I had a partial case head separation using a 1.8oz buffer

[LRRPF52]

Same. One thing they taught us early in Engineering is #1 goal is for the bridge to not fall down. #2 is under budget/ better mileage aspects / pleasant aesthetics. "Nobody remembers the bridge that came in under budget. Everybody remembers the one that falls down".

At present, I see one parts vendor for my bridge involved in 3 of the last 3 catastrophic failures in my industry with 3 different agencies with 3 different projects, with that being the part that failed every time. And with a seemingly higher frequency of a warning sign deformation behavior. That's a huge red-alert, just so you know. And then I see a difference in construction philosophy that happens to show up at the location of the failures. The other vendors in the same usage aren't failing and aren't so readily showing this strange deformation warning sign? Yea, that vendor is gone.

The fallacy of this argument was already pointed out, but I don’t recall a refute to it.

Sample sizes, assumption of the forum being a comprehensive collection of all failures, and another poster’s search showing up multiple other brass types to his query.

Did you perhaps overlook those like I did the 1.8 ounce buffer?

1.8oz buffer is significantly less weight than your typical 2.9oz carbine buffers.

I would never put that light weight of a buffer in a CLGS .223 Rem, let alone 6.5 Grendel.

OP basically duplicated somewhat one of the main problems they experienced with the Edgewater spring guide in Vietnam, shooting the new M193 with ball propellant, only his chamber is really clean and more likely in-spec.

I apologize for overlooking this critical piece of information that now pretty much nails the coffin shut on early locking with CLGS and 1.8oz buffer.