Amen, 4seventy. There is a HUGE difference.

Sorry we disagree Mac, but "Don't worry, you have our 'guarantee'" doesn't get the cart out from in front of the horse here. Such "guarantees" don't prove theory, and are just part of the sales pitch. GSC is no different from any other mono-maker. They ALL insist that their bullets can't damage a double rifle as long as the "correct caliber" bullet is used. If your rifle suffers damage, you're stuck with litigating and attempting to collect a $20,000+ claim from some guy in South Africa. That's supposed to be of some kind of value? It addresses the validity of the manufacturer's design theory in what way?

sentence deleted Damage to double rifles from monolithic bullets has been known since shortly after the type appeared, yet none of these manufacturers have done extensive testing of their bullets in real double rifles. Yes, such testing would get quite expensive, but that fact relieves the manufacturers from their responsibility to due diligence how? If they aren't willing to prove the theories of their designs through meaningful testing in the rifles they're intended for and "guaranteed" to be safe in on the front end - to do their due diligence - because it's too expensive, then how is it possible to credit their "guarantee" with any good faith on the back end? Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense.