I have to admit that I have about had it with all the run around from both sides of the safe/unsafe ML'er debate. One side complains about lack of published facts while the other side talks about legal reasons they don't publish the details of their due dilligence. It's become a never ending jumble of tit for tat BS. The topic should have died a long time ago.

One thing I haven't understood is why someone hasn't gone ahead and done some proof/destructive testing on one of the guns in question. It would not prove that all guns are safe but could go a long way toward showing the safety of a random samplefrom the manufacturer in question. After all, isn't that what most every manufacturer does when checking the safety of their products. You can't test every gun to destruction but you should be able to extrapolate a general idea about the quality of the product line. Why hasn't anyone done this?

The question should be, how do you test a random sample to verify it's strength/quality? Do you test with a standard double charge/double projectile proof load or something else? What parameters should be considered when evaluating the results of the testing?

Instead of beating a dead horse, how about being proactive and do an independent test and verify the issue with independent facts.

Anyone have any ideas.