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

[LRRPF52]

Would the brass not get weaker as the walls thin due to stretch and expansion that occurs concurrently during an early unlock, where peak yeild pressure is measurably reduced due to changes in material dimension?

I'm not a mechanical engineer, maybe you can clarify. If there is no failure, then what is considered peak pressure in the formally trained sense as described previously? Just some greater than x equation?

You could have the strongest brass in the world (Lapua), but if you retract it early while there is sufficient residual bore pressure, the moment enough of it clears the chamber walls, it will expand because nothing is there to support it.

A great way to create that condition is to use really light weight on the reciprocating mass (carrier, buffer, or both), shoot a long bullet with slow-medium burning ball powder, with a CLGS port location.

Cartridge brass will move around with as little as ~5200-5800psi if I recall correctly.

We had the answer to the OP’s problem long ago in this thread, and now I’m getting upset that I missed it.

[Klem]

I would expect more soot regardless of failure cause than is pictured.

Maybe - not if it was expanded and sealed forward of the rupture as it should, and it was a relatively new case. The soot coming out of the rupture gets focussed back past the bolt to the magazine.

If a suppressor was on it then all the spents would be filthy, as it all comes back from the chamber as the case contracts.

[Zeneffect]

The question is in reference to "won't rupture after peak pressure is achieved"

The point is the mechanical properties that dictate what the peak yeild/failure pressure is, is changing during an early unlock event resulting in a failure after the peak chamber pressure is achieved. It in a sense is defying basic mechanical logic as the assumption is the brass strength is a constant until initial deformation and the exponential loss of strength due to pressure is fairly constant. It's not being taken into account the material dimension is changing in more than one way resulting in an acceleration to failure over what is expected. X will burst at y pressure. Take same mass and elongate it while keeping outer dimensional width constant results in a loss of mass at the walls to accommodate the stretch. Loss of mass/wall thickness results in lower yeild strength... while unlocking and pressure is dropping, yeild strength degradation from elongation and expansive deformation is outrunning the pressure drop.

I guess OP could actually test this by disabling the gas system. One theory would result in a potential kaboom, or at very least the evidence of the score line. the other would result in a case that is just fine.

[LRRPF52]

- Buffer Weight: 1.8 oz
- Buffer Spring ProfileDW length Flat-wire spring

This is the buffer, spring, and RET the OP used folks:



If you want to experience case head separations, use a buffer like this.

This is the smoking gun that was overlooked because of all the conjecture, derails, and unfamiliarity with the design and its history.

I’m very conflicted with how I want to approach this moving forward when it comes to diagnosing and trouble-shooting.

A great lesson I personally take for granted is that I never have used anything less than an ST-T2 with carbine spring, or 2.9oz buffer with increased power spring for my carbine or pistol builds in this cartridge.

Sorry for all the distractions that happened in this thread stonehog.

You specifically asked for guidance in that area, and we missed it.

[DeNinny]

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.

This explains your abundance of caution applied to Lapua brass. You can't take a chance on being wrong about a vendor's failure data. Especially if you see a trend.

[LRRPF52]

This explains your abundance of caution applied to Lapua brass. You can't take a chance on being wrong about a vendor's failure data. Especially if you see a trend.

No, it really doesn’t. There is no trend, which was already established and now has been purposely ignored for about the 3rd or 4th time.

It’s starting to come across like trolling.

[LRRPF52]

stonehog,

Don’t pull down any of those loads just yet.

I’ll bet that if you replace your buffer with an actual buffer of normal weight, you won’t ever see this again.

That tube is really short, so I think you’re going to need another RET (Receiver Extension Tube), another spring and buffer appropriate for this.

I use extra power action/recoil springs for this barrel length and CLGS in a standard carbine RET, with a carbine buffer minimum.

An H1 buffer or heavier will really help slow down the cyclic rate, as will the adjustable gas block.

Did you choke the gas any with that Odin Works gas block?

[DeNinny]

Nope. If the case fails prior to pmax, you still have considerable amounts of powder that has not been converted, and now you just provided a very tiny aperture for it to continue its burn through.

Yup. Because that pressure is just going to keep tearing the aperture open more and more which will keep the pressure down. That torn aperture is even weaker than what is was before it tore, so any pressure that builds up will simply tear it more and dissipate in the process.

