Gary
As far as I have been able to determine all the "blow ups" have occured with over pressure reloads.
I have fired several hundred rounds through my Blasers with out any problems.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
Charles Helm
In a World of Compromise... Some Men Don't.

I have a Wilson Combat .45 but I prefer my HK USP Compact 45 -- it goes bang every time. Of course you can't compare the triggers on the two but I can live with that.

I'm glad to see that you are an HKaholic as well.

I can't understand the comments about the Blaser being ugly

I personally think that two piece stocks are classic and classy.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
As far as I have been able to determine all the "blow ups" have occured with over pressure reloads.
I have fired several hundred rounds through my Blasers with out any problems.

If you are satisfied with a gun that will be safe with normal pressure cartridges, then that gun is evidently good enough for you. Others may wish a rifle that will keep your head in one piece even if something goes wrong.

Incidentally, you have obviously not been able to "determine" much about the various and well-publicized (at least well-publicized outside the USA) R93 accidents, as your clueless comment shows. But again, that is your problem, not ours.

Carcano

quote:

Originally posted by carcano91:

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
As far as I have been able to determine all the "blow ups" have occured with over pressure reloads.
I have fired several hundred rounds through my Blasers with out any problems.

If you are satisfied with a gun that will be safe with normal pressure cartridges, then that gun is evidently good enough for you. Others may wish a rifle that will keep your head in one piece even if something goes wrong.

Incidentally, you have obviously not been able to "determine" much about the various and well-publicized (at least well-publicized outside the USA) R93 accidents, as your clueless comment shows. But again, that is your problem, not ours.

Carcano

I wondered how long it would be before the quality of the discussion deteriorated.

Mrlexma,

If Blaser made the R93 in 45-70, then we could have a real fight.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Mrlexma,

If Blaser made the R93 in 45-70, then we could have a real fight.

Gentlemen,

I have interest in this rifle as it seems to have many good points and appears to be built w/ a high level of quality. What is troubling me is there appears to be an organized effort outside of this country to take this rifle out of production. There also appears to be quite a bit of effort by the manufacturer to fend off this group and to avoid being held civily liable for any injuries or damage.

In the case that the manufacturer is correct in its defense that any injuries caused were the fault of the ammunition, I'm then troubled that it appears that the rifle has a tendancy to shoot the bolt through the operators head upon failure.

If anyone can point to any solid information/testing on this rifle reference these failures, I'd appreciate it.

Gary

Gary,

I cannot provide the testing info you requested. However, just for reference purposes, when a Weatherby Mark V fails, the bolt also launches rearward through the shooter's face. When a Model 70 fails, it becomes a fragmentation grenade. The only really safe rifle in the event of a failure is a military Mauser.

500,

I've seen photographs of a couple of Mausers that had what I'd consider major failures. As I recall, injuries were minor and the bolts weren't launched rearward. So, I guess this is what I'm basing my concern over.

This effort by those going after Blaser may end up being BS, but they're sure doing a good job making the Blaser sound more dangerous than a Weatherby or Winchester.

Gary

quote:

Originally posted by GaryVA:
Gentlemen,

I have interest in this rifle as it seems to have many good points and appears to be built w/ a high level of quality. What is troubling me is there appears to be an organized effort outside of this country to take this rifle out of production. There also appears to be quite a bit of effort by the manufacturer to fend off this group and to avoid being held civily liable for any injuries or damage.

In the case that the manufacturer is correct in its defense that any injuries caused were the fault of the ammunition, I'm then troubled that it appears that the rifle has a tendancy to shoot the bolt through the operators head upon failure.

If anyone can point to any solid information/testing on this rifle reference these failures, I'd appreciate it.

Gary

Gary,

I would like to offer assistance, but I no longer engage in these discussions.

First, they are pointless--a sheer and utter waste of time.

Second, it is my hope that by not rebutting the naysayers, their anti-Blaser hysteria will drive down prices, so that I can make a good deal on a couple more rifles and at least one barrel in every caliber made.

Unfortunately, Blaser sales show no signs of faltering, so my plan is not doing so well.

Buy a left handed Winchester M70 in 375 H&H there are a few still around from the last production run last fall. I bought mine and couldn't be happier with it. I had it bedded and slapped a 1x4 Leupold in Talley mounts and it shot like this: [/URL]

quote:

Originally posted by GaryVA:
In the case that the manufacturer is correct in its defense that any injuries caused were the fault of the ammunition,

That was an outright lie by Blaser, which has been refuted in the last incident (Norma Weatherby factory ammunition). They always automatically claim, as the first PR measure in every case of accident, that the ammo had been at fault.

That may or may not be the case; but it is irrelevant. Just an attempt at hoodwinking.

quote:

I'm then troubled that it appears that the rifle has a tendency to shoot the bolt through the operators head upon failure.

Correctly said. If another bolt action fails, the gun will be damaged, and the shooter may sustain minor or medium injuries. If a R 93 fails - well, we have seen the results various times.

quote:

If anyone can point to any solid information/testing on this rifle reference these failures, I'd appreciate it.

