>>64283695
>never realized that their parts were substandard
The issue until Rob Ski and RD (who are jokes anyway IMO) are able to test MULTIPLE samples (n=10 minimum) to TENS of Thousands of rounds (30k-90k) we're not going to observe consistently the difference between a billet front trunnion vs a true forging. They test ONE rifle for MAYBE 5k rounds, then call it a day, and are arguably biased shills. REAL military procurement is NOT aarrgg for the pirates youtube posting. It involves REAL testing and real engineering.
>I don't see anything that proves those trunnions are billet
See this screenshot:
>>64285802
And this image:
>>64281978
The external dimensions of their front trunnions in the words are GREATER than a true forging. A true forging already has the underside chamfer bevel shape forged in. Those front trunnions as you can see are basically still a rectangle, implying that they're billet stock being machined down. Also if WBP WAS working with forging, I think we would have seen that in the recent factory tour. But we see NO such evidence. And which is cheaper and easier in this modern age to spin up, CNCs and billet stock, or induction heating forges, dies, and the like?
>broken bolts means those bolts are cast
First off, I'm NOT saying that they're using cast parts.
Secondly I'm NOT saying that the broken bolts ALONE are evidence that the bolts are made in a substandard manner. I'm saying the broken bolts, COMBINED with the lack of any evidence that they're machined from true forgings, COMBINED with the evidence that the front trunnions ARE machined from billet as opposed to true forgings, COMBINED with our understanding that it is more likely and cost effective in this modern age to just CNC billet than have real forges set up, ESPECIALLY for a small civilian commercial market shop making wall hangers and toys for redditors, ALL indicates as a sum of evidences that the bolts are made with substandard techniques.

>>64285816
>5.56 isn't a real AK
No