Sorry to answer the question, lesson learned. I'm not partaking in a mudfight just because it hasn't broke on you. Anyone have any questions PM me.
its not a mudfight. you made a statement of fact. you are unable to substantiate it. you continue to either avoid or be unable to provide any sort of an actual testing protocol that you undertook to reach that conclusion / 'fact'.
it is absolutely possible that impact sockets will yield before chrome when force is applied in a linearly increasing fashion. since you are unable to construct even that as a hypothesis, it follows that you lack the reasoning to test such a theory. the explanations you have provided as your 'process' hardly qualify as something that you could / should then extrapolate out to 'impact sockets' as a whole...or at all, really.
did you test one brand? 3? 5? did you do a materials analysis to see if those tested were all of the same type of metallurgy? did you test one size of socket? 3? 5? how many sizes would be statistically significant? did you test one drive size? which? why or why not different drive sizes?
you tried to speak authoritatively on a subject. as is expected, your methods were questioned. that is not a 'mudfight'. when they don't meet scrutiny well, the conclusions are questioned / dismissed. if the test method is invalid, the conclusion is invalid (by that method).
ahm