Blaser r93

[Sauer90]

What a load of twaddle from the resident optics/engineering design expert , the ejg strawman had his ass put on fire - simples!
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but to state it as fact without backing it up seems to be the norm for internet keytap kommandos...

Maybe they could just airdrop thousands of ugly r93 stocks filled with plastic explosive........

 

[ejg]

What a load of twaddle from the resident optics/engineering design expert , the ejg strawman had his ass put on fire - simples!
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but to state it as fact without backing it up seems to be the norm for internet keytap kommandos...

Maybe they could just airdrop thousands of ugly r93 stocks filled with plastic explosive........

Do you own a Blaser rifle? Sell them? other interests in the company?
Do you think it is a good thing that the R93 Bolt can fly back into the face of a shooter if the action lets go? Do you believe it is OK that a shooter is injured badly if he has overloaded a cartridge by mistake? Would you not believe that it is the duty of a rifle designer to make sure that a rifle even if it bursts does it in a way that the shooter is less likely to be badly injured. If we think even the Mauser Brothers roughly 100 years earlier were able to find solutions.
Of course the likelihood of getting hurt with a R93 is very low but exists and as others have mentioned the rifles are getting older, worn and possibly more likely to let go.
edi

 

[Dorsettaff]

I think Blaser cannot afford to replace the R93's. Ever thought of that?
anyway I don't have anything to do with them and can choose to stay away from the rifle. We decided against making aftermarket parts for the R93 for the reasons mentioned.
edi

Hmmmmm....Let me think on that one from the perspective of the CEO of Blaser ........

"We have a rifle, that we know is defective but have successfully covered this up for years and carried on selling it to the American market.....Oh Dear! One has blown up in a hunters face and we are now faced with a world wide class action by ALL Blaser owners for 1 billion dollars and not only will we have to pay compensation and legal fees but our family business built on tradition and precision is now bankrupt and the name is worthless........or do we simply accept the fact we have to replace all our R93s with new improved R8s, which cost us probably 500-700 Euros each to make and will cost us up to 120 million Euro but safeguard our name and reputation and is covered under our liability insurance........or do we just ignore the scaremongers and flat earthers and carry on building, improving and developing a proven safe concept?"

Blaser would recall and replace all the R93s if there was the slightest proven hint of trouble! Look at what Remington have done with a trigger issue, that to my knowledge nobody has actually died from!

Good discussion but as I said its been done to death......move on...I am!

 

[willie_gunn]

Do you own a Blaser rifle? Sell them? other interests in the company?
Do you think it is a good thing that the R93 Bolt can fly back into the face of a shooter if the action lets go? Do you believe it is OK that a shooter is injured badly if he has overloaded a cartridge by mistake? Would you not believe that it is the duty of a rifle designer to make sure that a rifle even if it bursts does it in a way that the shooter is less likely to be badly injured. If we think even the Mauser Brothers roughly 100 years earlier were able to find solutions.
Of course the likelihood of getting hurt with a R93 is very low but exists and as others have mentioned the rifles are getting older, worn and possibly more likely to let go.
edi

edi

You keep on repeating the same allegations, in this thread as in many others previously. You clearly have a deeply-held belief that the R93 is unsafe and that this could result in injuries to the owners and users of these rifles. As an owner of two R93's this is naturally of interest to me.

Do your concerns for the safety and wellbeing of the 160,000 plus owners of R93's worldwide extend to you having taken this up directly with Blaser?

If yes, please provide the correspondence for the benefit of us all.

If no, please explain why not?

 

[Dorsettaff]

Maybe they could just airdrop thousands of ugly r93 stocks filled with plastic explosive........

Oh! I was wondering where that R93 stock I found in a field the other day after those Russian Bears had flown over had come from...

 

[Sauer90]

Do you own a Blaser rifle? Sell them? other interests in the company?
<snip>

No
No
No

I'm just saying your personal vitriol is utter unresearched testicles (B------s).

 

[caorach]

anyway I don't have anything to do with them and can choose to stay away from the rifle. We decided against making aftermarket parts for the R93 for the reasons mentioned.
edi

As I understood it Blaser had the intellectual property rights on the R93 tied down so tight that no one could touch them in terms of 3rd party items. Hence why you see very little in the way of 3rd party items for Blasers. I recall that some of the various R93 protections ran out just about the time they released the R8, and I guess the "changes" to its design are protected in the same manner as the R93 was. In fact some people had been predicting a new Blaser rifle, with a few changes, in the run up to the patents for the R93 running out and then, as if by magic, it appeared. Now there's a thing.

In terms of you not making parts for the R93 do you also refuse to make parts for the rifles which were, in the previously posted video, shown to blow up much more easily than the Blaser?

 

[mchughcb]

I believe the patent finished and hence mak et al are now producing mounts.

 

[timbrayford]

If as previously suggested the r8 was introduced because the r93 was dangerous why would Blaser still produce & market the r93? This just doesn't make sense.

atb Tim

 

[willie_gunn]

If as previously suggested the r8 was introduced because the r93 was dangerous why would Blaser still produce & market the r93? This just doesn't make sense.

atb Tim

Come now, think it through.

If they withdrew the R93 from sale it could be seen as an admission of guilt, so to cover their tracks they have to leave it on sale.

It's the old "double bluff" you see.

In that context it is best to consider the R93 as Blaser's "smoking gun" ....

 

[megsjockey]

As I understood it Blaser had the intellectual property rights on the R93 tied down so tight that no one could touch them in terms of 3rd party items. Hence why you see very little in the way of 3rd party items for Blasers. I recall that some of the various R93 protections ran out just about the time they released the R8, and I guess the "changes" to its design are protected in the same manner as the R93 was. In fact some people had been predicting a new Blaser rifle, with a few changes, in the run up to the patents for the R93 running out and then, as if by magic, it appeared. Now there's a thing.

In terms of you not making parts for the R93 do you also refuse to make parts for the rifles which were, in the previously posted video, shown to blow up much more easily than the Blaser?

I think you're falling to the temptation in discussion of, when you don't like the premise under discussion you'll just change the premise and have a discussion about that instead. It's what politicians do all the time when being asked questions they don't want to answer i.e. they'll evade by choosing to answer a different question to the one that was actually asked.

What am I talking about?

Well, the video posted, showing a selection of various brands of rifles' barrels 'erupting', was made by first blocking the barrels of those rifles and testing to see where they would fail by firing a cartridge off in them. The quite horrific injuries that have been reported by unfortunate R93 owners don't seem to arise as a result of barrel explosions, per se. That is to say the video has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue that seems to be being put forward as a potentially real problem for Blaser owners. The actual Blaser issue seems, from all the threads across many forums that I've seen it discussed in, to be narrowed down to a specific matter of catastrophic cartridge case failure and the consequent 'unlocking' and launching of Blaser bolts and their attendant closing mechanisms backwards, which has been caused by the back flow of gas and the effect that has on the bolt locking, into and injuring the hands and faces of those unfortunate souls behind the trigger when it has all gone mammaries skyward.

Perhaps I'm being cynical but I note quite a few people have on this and other threads failed to address the actual issue that's up for discussion, apparently preferring instead to evade it and deflect to a different issue.

 

[megsjockey]

Come now, think it through.

If they withdrew the R93 from sale it could be seen as an admission of guilt, so to cover their tracks they have to leave it on sale.

It's the old "double bluff" you see.

In that context it is best to consider the R93 as Blaser's "smoking gun" ....

If what you're suggesting is right they (Blaser) really wouldn't be the first manufacturer to go for the keep schtum and deal with it on a case by case basis approach, rather than hold their hands up to crippling liability. Would they? And, the dice is well 'loaded' in their favour isn't it? The rare few times that cartridge cases fail outwith the 'reloading' world must be very few indeed these days, and even then Blaser will point the finger at the cartridge manufacturer, won't they?

 

[megsjockey]

As a point of order, I have thought seriously about buying Blaser rifles myself (first the R93 and then the R8). So far, I've not given into either temptation. However, even though I do reload I've never had a case rupture... yet!. On balance, I've no axe to grind in this matter and I am, as I said earlier, quite neutral in my views on Blaser products. As neutral as I am I do think there might be a valid concern that needs to be allayed or proven, whether or not it ever will be, who can say?

 

[Orion]

The actual Blaser issue seems, from all the threads across many forums that I've seen it discussed in, to be narrowed down to a specific matter of catastrophic cartridge case failure and the consequent 'unlocking' and launching of Blaser bolts and their attendant closing mechanisms backwards, which has been caused by the back flow of gas and the effect that has on the bolt locking, into and injuring the hands and faces of those unfortunate souls behind the trigger when it has all gone mammaries skyward.

Head, nail, hit.

Post #24 on this thread on africahunting.com to my mind raises some thought provoking questions. I'm not interested in the unattributed horror pics just the supposition of what might happen in the situation you've outlined, coupled with the damaged components and drawings.

http://www.africahunting.com/threads/safety-warning.14239/page-2

 

[willie_gunn]

As a point of order, I have thought seriously about buying Blaser rifles myself (first the R93 and then the R8). So far, I've not given into either temptation. However, even though I do reload I've never had a case rupture... yet!. On balance, I've no axe to grind in this matter and I am, as I said earlier, quite neutral in my views on Blaser products. As neutral as I am I do think there might be a valid concern that needs to be allayed or proven, whether or not it ever will be, who can say?

I have no problem with their concerns, which possibly may have some validity, but I fail to see how their actions of simply repeating them ad infinitum on Internet Forums does anything in the way of either allaying or proving them?

As I have already stated, I own two R93's. My opinion based on the material provided and my own research is that these issues are groundless, but naturally I have a keen interest in getting an answer once and for all.