See the published expertise in the DEVA accident reports.
Also, the parallel destruction testing of the Heym SR-30 done by Peter Fortner; the comparison with this other straight-pull action clearly shows what was and is wrong with the R 93 design.
I call it a constructional flaw, which has only partly been remedied.

C.

The more I look into this thing, the more troubling I find it. I'll wait to see if a verdict is made reference the injuries before I pass judgement. In the meantime, I cannot get past this type of bolt failure when using factory ammunition. I cannot find a similar pattern of reported failures from any other current manufactured bolt rifle.

Gary

Gary

carcano
I have not heard any definitive report on what actually broke on a R 93 that "blew up".
Most blow ups I have heard about have occured in Europe. As far as I know all have involved reloaded ammo.
If you have specific info about what actually failed on a R 93 and why I would like to hear it.
If the blow up was not caused by faulty ammo I would like to know if a certain part was defective, of is the design action itself at fault?
All I can say with certainty is I have shot several hundred shots through my Blasers, and shots through others in calibers from 223 to 416 with out a single problem.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
I have not heard any definitive report on what actually broke on a R 93 that "blew up".

Rearward gas escape. It lead to an expansion of the locking area of the barrel, and parallel to a deformation and destruction of the umbrella locking fingers of the bolt. Bolt thus was released backward.

quote:

As far as I know all have involved reloaded ammo.

Wrong. The usual automatic Blaser lie, for which you fell. Some have indeed, some only allegedly (owner steadfastly maintained that it was factory ammo), the last one was definitely factory ammo.

quote:

If the blow up was not caused by faulty ammo

The rifle damages were "caused" by rearward gas escape as a result of severe overpressure, which can be due to faulty ammo or to a barrel obstruction. But the injury to the shooter was caused by faulty design; IMO a severe liability. Same with those burned cars (Weren't it Fords?) decades ago, which spurned US consumer protection: they were safe enough when driving normally. Only in case of an accident (and not even with all accidents), they might burst into flames.

quote:

I would like to know if a certain part was defective, of is the design action itself at fault?

The latter. Never were any parts found to be structurally defective (as "materials flaws"). You may know that the previous plastic bolt cover was replaced by an aluminium cover, but this is no real remedy. It offers just a bit better protection (extensively described in the DEVA reports) against "medium case failure", where no extreme overpressure nor large amount of gas are involved. The main design flaw remains.

Carcano

Carcano
Thanks for you reply.
What caused this rewarward gas escape?
I woonder if this rewarward gas escape would have caused damage and injury if it occured in other type rifles?
At what pressure will the Blaser fail?

By the way the Ford problem is a current one. I drive one as a "company car". Mine has had the factory "fix" installed. We have had one person in the "company" burned up when hit from the rear. Others who have been in an accident have not caught fire. No doubt the location of the gas tank is the problem.
Currently my car is in for repairs and I am driving a Hummer, so I am safer, at least for a while.

Back to the R 93, I was aware of the plastic to aluminium replacement of the bolt cover. Did the back of the barrel burst or just expand letting the bolt travel rearward?
So do you feel every blaser is a distaster waiting to happen, or that They only let go durring a serious over pressure, which in all probability would destroy most other bolt rifles as well?

Could someone please post a link so I can see this information. The thought of a bolt going through my head is not pleasant.

No offense to anyone here, but so far this is all heresay to me.

If a link can't be posted, at least please point me in the right direction.

Thanks

quote:

Originally posted by geese:
Could someone please post a link so I can see this information. The thought of a bolt going through my head is not pleasant.

Carcano

quote:

Originally posted by GaryVA:
Gentlemen,

Talk of this Blaser Tracking model struck my interest. Knowing very little about it, I thought I'd check around. I keep getting information that it's as dangerous to the shooter as the game. Is this BS or is there any merit to the complaints/injuries?

http://www.deportiro.com/english_articles/al10_english_version.shtml

Gary

I included a link w/ my first post. This was as fair a page as I could find. It has views from both sides. I found some stuff that was flaming anti Blaser, but was one sided. That's why I was asking for any info on credible testing or reports w/ solid info.

Gary

Gary: Lutz Moeller is certainly biased, but what he writes, is technically *very* sound.

It is so far the best analysis you can find on the 'Net (except for a few precise but rather lackadaisical comments of mine in a German web forum).

The printed DEVA reports (accident expertise and destruction testing) are sound and very informative, but you must have a *very* good understanding of the system, its dimensions and its flaws in order to decipher their purposefully veiling and euphemist language. DEVA cannot afford to blame Blaser directly and openly, so they chose a sapienti sat style.

Carcano

500,

When a Wby bolt flys backwards do you know if the bolt handle comes off or does the bolt rip through rear section of the action.

Mike

Mike,

I don't know. But I do know a fellow who worked at Weatherby when they received a photo from a customer. The photo showed the customer's face, less a big chunk that the bolt had taken out. The customer admits that handloads were used.

This fellow who worked there is different than the gunsmith I know who used to work there.

Found this.

