though it was mentioned in the other video) but actually could in the hopes that you might better understand that "debunking" is more than just "yeah, well, those guys are wrong even though I just did an experiment that had the same results they did".

I see your lack of experience with the garand and the fact you ignored the picture that shows how it's impossible for the oprod to hit the back of the receiver....

not to mention the experiment does NOT get the same results they did....

[bigbossman]

One or two sentences, clearly stating your thesis, that's what I want. The closest thing we have so far is you saying you've "debunked" the "myth" that commercial ammo can damage your Garand by showing that commercial ammo can produce oprod velocities in excess of M2 Ball, but that's totally fine, we should just trust you. Where's your proof that increased oprod velocities can't damage the rifle?

A clear thesis followed by clear proof.

Good luck getting it.

[Jeremy2171]

Good luck getting it.

One more time...

Commercial ammo isn't the problem the internet makes it out to be.

Milsurp and commercial ammo operate at similar pressures.

Data is in the videos especially the second one.

[NapalmCheese]

One more time...

Commercial ammo isn't the problem the internet makes it out to be.

Milsurp and commercial ammo operate at similar pressures.

Data is in the videos especially the second one.

So that's it then? That's all you want to say? No going into WHY we should believe you've "debunked" the commercial ammo "myth"? Because the data you point to corroborates the data from In Range, but you've come to a different conclusion with various theories.

[NapalmCheese]

I see your lack of experience with the garand and the fact you ignored the picture that shows how it's impossible for the oprod to hit the back of the receiver....

You are greatly misunderstanding things. I was proud of you for finally figuring out what proof is vs. conjecture.

not to mention the experiment does NOT get the same results they did....

You find that some commercial ammo exhibits oprod velocities 30+% greater than some M2 Ball (as listed in the spreadsheet). The In Range video found the same thing. What's so different?

Such is life man. I would have liked to have seen some video of dry oprod vs greased oprod and some measurement of impulse to overcome coefficient of static friction and perhaps some pretty pictures of dry oprods flexing more than greased oprods. Ah well.

[Jeremy2171]

So that's it then? That's all you want to say? No going into WHY we should believe you've "debunked" the commercial ammo "myth"? Because the data you point to corroborates the data from In Range, but you've come to a different conclusion with various theories.

Apparently you are choosing to ignore the data that disproves inranges theory...

[Jeremy2171]

You are greatly misunderstanding things. I was proud of you for finally figuring out what proof is vs. conjecture.

I didn't misunderstand anything...you plainly stated the oprod can hit the rear of the receiver...it can't.

You find that some commercial ammo exhibits oprod velocities 30+% greater than some M2 Ball (as listed in the spreadsheet). The In Range video found the same thing. What's so different?

Did you ignore the M2 ball that is NOT 30% different than commercial ammo?

Such is life man. I would have liked to have seen some video of dry oprod vs greased oprod and some measurement of impulse to overcome coefficient of static friction and perhaps some pretty pictures of dry oprods flexing more than greased oprods. Ah well.

Already did that test didn't post it. Dry/oiled oprods move ~10-12% slower than one that is properly greased.

[bigbossman]

So that's it then? That's all you want to say? No going into WHY we should believe you've "debunked" the commercial ammo "myth"? Because the data you point to corroborates the data from In Range, but you've come to a different conclusion with various theories.

So - let's return to the beginning of the thread crapping:

"All ammo is safe in a Garand"

"You don't say? That's not what leading experts and component manufacturers say"

"It's true! It's true! Look - this video proves it!!"

"Hmmm.... no, it really isn't conclusive"

"Yes it is! The guy's an expert!"

"Hmmm.... looks like you're the one that made the video?"

"Nevermind that...... it's true, I say. You guys are just ignorant about Garands"

"We'll stick with the accepted convention of manufacturer's and other experts"

"You guys are stupid"

[Jeremy2171]

So - let's return to the beginning of the thread crapping:

"All ammo is safe in a Garand"

"You don't say? That's not what leading experts and component manufacturers say"

"It's true! It's true! Look - this video proves it!!"

"Hmmm.... no, it really isn't conclusive"

"Yes it is! The guy's an expert!"

"Hmmm.... looks like you're the one that made the video?"

"Nevermind that...... it's true, I say. You guys are just ignorant about Garands"

"We'll stick with the accepted convention of manufacturer's and other experts"

"You guys are stupid"

And yet your ignorance continues....

I mean after all..you think the oprod hits the back of the receiver...

[NapalmCheese]

I didn't misunderstand anything...you plainly stated the oprod can hit the rear of the receiver...it can't.

I did not plainly state that the oprod CAN hit the back of the reciever. I said

Those people you think are wrong posit that the op-rod hitting the back of the receiver is one possible reason for the op-rod bending.

Did you ignore the M2 ball that is NOT 30% different than commercial ammo?

I DID ignore it. Because what In Range said is "some commercial ammo can produce oprod velocities 30+% greater than M2 ball". What they didn't say was "all commercial ammo produces oprod velocities 30+% greater than ALL M2 ball". But you claim to have debunked what they said by, well, getting the same results they did (some commercial ammo can create oprod velocities 30+% greater than M2 ball). Maybe you should have just deleted that highest velocity load (Superformance), then some of the other ammo would only be 25+% greater oprod velocities. Your wildest commercial load produces oprod velocities 40% greater than your mildest M2 ball; which is of course still M2 ball. So... Some commercial ammo can produce oprod velocities 30+% greater than some M2. The question is, is that a big deal? But that's not the question you've shown any data for, you just said "nah dawg, doesn't matter" without proving to us why you think it doesn't matter.

Already did that test didn't post it. Dry/oiled oprods move ~10-12% slower than one that is properly greased.

Well that would work towards (while still not, but getting closer to) being actual proof wouldn't it? Why not publish it then? Because at this point all you're saying is "they're wrong, I'm right, just trust me" which is not at all confidence inspiring.

[NapalmCheese]

"We'll stick with the accepted convention of manufacturer's and other experts"

To be fair, I'm entirely open to learning new things; I just want to see some proof beyond "because I said so".