Gooooood Lord !!!!!
Some of y'all are amazing!!!!! Lol
Arcticap, this is about DESIGN not Metallurgy!!! For crying out loud!!! My "incident" happened 35 yrs ago!!! I didn't think of running it to a lab for testing !!!! Are you kidding me ?!!!! I'm not quite as sure as you are about it being ASM either! It was an FIE import and I never said who the maker was . . . !!
As far as modern manufacturing I'm sure they are all much better than 70's production. I'm sure you've seen me post many many times about 2nd gen Colts having '70s parts in them . . . they suck!! All the reproductions sucked back then !!
You're making my point.
How do we know that your bent frame wasn't caused by poor metallurgy?
As for the Design aspect, you know as well as I do that O T wedges don't just fall out as a design feature and you also know the flaws of the arbor in reproductions save for the later Pietta's so, it's a little surprising to me that you'd stoop to your statement about barrels going down range at any time . . . really? I'd bet that of the 100's of OT's that I've corrected, none has lost a wedge . . much less had a barrel go "down range" . If anything, it reflects on the one pulling the trigger on said gun !!! Nothing will work correctly if it's not made correctly or assembled correctly.
Not everyone fixes their short arbor problem or send their guns to you to get Goonerized.
The forums are full of people who complain about the fit of their wedges being too tight or too loose.
They experience wear at the barrel lug slot whereas the Remington uses threads to attach the barrel.
Many remove them with finger pressure only, and they are forced to reset their barrel cylinder gap using their wedge after each and every time that they remove the barrel.
Some folks do lose their wedge because they can fall out, which has probably happened more times than a Remington frame has been bent.
Unfortunately, short arbors and wedge problems are a big part of the flaws related to the "stronger" Colt design.
It they weren't, then you wouldn't be in the business of fixing their manufacturing flaws.
Yet it seems that you want us to believe that Colts are stronger and maybe they are in some respects, but at what cost to the new unsuspecting owner.
Especially if needing to be sent to 45 Dragoon for the upgrades.
I like Colts, but the wedge system is often flawed even with today's high manufacturing standards whereas the Remingtons are usually good to go right out of the box.
You talked about the cost of correcting a benign problem such as barrel constriction, but look at the cost to fix a new Colt just to make it function as intended.
If anyone should know, it would be you.
Are these simply manufacturing defects or design flaws.
Needing a custom made cap post and shield seem to indicate a flawed design since they were left out when they're actually necessary improvements.
So the Colts seem to have a weaker functional design as opposed to a literal measurement of physical strength.
Physically speaking, both gun designs seem to be strong enough for their intended purpose.