The powder burn wouldn’t magically stop once the case ruptured in the imaginary event you’re describing.

I never said that powder burn magically stops. See above explanation of reality. The burning powder will continue to create enough pressure to continually tear the ever weakening brass.

It would continue to be converted in that tight space formed by the case in-battery, the bolt face, barrel extension, which is why you see in-battery failures turn AR-15s into grenade-like devices.

Nope. At least not always. In this failure it continued to uncork the bullet and tear the brass at the feed cone score line. Which is why this failure only blew out the magazine and didn't grenade.

Remember that the projectile would still be static or in a retarded start-pressure position in this model, obstructing the bore now that a new point of relief has been found.

This is the crux of where I think we are in most disagreement. I don't see this happening because again the gas will have had to go down the barrel, up the gas port, and return back to the gas key for the bolt to even begin rotating off the lugs which would be the start of this failure model. It doesn't do this until the bolt carrier starts moving, basically. And by that time the pressure of the gas is way too low to cause a failure like OP's or any failure that physically tears a wall in the casing. At best the extractor is just going to rip the metal where it is physically in contact with the brass. But up into the head sidewall and take out that flap? No way. That model is not possible if that same area of brass already survived a higher pressure earlier. And it did by the definition of this failure model.

Also remember the brass is designed to resist pressure up near pmax and preferably above it. So any pressure well below pmax will have a very, very, very low likelihood of rupturing the brass especially if the location isn't even in contact with the extractor.

I'm sorry but this is why the pics don't line up to the extraction failure model. Not how I see them at least.

I'll say again,

This is why bolts, barrel extensions, carriers, and upper receivers turn into fragments with an in-battery catastrophic failure.

The tightness of the space doesn’t allow clean, well-guided venting of the continued burning propellant.

I'll say again, you are assuming a specific failure does the same or similar type of damage. And again, there are other viable failure models within the laws of science where the damage is just at the point of failure with only limited "damage" like the OP experienced. There are going to be varying degrees of a "blowout" basically. Because there are a lot of variables involved.

In the OP’s demonstrated failure, there is no soot residue emanating from the failure point, which means that the propellant was already converted.

This fact does not refute the blowout failure model. I'd venture to guess that the blowout in battery failure model is going to occur very close to Pmax and so of course I see that all the propellant is nearly converted if not fully. This point is in full support of the theory. And pictures.

If you have ever seen in-battery failures, there is a ton of soot around the chamber and remaining parts fragments.

Yes, because these particular in battery failures had the conditions for that. I've seen them too!

His brass is squeaky clean, with a very coherent failure node aligned perfectly with the extractor.

The brass can be squeaky clean with a blowout as stated earlier. And the failure node is aligned perfectly at the feed cone score line at the extractor side, simply because at the extractor side there is less support to resist the brass as compared to the lug sections. Again, the brass can expand the most at the extractor.

The pictures of the failure indicate all this exactly.

The fact he was using a 1.8oz buffer should put all of this to rest.

That is early unlocking all day long, a literal recipe for it.

The fact that this failure aligns with exactly what Bill Alexander designed around and tried to prevent with his own grendel barrels should put all of this to rest.

[DeNinny]

No, it really doesn’t. There is no trend, which was already established and now has been purposely ignored for about the 3rd or 4th time.

It’s starting to come across like trolling.

I'm talking in context to lazyengineer's view of the failure. He is the one that is believing the trend. And with him sharing his background, I simply am saying I understand HIS perspective on this issue better. Has nothing to do with what anyone else thinks beside him. He builds bridges. If they fail, a lot is at stake. His engineering philosophy must include an abundance of caution. I can see how he would apply this caution to HIS reloading and his concern for others.

I apologize if it sounded like trolling. Was not my intent.

[DeNinny]

Ninny,

The feed cone depth is headspace related. You can have correct longitudinal headspace and still have the case rupture because there is too much space around it - the case is too narrow or the chamber too wide. As shooters we more often refer to longitudinal headspace because it is easy to measure. And if horizontal headspace is OK then typically axial headspace is also.

