View Single Post
 
Old 07-09-2018, 07:09 PM
medic15al's Avatar
medic15al medic15al is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pell City, AL
Posts: 882
Likes: 3,865
Liked 752 Times in 316 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastbolt View Post
It's too bad both guns couldn't have been returned to the company for examination. Let them test-fire both guns to experience and confirm improper functioning, and then start trouble-shooting.

If the both ends of the lock springs were properly secured in both the little slots in the locking arm (retained by a molded "nub" at the front of the slot, past which the top end of the spring must be shoved during assembly) and in the frame recess at the other end of the spring, then the common factor might be the torque lock springs. That means checking to make sure they were within the required spec. (Springs that are batch-sourced might be shipped and received up to 10,000 at a time, according to a spring maker I spoke with about out-sourced springs used by gun companies.)

If improperly assembled? Hey, improper assembly is improper assembly, no matter who does it. If it can be identified and attributed, then subsequent issues might be prevented. Same thing can be said for all assembled equipment made in production lines/cells.

Maybe someday the corporate will decide to ease away from the ILS, even if against advice of their legal team. Dunno. I've heard it said that as long as a new model revolver has an externally accessible hammer that some unauthorized person might be able to thumb-cock into SA (meaning it can now be fired with a short & light trigger press, having as little as a 3 1/2lb trigger pull), the legal minds think the ILS is still a good feature. Sigh.
You know, It didn't even cross my mind about returning them. Just didn't think about it. I should have thinking back on it.
Reply With Quote