maybe it is just me, but this thread has had a strange aroma to it off and on since close to the beginning
No, it's not just you. There's a strange wind a blowin.....
Not wanting to digress any further than we already have, I found an interesting quote from an interesting thread many of you may have already read. The quote is.....Anyway, I loaded up a few of those rounds we discussed, and I will say I couldn't be happier right now. I will run a few more though before I get too excited about it...but, this is the group I got...3 rounds, 1 hole...free standing at 15 paces
.
The thread may be read in it's entirety here........http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,105202.0.html
Again, not wanting to digress into the abyss once more, but sometimes one can analyze something too far. Sometimes all those statistics make our brains wonk out. Sometimes it's just better to quit thinking so much, and just shoot the gun more. Three rounds in one hole @ 15 paces doesn't sound like a problem gun to me. It sounds more like someone couldn't consistently develop loads and shoot to the guns ability 
The poor 97 was a lab experiment. It was dissected to the nth degree, then discarded. Somehow I believe the gun is much happier now. Don't hate me for my observation 
The gun was not a lab experiment. It was intended to be an airloom for my son. What was an experiment was finding the right load. In science, one has to take the good with the bad. When I wasn't able to find a load that met my expectations CONSISTENTLY in the FA, but was able to do so in the Rugers...well, I sold the FA.
Truth be known, I bought the Rugers LONG AFTER I purchased the FA and I did so because the FA had not met my expectations. So, I tried something else even though it was not my desires to do so. When the Ruger's performed better for me, I sold the FA. My "loyalty" isn't to a company...it is to the RESULTS. I wanted the best I could get. Simple enough.
3 shots tight at 15 yards is a good start, but like someone else said before, 4 is better, but it takes 5 or more to prove consistency. Then backing out to 25, then 50, and futher it becomes even more meaningful. The gun ended up not meeting my expectations because it was never consistent for ME at even 25 yards, much less further than that. Now, if it meets yours, then great. Not everyone has the same standards. I like results.
Now, if you think my loading and shooting were a problem, fine...that is reasonable except for one fact...I don't have this problem with my other firearms...which I also handload for.
On one final note, guns are not happy or sad. They are inanimate objects.
I like a tool that can perform my expectations for its purpose...and not all guns have the same purpose.
Suba,
It isn't a sob story, it is a report of my findings. Why would I "sob"...when I am happy with what I have replaced the FA with. I wasn't cheated or left "holding the bag." I got something else I wanted. The thread was about ACCURACY...so it is no wonder that my comments were about guess what...ACCURACY. LOL. Duh. You crack me up. As I said before, Bob Baker and his company were always very professional. Service though isn't why I bought a gun. I bought a gun to perform and to hit the mark. For you to refer to "sexual arousal" when it comes to guns perhaps may be a Fraudian slip on your part because what type of person even thinks of such? A quack maybe? No sir, men are supposed to be attacted to women when it comes to sexual attraction. Guns, they are tools...nothing more, nothing less. I like a tool that is capable of doing the job I expect it to do. Not all guns have the same purpose. I mentioned that the FA shot about the same quality of groups as does my Kimber 1911...and yet I am happy with the Kimber. The reason for the double standard here is the Kimber has a different purpose. The kimber was chosen as a reliable self defense gun for close combat less than 10 yards most likely. The FA was selected to be a hunting handgun with my expectation of accuracy for ranges MUCH FURTHER than I would ever use the Kimber at self defense. With my old S&W double action, I could hit a 20 ouce mountain dew bottle at ranges of up to 100 yards 3 out of 5 times back when I didn't even know how to shoot worth a toot. I would like to be able to reproduce at least that, say 4" at 100 yards from carefully placed shots would be reasonable from carefully placed shots, and with the FA I was getting about 4" at 25 yards or so...so it just wasn't going to happen...which is about what I get from my 1911...but again, the "obsession" (since you chose that word) for the Kimber was RELIABILITY since that is the first need of a PP gun, and the Kimber is indeed reliable, the most reliable 1911 I have fired (even off hand and "ghetto style" should I be behind an object shooting over it) so despite getting 4" groups at 25 yards it met my requirements for a PP tool.. The "obesession" for the FA was indeed accuracy...as that was its purpose...to hunt at reasonable distances...and the FA didn't meet my requirements as a hunting tool...again...FOR ME...so I sold it. Perhaps it will meet the expectations of its new owner, I certainly hope so. Some one might think you expect every gun they produce to be flawless. After some investigation, I have come to learn I am not the only one that has been disapointed (given the cost of the firearm) with the accuracy of the FA. Still though, I know there are also fine firearms out there made by FA that would be capable of meeting my goals, but are they any better than the Ruger? I don't think so...at least not at the current time. But, it is just a product, a tool. Nothing more. Nothing less. Tools some times have varying degrees of quality even by the best manufacturer.
Pab,
No one here is talking about taxes. Engineers don't do taxes and tax assessors don't do physics. What we are talking about here is physics, not taxes...so, like I said, maybe you just don't understand the concept of accuracy as it applies to firearms (as in physics, not taxes). LOL. Consistency is how accuracy is defined in firearms. Have a nice day.
