Re: mechanical repeatability
With all due respect you don't get away with blithe comments in Deep-Blue (or maybe you do as you refuse to give out any technical ideas). If I'm confused it's because you're offering no new information. How about some meatier explainations?
Originally posted by Paladin
Sorry, but I don't deal in Magic or elves.
If you accurately define the difference in operation between firing from the open bolt position and firing from the closed bolt position, you will minimize your confusion.
What can be more 'true-closed bolt' than bolt action? That was how the Stingray was fired in the test.
Sounds to me that you're just arguing tiny semantics (and millionths of a second) to try a maintain a point that puts your own products in a better light.
Which is really unfortunate as there is no doubt about it, your guns are good and amongst the best. But you're not providing much in the way of proof or substance here.
And that's the million dollar question. At what rate of fire does open-bolt equal closed-bolt if you are to believe one has an advantage over the other? Under rapid fire, you're talking milliseconds between the mythical stop and stabilisation of the ball and the injection of gas.
Originally posted by ezrunner
What does the small amount of time that the bolt is at rest before the valve is opened buy us?
Still waiting for some kind of proof that once jammed into a correctly sized barrel how any of the theorising of bolt/ball dynamics really has any effect.
A well tuned cocker (closed-bolt) and an XMag (open-bolt), both with the same barrel (as both are cocker threaded and use detents), shooting the same velocity, will both perform identically.
Disturbing picture deleted.
Sorry. I did not think it would be offensive to anyone.
it has been deleted from my post.