Thanks, Chris for the clear reply and (clear;^) pix!
I guess the barrel of the gun 'senses' a hollowpoint to
be a rounded ball;^) I know I would;^)
All seriousness aside, I know the dynamics of such a machine
is quite complex, and as we all see, everything must work just
right. I often wonder why a gun, compared to, say, a car, is any
harder to make perfect. It's not that cars are perfect, but that
THEY perform their job, with equally complicated dynamics, with
aplomb. Think about an airbag. Wow! That's complicated. Or an engine, which must work time and again. Although I have to admit,
we are relying on faith, as we can't test the airbags to see if they
are working;^) We just know they do. Or do we?
So, to come full circle with my own reasoning, the first iterations of anything may be more prone to glitches and failures than subsequent improved versions. (In fact, Consumer Reports did a story about that very thing with first year model cars and later improved versions.) I know that the Brothers 'R' must be continuously thinking of how they can make their gun better. It seems to be their mission...
Steve
Steve -
There are different ways of looking at length difference I think. I am not sure a shorter round is by default better for feeding - it could be argued that it might ''tip up'' sooner on way to chamber. A shorter round also IMO makes for a small increase in tendency for keyholing, due to increased ''jump'' across the already and necessary feebore.
The longer round, as long as it does not foul in the magazine could I think be the better feeder - I forget my length comparisons right now tho have a pic some where.
