Blaser r93

[Alantoo]

Snip... If overpressure and a case ruptures, where do gases escape to?

edi

Evidently with the overpressured R93 in the test video the gases escaped through the gas escape vent holes in the barrel and possibly down beside the firing pin (which presumably does not create a gas tight seal). With the Remington and Browning rifles it evidently escaped through a shattered rifle action and barrel.


Alan

 

[Sauer90]

You do not seem to know much about engineering or rifles or cartridges, of course a cartridge must contain pressure. The higher the cartridge pressure the thicker the brass. +P cartridges get thicker brass cases. If overpressure and a case ruptures, where do gases escape to?

Now proven beyond doubt that you cannot comprehend how the cartridge functions, plainly a legend in your own lunchtime.

 

[ejg]

Evidently with the overpressured R93 in the test video the gases escaped through the gas escape vent holes in the barrel and possibly down beside the firing pin (which presumably does not create a gas tight seal). With the Remington and Browning rifles it evidently escaped through a shattered rifle action and barrel.


Alan

Alan, the bigger problem was that in a few cases big parts of the blaser R93 rife went through the shooters faces injuring them badly. If the would have had a Remington or almost any other rifle the might have gotten away with lighter injuries. Every rifle can burst for certain reasons, the way they burst is what matters.
edi

 

[ejg]

Now proven beyond doubt that you cannot comprehend how the cartridge functions, plainly a legend in your own lunchtime.

plain childish, how old are you?
edi

 

[willie_gunn]

Edi

What are you doing about this issue exactly?

Have you raised this with Blaser, with Trading Standards , with BASC, with the shooting media, or with anyone else who can actually do anything about it, or does your sense of public duty not stretch beyond posting warnings on Internet forums?

Repeatedly posting your opinions doesn't make them facts, and is never going to "fix" the issue you seem to believe exists, so what is the point? The only conclusion that can be drawn is that you are simply scaremongering.

 

[ejg]

Edi

What are you doing about this issue exactly?

Have you raised this with Blaser, with Trading Standards , with BASC, with the shooting media, or with anyone else who can actually do anything about it, or does your sense of public duty not stretch beyond posting warnings on Internet forums?

Repeatedly posting your opinions doesn't make them facts, and is never going to "fix" the issue you seem to believe exists, so what is the point? The only conclusion that can be drawn is that you are simply scaremongering.

You seem to be a bit naïve, asking Blaser would be like asking the tabacco industry in the seventies about health issues. What answer would you expect?
Why should I go after Blaser, I have no rifle from them nor will I allow a R93 in our workshop. I just think it is not right that some seem to deny that anything has ever happened to Blaser R93 owners. I believe there are safer rifles than the R93 out their also from the Blaser range. We are on an open forum here, people ask for advice, my advice is to stay clear from the R93.
edi

 

[Alantoo]

Alan, the bigger problem was that in a few cases big parts of the blaser R93 rife went through the shooters faces injuring them badly. If the would have had a Remington or almost any other rifle the might have gotten away with lighter injuries. Every rifle can burst for certain reasons, the way they burst is what matters.
edi

I think the preference for having a rifle that is more likely to burst instead of one that is less likely to burst is the curious logic. The chance of failure, the likelihood is what matters, and is the bigger problem.

I think you are confusing the difference between risk and hazard.

The hazard of an action bursting is not good news whatever the rifle. Your face and hands are within a few millimetres of an exploding collection of lumps of shrapnel. They are all being displaced at a great rate, there can be no guarantee that an element from any make of rifle will not end up in your eye. As you say, they might have gotten away with lighter injuries…equally they might not

The risk of an action bursting, i.e. the likelihood, is demonstrated to be less with an R93 than with the Remington or the Browning.

The scaremongering stories are so scary because of the perception that damage to our faces is so unthinkable...however remote the chance. This is possibly due to our hard-wired priority to protect our face and head…why we sacrifice our hands and arms to take the brunt of a blow by wrapping them around our heads to ward off attack.

The logical conclusions of this can only be that rifles can injure the shooter if the action is overstressed beyond their action strength. The Browning and Remington actions burst with the barrel blocked the R93 didn't.

I think you wrote earlier that you would not allow your child to use an R93. Would you allow them to use the weaker Remington and Browning actions with the higher actual risk of injury regardless of whether it is face, fingers or forearm?

Alan

 

[Drl]

I think the preference for having a rifle that is more likely to burst instead of one that is less likely to burst is the curious logic. The chance of failure, the likelihood is what matters, and is the bigger problem.

I think you are confusing the difference between risk and hazard.

The hazard of an action bursting is not good news whatever the rifle. Your face and hands are within a few millimetres of an exploding collection of lumps of shrapnel. They are all being displaced at a great rate, there can be no guarantee that an element from any make of rifle will not end up in your eye. As you say, they might have gotten away with lighter injuries…equally they might not

The risk of an action bursting, i.e. the likelihood, is demonstrated to be less with an R93 than with the Remington or the Browning.

The scaremongering stories are so scary because of the perception that damage to our faces is so unthinkable...however remote the chance. This is possibly due to our hard-wired priority to protect our face and head…why we sacrifice our hands and arms to take the brunt of a blow by wrapping them around our heads to ward off attack.

The logical conclusions of this can only be that rifles can injure the shooter if the action is overstressed beyond their action strength. The Browning and Remington actions burst with the barrel blocked the R93 didn't.

I think you wrote earlier that you would not allow your child to use an R93. Would you allow them to use the weaker Remington and Browning actions with the higher actual risk of injury regardless of whether it is face, fingers or forearm?

Alan

As far as I understand it, the rifles in the video were manipulated with an object in the barrel. That is a difference to an overloaded cartridge.

 

[9.3x64]

I think the preference for having a rifle that is more likely to burst instead of one that is less likely to burst is the curious logic. The chance of failure, the likelihood is what matters, and is the bigger problem.

I think you are confusing the difference between risk and hazard.

The hazard of an action bursting is not good news whatever the rifle. Your face and hands are within a few millimetres of an exploding collection of lumps of shrapnel. They are all being displaced at a great rate, there can be no guarantee that an element from any make of rifle will not end up in your eye. As you say, they might have gotten away with lighter injuries…equally they might not

The risk of an action bursting, i.e. the likelihood, is demonstrated to be less with an R93 than with the Remington or the Browning.

The scaremongering stories are so scary because of the perception that damage to our faces is so unthinkable...however remote the chance. This is possibly due to our hard-wired priority to protect our face and head…why we sacrifice our hands and arms to take the brunt of a blow by wrapping them around our heads to ward off attack.

The logical conclusions of this can only be that rifles can injure the shooter if the action is overstressed beyond their action strength. The Browning and Remington actions burst with the barrel blocked the R93 didn't.

I think you wrote earlier that you would not allow your child to use an R93. Would you allow them to use the weaker Remington and Browning actions with the higher actual risk of injury regardless of whether it is face, fingers or forearm?

Alan

Absolutely spot on.

 

[Alantoo]

As far as I understand it, the rifles in the video were manipulated with an object in the barrel. That is a difference to an overloaded cartridge.

I do not understand your point. Are you saying that the difference renders my observations about a very real risk versus a more remote hazard irrelevant?

Maybe I could try and explain it another way...

If you remove the emotive issue of the R93 from the discussion by only considering the other rifles in the burst test video. Which would you prefer to be holding if there was an overpressure, those which did not burst or the Remington and Browning that did?

Now ask yourself whether you would prefer to be holding the R93 which did not burst rather than the Remington or Browning and if not, why not.

Alan

 

[Drl]

I do not understand your point. Are you saying that the difference renders my observations about a very real risk versus a more remote hazard irrelevant?

Maybe I could try and explain it another way...

If you remove the emotive issue of the R93 from the discussion by only considering the other rifles in the burst test video. Which would you prefer to be holding if there was an overpressure, those which did not burst or the Remington and Browning that did?

Now ask yourself whether you would prefer to be holding the R93 which did not burst rather than the Remington or Browning and if not, why not.

Alan

I think i get where you want to go here.

I would not prefer sitting behind any manipulated rifle

Do you know for sure that if the test would be conducted again (ceteris paribus), the results would be the same? I doubt it.

And even if - does this video say anything about the ruggedness of the different locking mechanisms or just about the quality of steel in the different barrels used?



The really interesting test would be shooting cartridges at 10000 bar or higher.

 

[Dorsettaff]

Interestingly looking at the pictures of the Blaser bolt failure, the whole of the bolt carrier seems to have disintegrated into a myriad of pieces. Now please correct me if I'm wrong but if the bolt hadn't "locked "up and there was a "unlocked" ignition of the round, surely the whole of the bolt and bolt carrier assembly would simply have slammed back along and off its tracks straight into the unfortunate shooters face but in one or two pieces.
I don't hold with the blown primer, case head separation case as this would a have been contained within the locked bolt assembly and vented thro the breech vent in the barrel.
Alas it could have been the Swiss Cheese Effect (Summation of tolerances) where a number of seemingly inconsequential effects cumulated in catastrophic failure.
The bolt carrier seems to have exploded from the inside but the bolt itself apart from a couple of lost leaves appears to be in one piece. Curiouser and curiouser!
I would like to see some destructive and non destructive test results....Lets see just how far do you have to stoke a home reload up to replicate the burst bolt assembly?
Still wouldn't fancy a Remington or Browning barrel giving up on me or a turn bolt failing and flying backwards or a Remington bolt dismantling itself at high pressure.

 

[caorach]

This is like people arguing that they'd rather have an accident in an old 1968 Ford Escort rather than in a new Ford because in the new car there is a risk that one of the screws that holds those new fangled air bag things on might hit you in the eye plus all that engineering design and crumple zone stuff is simply a plot by Ford to cover up the fact that there is a secret flaw and that they've had to kill everyone in government in order to cover it up.

You know the really scary thing? Out there on the internet there are a number of people reading that comment above and saying to themselves "That's exactly right, I knew it was true all along and now someone else agrees with me..."

 

[Alantoo]

I think i get where you want to go here.

I would not prefer sitting behind any manipulated rifle

Do you know for sure that if the test would be conducted again (ceteris paribus), the results would be the same? I doubt it.

And even if - does this video say anything about the ruggedness of the different locking mechanisms or just about the quality of steel in the different barrels used?



The really interesting test would be shooting cartridges at 10000 bar or higher.

It is not where I want to go that counts.

I have no wish to be injured in any way, whether this is from a gas burn or shrapnel in my forearm or a lump of rifle in my face. With my head arms and hands a few inches either side of a extreme expansion of gases, the mechanism which is shown to resist that is safer than one that does not. Whatever my perception of the magnitude of the hazard or my prejudices may wish for.


I agree a different batch of rifles may well produce different results, but equally they may not. It is pointless conjecture. In the same way I cannot say what the video tests show apart from the fact that two rifle actions failed and the rest did not. The locking action of the R93 and the quality of steel used in its construction were evidently rugged and adequate enough to resist the pressure, those of the Remington and Browning were not.

The number of times that an R93 has protected its user when a Browning or Remington would have let go is not recorded, but given the proof test video it is a distinct probability.

Alan

 

[MARKG]

it requires no skill at all to find fault............. thats why there are so many critics

 

[Vipa]

This is like people arguing that they'd rather have an accident in an old 1968 Ford Escort rather than in a new Ford because in the new car there is a risk that one of the screws that holds those new fangled air bag things on might hit you in the eye plus all that engineering design and crumple zone stuff is simply a plot by Ford to cover up the fact that there is a secret flaw and that they've had to kill everyone in government in order to cover it up.

You know the really scary thing? Out there on the internet there are a number of people reading that comment above and saying to themselves "That's exactly right, I knew it was true all along and now someone else agrees with me..."

 

[Dorsettaff]

Sorry Caorach, I have to correct you....

it was actually the Ford Pinto....
Ford's R93!!!

 

[mchughcb]

I think i get where you want to go here.

I would not prefer sitting behind any manipulated rifle

Do you know for sure that if the test would be conducted again (ceteris paribus), the results would be the same? I doubt it.

And even if - does this video say anything about the ruggedness of the different locking mechanisms or just about the quality of steel in the different barrels used?



The really interesting test would be shooting cartridges at 10000 bar or higher.

I really need to know, are there any reported cases of the blaser D99 blowing up. It is vital for me to make sure they have an unblemished history should an opportunity to buy one second hand comes up.

 

[Drl]

I really need to know, are there any reported cases of the blaser D99 blowing up. It is vital for me to make sure they have an unblemished history should an opportunity to buy one second hand comes up.

I dont know.

Why dont you ask Blaser themselves? According to some comments here they should tell you nothing but the truth when it comes to accidents with their rifles

 

[mchughcb]

Thanks for that. If you don't know that's good enough for me.