[gyp_c]

I lied...I DO know a FEW here

------------------
>>>>>>>>>>g2<<<<<<<<<<

I Like The Shade Too!

 

[Newton]

Here Here Gyp_C. You're 100% right. No one ever erred when doing the safe thing.

 

[James]

Originally posted by gyp_c:
[BThere are enough people that DON'T know the routine to justify adding it. I did NOT see it mentioned so I did. If this is "funny" to some, that's fine...I just didn't see the humour, so I asked...

...I still don't see the humour

[/B]

Gyp_C,

My impression of your post was as follows:

Load round 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, (full magazine - on to the next) then load 1, 2, etc., etc. "If you have several mags, load them first as above... "

It did not appear to mean (as you state):

Load 1 round, fire/function test,
Load 2 rounds, fire/function test,
Load 3 rounds fire/function test,
Load 4 rounds fire/function test,
Load 5 rounds fire/function test,
Load 6 rounds fire/function test,
Load 7 rounds fire/function test,
Load 8 rounds fire/function test,
(and this is where it gets real confusing) next magazine....
Load 1 round, fire/function test,
Load 2 rounds, fire/function test,
etc.
etc.

To me, it looked like you were giving step by step instructions on how to load a magazine(s) in order to be funny as I gave numbered steps (and frequently referred to the numbers) to test the thumb safety. I apologize if I misinterpreted it.

As far as safety issues go, if the gun tests properly according to the 5 steps above...there really isn't any need to go through such an elaborate (and wasteful) function testing routine FOR THIS PARTICULAR PART. In any case, if you were actually suggesting a function test, why would you go back to 1 round per magazine when the gun just finished safe functioning with 8 rounds in the previous magazine?

 

[gyp_c]

I'm done, all that was intended was to promote the test...It's not really necessary to do any of it. You're absolutely right.
What was I thinking? Must have thought this was actually something useful. I can see I was wrong. I apologize to all the forum members and staff and especially any guests.
It was not my intention to waste time or confuse...I can see I have managed to accomplish both. I'll have to do some more reading. Maybe I can see where I went wrong...

 

[Ken Neal]

gyp-c dont worry about it, your intentions were good, thats the important thing, no apolgy called for or needed.

 

[rex]

I would take JamesP's advice.It sounds to me it's overcut.I like to physically see the fit.Pull the grip safety out of the gun,put black marker on the thumb safety lug,and assemble the gun without the GS and be carefull putting the TS back in to minimally disturb the marker spot.Cock the hammer and work the safety up and down 10-12 times.Leave the safety on and pull the trigger while watching the sear through the rear.Let off the trigger and ease the hammer back,watching the sear again.If there is ANY movement of the sear in both of these it's no good.The marker spot on the TS should be wore off where it blocks the sear and there should be NO sear movement with the safety engaged.Anything else is unsafe.

 

[James]

Gyp_C,

By all means, an apology is not necessary on your part and hopefully it didn't seem like I was asking for one. I was only trying to explain my confusion over your post since you said several times that you "didn't see the humor."

Your intentions were good and if trigger work is done, your test is quite valid. In any case, it's good to have you around and your humor (when it truly is humor) is MUCH appreciated

Later G.



[This message has been edited by James P (edited 06-06-2001).]