The complainants, protagonists, conspiracy theorists - call them what you will - would achieve far more in terms of results and respect if they raised these issues directly with the manufacturer, with the various shooting organisations, with Trading Standards, Health & Safety, the Police....whoever. But simply repeating the same old lines time after time in threads such as these on Internet Forums achieves absolutely nothing, other than providing fuel to their fire that "these issues are discussed widely on the Internet" which is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yet every time they are asked to show any such correspondence with these bodies they cannot. Do you not feel that reflects somewhat on the credibility of their case? No science, no case law, no willingness to put their accusations in print to anyone who could do anything about it, nothing.

So what are their objectives and how will they ever measure success?

They seem incapable of spelling out what it is they are seeking to achieve - is it to get Blaser to admit culpability, to remove all R93's from sale, to save the owners of these rifles from the foolishness of their actions, to stop people buying Blasers because they are not bolt-actions that need tweaking and fettling, to wind up Blaser owners, or what exactly? They can't, or won't, say.

Have they formed an action group of concerned members of the gun trade? No
Have they contacted the media, their MP's or anyone else to get this issue addressed? No
Have they written letters to the shooting press? No

Are they that convinced of the validity of their case that they are willing to put either their money or their real names behind getting that case proven? I can only surmise they are not.

So they continue to engage in a fruitless exercise with no tangible actions in place that could prove their case one way or the other.

Why, if that is the case, should they be given any credibility?

 

[megsjockey]

I have no problem with their concerns, which may indeed be valid, but I fail to see how simply repeating them ad infinitum on Internet Forums does anything in the way of allaying or proving them?

As I have already stated, I own two R93's. My opinion based on the material provided and my own research is that these issues are groundless, but naturally I have a keen interest in getting an answer once and for all.

The complainants, protagonists, conspiracy theorists - call them what you will - would achieve far more in terms of results and respect if they raised these issues directly with the manufacturer, with the various shooting organisations, with Trading Standards, Health & Safety, the Police....whoever. But simply repeating the same old lines time after time in threads such as these on Internet Forums achieves absolutely nothing, other than providing fuel to their fire that "these issues are discussed widely on the Internet" which is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy

Yet every time I ask them to show their correspondence with any such bodies they cannot. Do you not feel that says something about their case?

I dread to think how complex and fraught with problems (not to mention cost) the process of proving any case against Blaser might be. So, keep safe now.

 

[achosenman]

I dread to think how complex and fraught with problems (not to mention cost) the process of proving any case against Blaser might be. So, keep safe now.

My partner took on and won a case against a very large airline for an industrial accident. When incontrovertible evidence was presented they admitted liability on the spot and although it took 9 years and three court hearings, they paid. Not only that but they amended/updated their training, procedures and equipment.

We never paid anything up front. The evidence was such that solicitors were falling over themselves to be involved. I would have thought that since there are any number of R93's available for technical dissection by experts, that it would be as simple as shooting fish in a barrel to prove that Blaser has an unsafe technically flawed product in wide circulation endangering thousands of people Worldwide.

I cant quite understand why Blaser hasn't been taken to the cleaners yet. A fast food chain can get sued over hot coffee, a microwave manufacturer gets sued for not warning about putting your pet dog in the oven to dry them off. It's a mystery.

Atb

 

[willie_gunn]

I dread to think how complex and fraught with problems (not to mention cost) the process of proving any case against Blaser might be. So, keep safe now.

Right, so their concerns about our health and wellbeing aren't sincere enough to actually do anything about it that might involve some effort - such as writing a letter or phoning a real live person.

They've really shot up in my estimation now

 

[megsjockey]

My partner took on and won a case against a very large airline for an industrial accident. When incontrovertible evidence was presented they admitted liability on the spot and although it took 9 years and three court hearings, they paid. Not only that but they amended/updated their training, procedures and equipment.

We never paid anything up front. The evidence was such that solicitors were falling over themselves to be involved. I would have thought that since there are any number of R93's available for technical dissection by experts, that it would be as simple as shooting fish in a barrel to prove that Blaser has an unsafe technically flawed product in wide circulation endangering thousands of people Worldwide.

I cant quite understand why Blaser hasn't been taken to the cleaners yet. A fast food chain can get sued over hot coffee, a microwave manufacturer gets sued for not warning about putting your pet dog in the oven to dry them off. It's a mystery.

Atb

A mystery usually has its explanations. Do we know that 'deals' have never been done, out of court? Ok, I'll leave the 'playing devils advocate' to others now. Folk generally just get tee'd off with me when I start doing it, but the fact remains; it is there to be done.

 

[willie_gunn]

A mystery usually has its explanations. Do we know that 'deals' have never been done, out of court? Ok, I'll leave the 'playing devils advocate' to others now. Folk generally just get tee'd off with me when I start doing it, but the fact remains; it is there to be done.

So what practical activities will you be undertaking to get it done?