There is still plenty of pressure in the barrel to do mischief as the carrier unlocks and the bullet is still in the barrel. Especially in a short gas system with a slow powder. Yes, the pressure drops as the bullet heads down the barrel but in this scenario it is still 39K lbs at the port, down to 16K lbs the muzzle (Ref: QL)

I can't disagree with any of this. Which is why I won't take headspace off the table. But again since feed cone depth is creating the largest area of unsupported brass, and since Bill Alexander had issue with this, I still think it's more important than headspace. And I still agree with mostly everything you stated.

[DeNinny]

The question is in reference to "won't rupture after peak pressure is achieved"

The point is the mechanical properties that dictate what the peak yeild/failure pressure is, is changing during an early unlock event resulting in a failure after the peak chamber pressure is achieved. It in a sense is defying basic mechanical logic as the assumption is the brass strength is a constant until initial deformation and the exponential loss of strength due to pressure is fairly constant. It's not being taken into account the material dimension is changing in more than one way resulting in an acceleration to failure over what is expected. X will burst at y pressure. Take same mass and elongate it while keeping outer dimensional width constant results in a loss of mass at the walls to accommodate the stretch. Loss of mass/wall thickness results in lower yeild strength... while unlocking and pressure is dropping, yeild strength degradation from elongation and expansive deformation is outrunning the pressure drop.

I guess OP could actually test this by disabling the gas system. One theory would result in a potential kaboom, or at very least the evidence of the score line. the other would result in a case that is just fine.

Just want to say I agree with the complexities you mention about failure at different pressures due to different shapes and directions of forces in relation to those shapes. In theory this could create a scenario of different pressures rupturing the same brass, but with a different condition because the brass shape or direction of force changed. The math behind all this is horrendous, I must say.

And this is why I stated that once the rupture occurred at a certain pressure, it's going to continue to tear the brass there and increase the aperture size. And furthermore, that area of brass near the tear is now even weaker than what it was just before it tore. It's because the process of tearing it actually weakened it even more, allowing it to tear at even (slightly) lower pressures. The brass near the tear literally became weaker because the tear fatigued it. This is why the pressure, while in theory it could increase, is more likely to dissipate as the tear hole gets bigger. So it's not really likely that the tear is going to outrun the pressure drop. It's more like the tear will keep tearing at pressures near the point at which the tear started to begin with. And it will stop tearing as soon as the pressure drops below a new threshold.

And furthermore, if the brass didn't tear at the higher pressure, I'll say again that it will not tear at any pressure lower than this. But to your point I'm saying this for the exact same spot on the brass and not any other location.

Hope this make sense because it is hard to type out without also getting into the materials deformation equations, both temporary and permanent.

[Klem]

Ninny,

Let's call it 'webspace' then. The space between the cartridge and the walls, increased when you ream a feed cone into the chamber.

[DeNinny]

Ninny,

Let's call it 'webspace' then. The space between the cartridge and the walls, increased when you ream a feed cone into the chamber.

Klem when you and I exchange posts with each other, I'm fine with that. But forgive me if I use 'feed cone area' or 'unsupported wall area' at times.

[grayfox]

Enough talk and theories, we're becoming like Job's friends... OP needs an action list to help him go forward.

I think the discussion has come down to 2 or 3 theories, and no meaningful exchange of new info or support, beyond the items identified about the spring, buffer and buffer tube (RET in above posts), and the observation that the failure is or strongly appears to be, initiated at the extension teeth locations. Personally after going back and forth and sifting through as best I can, I myself am convinced this failure happened due to the fast cyclic-failure during extraction: new key items the location at the extraction teeth, lack of gas/debris spill at the break (soot) and recoil subsystem that is 'way low out of spec. I don't buy that it happened while in battery. Matter of fact, back when I posted the additional examples of kabooms, I was thinking of hypothesizing that perhaps the brass, being potentially stronger, may have mitigated the failure by doing what we call in our industry "leak before break" -- a smaller failure rather than a complete double ended circumferential break -- but thought I would leave that out and not introduce a new rabbit trail. Could be any brass would behave the same, either way that doesn't matter in this case.

But all that aside. It's time instead not to continue a debate of entrenched positions, but to offer some guidance to OP on what to do going forward. These are my suggestions, what I would do:

-- Rule #1, better safe than sorry. Safety first and this applies to this rig but to all loading, shooting and builing operations.

