Guys.... I do not own a gas trap and probably never will. It was just an example. I think I'm going to have to work on my communication skills, I've been getting misunderstood a lot!
Printable View
Guys.... I do not own a gas trap and probably never will. It was just an example. I think I'm going to have to work on my communication skills, I've been getting misunderstood a lot!
Canes7, I understood you didn’t have one so no worry. Biggest issue with internet typing is it can be perceived in many ways. I have tried to open my voice chat room up for evening chats but no one responds. It would be a good way to understand how folks are when they type. I can bet Tim has a different outlook on what I say after talking with me. It makes it easier to understand people most of the time. I can bet some are thinking I am slamming my fist on the table while typing or that I am upset but this is not the case at all. I enjoy bringing things up in order to have others bring up issues I may have not thought of. I was once on the band wagon of no Garand should be harmed but I had an epiphany, :):):):):):):):):):):): Rick B
Wait, wait, wait... let's not talk gas traps:
The arsenal mix-masters have their own history. "Correcting" them to as-issued configuration is just wrong! Even the CMP built/re-built rifles have history that should not be changed!!!
LOL.. I remember that arguement over on the CMP forums from quite a few years ago. Remember the arguement people were having about how one should never remove the lower band pin? IIRC it all started over someone trying to remove their rear handguard.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppednlocked
BTW - Congrats on post 777.. you should go play blackjack somewhere.
I will stick by the barrel band pin as if the rifle is orignal and you would like to make some money that is a key to knowing if it has not had a barrel change. Nothing worse than an orignal lend Lease with the barrel band pin knocked out. It can be considered a put together at that point.
No, I understood you perfectly. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by canes7
Here's another hypothetical. The factory is producing M1 rifles in a given serial number range. During production, an employee stumbles upon a box of 100 safeties that fell behind a shelfing unit. He decides to start installing them, even though they are not the same number lot as the current ones he was using. Now, 50 years later, one of this rifles somehow manages to stay "original, as manufactured". The current owner is proud of his prize, but some "expert" examines it and bursts his bubble by saying that his safety is incorrect for the date of manufacture, therefore the whole rifle is suspect.
So who's "correct" now?
Damn, too late. I should have gotten the lottery ticket before replying!Quote:
Originally Posted by canes7
Simply put, sometimes the experts don't always look at the big picture and will not apply double loop problem solving. Single loop is easy to apply, rifle is made at a certain time, part is not from that time...therefore part is wrong and added later. I work in a manufacturing environment, so I see this type of thing on a constant basis...installing 20 year old NOS parts. 1 part on an otherwise new rifle would qualify for this...a whole trigger group I could not.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnickKnack
Would you shoot this rifle? I would...sparingly. I was going to post it on the CMP boards, but I would most likely be chastised for doing so...ruining someones bid on a public auction. :(
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=272353921
A true collector knows the part can be correct as I and have stressed if you know me. You folks are generalizing everyone which is what i see arguments about.
Its getting like a dog chasing his tail. Rick B