Richard,
I appologize if I've offended you. I've re-read my post several times and while I can't see an attack on you in there, I can see where you might be offended by my use of the word "...outlandish'.
Still, I am very surprised by the Beretta assessment of 'unsafe' for .001". That's only .0005" per wall of the tube. That might be undetectable by eye when sighting down the barrel's o.d.. It's possible that the decimal place may have been transposed. Then I'd be more inclined to agree or be sympathetic to Beretta's assessment even with only a .010" bulge. But such an assessment by Beretta on a .001" bulge is still off the scale in conservatism to me. Structual parts are cold formed from similar condition materials all the time. I would defy Beretta to find tensile data for such a small amount of plastic deformation to support their decision or even get adverse tensile data that reliably shows up after such a small deformation. Furthermore, I would defy Beretta to sign such a waiver and if they failed to return my gun and destroyed it, they would find themselves in court. To force anyone to sign away rights in a waiver or anything else before returning their own property shouldn't be tolerated. At this point, I'd contact the attorney general for the state in which the gun was sent and seek their assistance in resolving this.