1. I don't believe your brand of brass is at fault, but I would not use any of it that has pronounced ridgelines. Might even post this failed case up prominently in your reloading space for yourself, as a reminder of what can happen!

2. I'm unsure about whether any of the bcg should be used or all replaced. At least I might replace the bolt, it has seen stresses beyond what is normal, what with 16,000-20,000 psi hot spewing gas and all. Might even have a gunsmith examine your barrel extension since it too, especially the lugs, may have some small stress cracks from the incident.

3. If you want to use that load I would first back down and then develop back up, watching for signs. Follow this MO any time you change an item in your otherwise "known" load recipe. Also applies to a new lot# of a "current" powder.

4. Modify/improve your reloading process to include OAL size-checks every case every time. Trim any that are over 1.520 ie, that fail the pass-thru I wrote of earlier.

5. Replace your buffer tube, spring and buffer weight with at least H (or "H1" as sometimes called) weight and standard buffer tube, as '52 writes above. This is minimum weight I would recommend, maybe use an H2 or T2 weight... I'd have both in my spare parts bin so I can try them both.

6. Strongly consider about using the AGB to dial down the gas flow/pressure back to the bcg via the gas tube. Once dialed in you possibly could consider a 2.9 oz (regular weight) carbine buffer but that's up to you - smooth operation, not slam-backs, are what you're after. Do not stay with your weight/spring/buffer tube setup as it is now.

Anyway, life needs to go on, so prudent action steps based on real experiences are what we need to offer now.

[pashiner]

wow, did this thread ever blow up overnight! anyway Klem, the 300blk case that did my barrel in was a converted wolf .223 case. I think I mic'd the neck of the fired case at .014-.015 after the failure if I remember right. I don't know where the little bugger got to, but I started neck turning all my converted brass after that to .012 and haven't had an issue since.
originally, I suspected a double charge, but with the ridiculous amount of bullet down in the case, there's no way I would have been able to fit that much powder in there.

but I digress...we're talking about grendel brass failure here, and I've never had one of those.

[DeNinny]

grayfox your #1-4 have my endorsement, as they are theoretical remedies based on my failure models. And #5 & #6 won't hurt but I don't think they are necessary. IMHO only.

[Klem]

Stone,

I am more and more leaning towards 52's early unlocking/blow-out theory. If it was in battery there would be more damage to the action - broken bolts, lugs, extension. For sure get a heavier buffer like a H2 but most of all do something to tame that gas. The easiest was is to get an adjustable gas block. Start with it almost closed and open it one increment at a time until it reliably cycles and locks back on last round. Don't go any further. I also recommend a faster powder like 2460 or 2230 (or equivalent).

The action is probably fine but if the bolt no longer fits the NOGO I would ditch it after pulling it apart and keeping all the parts: gas rings, extractor and ejector parts. Obviously start low and work up with the faster powder. When reloading, bump the cases no more than .003" shorter than whatever the spent cases with the new bolt measure. This to minimize headspace to only what is needed to reliably cycle in an AR.

Pashmina,

Yep, this is the most exciting thing to happen on the Forum in a while. A rare mystery to be solved.

In your Blackout-blowout you would have been loading a heavy bullet, say 220gn. Quickload is showing less than 50% case full with 7.2gn Lil-gun and a heavy bullet. Any case with less than 80% full starts risking 'Flash-over'. This is where the rifle in a horizontal position has the powder lying flat to gravity and space above it. A greater than normal surface area of powder is exposed to the primer spit. It all goes off at once instead of gradually and this equals kaboom. So ironically, less powder can actually make it more dangerous. I use around 11gns of H4198 . And pushing the bullet back into the case will remove some excess space.

[pashiner]

Klem, you're right, I was indeed using a very heavy bullet...a powder coated +-235gn lead boat-tail from the lee 230-5r mold (because I'm cheap), and seating rather deep, somewhere around 2.10" oal. immediately after the kaboom, I dropped 14.4 gn into a case with a spent primer, and found I couldn't seat a bullet to 2.10" without hearing the powder crunch pretty badly, so I wrote off a double charge as unlikely, though apparently it's not impossible!
I suppose flash-over could have contributed to the situation too, but I have no direct evidence of that.
the barrel that was damaged was a bear creek arsenal barrel, which I sent back to them along with pictures of the brass, borescope shots of the broken barrel extension lugs, and a description of the failure, and much to my surprise, they replaced it free of charge, with the advice to check neck thickness...which I did, and found all my wolf brass to have necks in the .014-.015 range, which is a thousandth or two oversize.
As for the powder charge, I chose LilGun based on the load data that Lee Precision issued with the dies and/or mold, and worked down until it went subsonic.
I'll take a look at H4198 for future load development, it definitely sounds like a safer choice. During the Covid-powder shortage Lil Gun was the only listed powder my LGS had in stock, so I just went with it. I've heard good reports about A1680 for subs as well.

[lazyengineer]

Enough talk and theories, we're becoming like Job's friends... OP needs an action list to help him go forward.

I think the discussion has come down to 2 or 3 theories, and no meaningful exchange of new info or support, beyond the items identified about the spring, buffer and buffer tube (RET in above posts), and the observation that the failure is or strongly appears to be, initiated at the extension teeth locations. Personally after going back and forth and sifting through as best I can, I myself am convinced this failure happened due to the fast cyclic-failure during extraction: new key items the location at the extraction teeth, lack of gas/debris spill at the break (soot) and recoil subsystem that is 'way low out of spec. I don't buy that it happened while in battery. Matter of fact, back when I posted the additional examples of kabooms, I was thinking of hypothesizing that perhaps the brass, being potentially stronger, may have mitigated the failure by doing what we call in our industry "leak before break" -- a smaller failure rather than a complete double ended circumferential break -- but thought I would leave that out and not introduce a new rabbit trail. Could be any brass would behave the same, either way that doesn't matter in this case.

But all that aside. It's time instead not to continue a debate of entrenched positions, but to offer some guidance to OP on what to do going forward. These are my suggestions, what I would do:

-- Rule #1, better safe than sorry. Safety first and this applies to this rig but to all loading, shooting and builing operations.

1. I don't believe your brand of brass is at fault, but I would not use any of it that has pronounced ridgelines. Might even post this failed case up prominently in your reloading space for yourself, as a reminder of what can happen!

2. I'm unsure about whether any of the bcg should be used or all replaced. At least I might replace the bolt, it has seen stresses beyond what is normal, what with 16,000-20,000 psi hot spewing gas and all. Might even have a gunsmith examine your barrel extension since it too, especially the lugs, may have some small stress cracks from the incident.

3. If you want to use that load I would first back down and then develop back up, watching for signs. Follow this MO any time you change an item in your otherwise "known" load recipe. Also applies to a new lot# of a "current" powder.

4. Modify/improve your reloading process to include OAL size-checks every case every time. Trim any that are over 1.520 ie, that fail the pass-thru I wrote of earlier.

5. Replace your buffer tube, spring and buffer weight with at least H (or "H1" as sometimes called) weight and standard buffer tube, as '52 writes above. This is minimum weight I would recommend, maybe use an H2 or T2 weight... I'd have both in my spare parts bin so I can try them both.

6. Strongly consider about using the AGB to dial down the gas flow/pressure back to the bcg via the gas tube. Once dialed in you possibly could consider a 2.9 oz (regular weight) carbine buffer but that's up to you - smooth operation, not slam-backs, are what you're after. Do not stay with your weight/spring/buffer tube setup as it is now.

Anyway, life needs to go on, so prudent action steps based on real experiences are what we need to offer now.

In a thread that has turned into a bit of a mess, I think this was a good post. My own advise to OP

#1 - No secret that I'm no a strong endorser of Lapua 6.5 Grendel brass, but will be the first to admit that it is quite reliable when all other components are correct. That said - for myself, I'd switch to another brand like Horandy. Obviosly based on the passionate posts, lots of other uses are able to use it safely.

#2 Get that cycle rate under control! Agree or disagree with others on some things, I am in agreement that the kaboom very possibly could have been avoided if this were fixed. I say this, because those who experience the belting/shelf-issue; are often able to correct it by slowing down their bolt. That belting is deformation of brass in the Kaboom zone of the brass - take it seriously. There's a Johnnys Reloading video where he sees this occure, that's worth the look as well. Your system has a remarkably light BCG system, and that correlates with the Kaboom danger zone warning sign of belt formation - IMHO. Switch to heavier.

#3 Adjustible gas blocks are good in theory, but in my experience I find they carbon lock and end up being a maintenance and setting hassle. In the end, you'll dial it to a setting that works with the weakest ammo, it'll carbon lock there, and that won't be much different than what you're running now. Again, JMHO from my own experience.

#4 I don't thinik you need to resize or trim your factory fresh brass. I know at least one commercial loader and many heavy reloaders who start with factory brass. Nobody does that. By all means, double check, but I rather doubt Lapua resizes their brass all over again in their factory ammo offerings, and I would consider Lapua the last manufacturer on the planet to sloppily have variable case lengths.

#5 Lighten up on your load and work your way back up again. A soon as you see a belt, which I view as a warning sign, stop - and adjust your load, your gas setting, your buffer, or your brass. And preferably more than one. you have a safety warning, if you can change 2 things that indipendantly will make you safer, do that.

#6 Meticulous notes and keep asking questions. Often times I post detailed range reports in various forums on things, not so much for ego (though of course I am awesome and should be sent beer and cookies ); so much as I've learned a long time ago one does not truely assess the activity and results until they document it into a report intended for others. And at times get inputs from others with differeing experiences, to learn from.

That's what I would be doing, if I were in your shoes. I'm not in your shoes.

[LRRPF52]

Yup. Because that pressure is just going to keep tearing the aperture open more and more which will keep the pressure down. That torn aperture is even weaker than what is was before it tore, so any pressure that builds up will simply tear it more and dissipate in the process.

I never said that powder burn magically stops. See above explanation of reality. The burning powder will continue to create enough pressure to continually tear the ever weakening brass.

Nope. At least not always. In this failure it continued to uncork the bullet and tear the brass at the feed cone score line. Which is why this failure only blew out the magazine and didn't grenade.

This is the crux of where I think we are in most disagreement. I don't see this happening because again the gas will have had to go down the barrel, up the gas port, and return back to the gas key for the bolt to even begin rotating off the lugs which would be the start of this failure model. It doesn't do this until the bolt carrier starts moving, basically. And by that time the pressure of the gas is way too low to cause a failure like OP's or any failure that physically tears a wall in the casing. At best the extractor is just going to rip the metal where it is physically in contact with the brass. But up into the head sidewall and take out that flap? No way. That model is not possible if that same area of brass already survived a higher pressure earlier. And it did by the definition of this failure model.

Also remember the brass is designed to resist pressure up near pmax and preferably above it. So any pressure well below pmax will have a very, very, very low likelihood of rupturing the brass especially if the location isn't even in contact with the extractor.

I'm sorry but this is why the pics don't line up to the extraction failure model. Not how I see them at least.


I'll say again, you are assuming a specific failure does the same or similar type of damage. And again, there are other viable failure models within the laws of science where the damage is just at the point of failure with only limited "damage" like the OP experienced. There are going to be varying degrees of a "blowout" basically. Because there are a lot of variables involved.


This fact does not refute the blowout failure model. I'd venture to guess that the blowout in battery failure model is going to occur very close to Pmax and so of course I see that all the propellant is nearly converted if not fully. This point is in full support of the theory. And pictures.


Yes, because these particular in battery failures had the conditions for that. I've seen them too!



The brass can be squeaky clean with a blowout as stated earlier. And the failure node is aligned perfectly at the feed cone score line at the extractor side, simply because at the extractor side there is less support to resist the brass as compared to the lug sections. Again, the brass can expand the most at the extractor.

The pictures of the failure indicate all this exactly.

The fact that this failure aligns with exactly what Bill Alexander designed around and tried to prevent with his own grendel barrels should put all of this to rest.

Do you see how you have contradicted yourself now, while refusing to look at the buffer mass and cyclic rate?

A lack of understanding of how this system works has led to a series of conjectures and contradictions that simply do not match up with what the OP has posted, and I’ve had to waste a lot of time addressing these falsehoods in this thread.

If you aren’t familiar with basic behavior of partial case head separations, it isn’t helpful positing all kinds of theories in a thread where the OP came looking for help.