** IMPORTANT SAFETY RECALL **

Visit our SIGARMS, Inc. Web site for information on this recall: http://www.sigarms.com

August 5, 2002

BLASER R93 RIFLE SAFETY RECALL TRIGGER ASSEMBLY

To All Blaser R93 Owners:

Blaser has been committed to designing and manufacturing the safest most reliable firearms in the world since 1963. In keeping with this commitment to our customers, Blaser is conducting a recall of its R93 rifles sold in the US.

What is the Problem?

The R93 trigger assembly uses stainless steel pins for corrosion resistance. We have learned that a small number of non-stainless steel pins were inadvertently used in some R93's. Note: the UIT, CISM, and LRS/LRS2 are not affected by this recall.

What could happen?

An accidental discharge from the off safe position may occur if an R93 with non-stainless steel pins is used and the pins have corroded due to moisture. In this situation, once the firing pin has been cocked (into the off-safe position), the rifle may discharge.

WARNING:
Use of your R93 rifle may result in an accident,
severe injury or death to the user or bystanders.
Stop using your R93 immediately.
Do not use your rifle until it has been inspected.

What should you do to ensure your safety?

Removal of the trigger housing and trigger subassembly for inspection is required. This inspection should only be made by SIGARMS Inc., Blaser's US representative, located in Exeter, New Hampshire. Call the recall hotline number below to coordinate the inspection of your R93 rifle:

Please contact us toll-free at 1-877-442-7671 (8 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST)

What will we do for you?

Upon calling, we will inform you how to return your R93 and give you an estimated time frame for return. Once we have your rifle in our facility, we will conduct a complete inspection of your R93 and replace your pins if they are not made from stainless steel. We will also clean and ensure your R93 is ready for more adventures. Please do not contact the dealer where you purchased the R93, as we will serve you directly. We will return your serviced R93 to you along with an expression of our appreciation.

We recognize the inconvenience this situation causes our Blaser R93 customers and offer you our sincerest apologies. We are passionate about your safety and we are confident that you would expect nothing less from Blaser.

We appreciate your understanding and loyalty to Blaser.

http://www.sigarms.com/recall/index.shtml

quote:

Originally posted by jens poulsen:
Dear Mr Geese!

but I would buy a HEYM MODEL Light Express in the .416 Remington if it were
"outoftheboxreadyforafricanusewithgoodbalance".

Yes!

I have two Heym Express Bolt action rifles(one Light in 8x68S and the big one in 460 Weath. Mag.) They shoot accurate and the balance is just about perfect as the quality!

500grains
I hate to mention this but the 45 Blaser is the European bolt rifle version of the 45/70, 450 Marlin.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
500grains
I hate to mention this but the 45 Blaser is the European bolt rifle version of the 45/70, 450 Marlin.

Maybe it's giving them bad karma?

carcano
What do you think is causing this tremendous pressure increase?
If the Blaser R93 can take 100,000 psi, then what would happen if these same over pressures occured in other makes of rifles.
I do find it strange that almost all "blow ups" have occured in Europe.

500grains
The 45 Blaser was a very ingenius design to ensure reliable feeding and performance of a cartridge of that bore diameter and power in the R 93.
To their credit, they never stated is was for DG, but for boar and other driven game hunted in the European tradation.

500,

In my opinion the Wby action is probably the safest and I base that on a couple points.

I have seen a 378 fired with 2208 (Varget) in the powder measure that was set for 108 grains of IMR 4350 for 270 Hornady. Back in thoe days (before Hodgdon was selling the powders) 2208 weighed about 2 grains more for the same volume. The shooter was unaware of the overload until he tried to open the bolt. This is not heresay as I was the shooter. As near as I could tell the action set back about .001". That was based on chambering cased that has been fired on the same day.

A seond rifle was a 270 Wby. The load was not established but I was standing next to the bench and both the shooter and myself both said "fuck" when the Ohler said over 3400 with 150s.

Unlike the Rem 700 the Wby does not have the base head sticking way out of the chamber.

Of course I realise that two incidents does not amount to much in statistical terms.

However, there are a lot of 30/378s out there in the cheap Synthetic rifle and I have seen plenty of postings where the poster has bought his 30/378 and wants to know what loads he can use with 4895 because that is the powder he has from when he was loading his 30/06.

In addition, the very nature of the Wby calibres leads to the big chase for velocity. In other words I think the Wby is tested with overloads more than any other action.

As you know, while I like the overall Wby package I have posted and will continue to post the various shortfalls of the Wby action. BUT, they do work.

Many reported blow ups are suspect and that applies to all rifles. The case of firing the 7mm Rem in a 270 Wby is in my opinion open to great doubt. The Wby action does not have the cam forward to resize the shoulder on the 7mm Rem (if you make 270 Wbys from 7mm Rem you will se what needs to be done) and the 7mm Rem would need to be loaded with a bullet where the ogive started at the case mouth.

Sometime ago there was a post where someone blew a 30/06 up with 60 grains of Bullseye or one of the other other other Alliant flake shotgun/pistol powders. Pure bullshit as you won't get nearly that amount of that powder type in a 30/06.

On the 24HourcampFire thread Ken Howell agreed with me that if you machined all the lugs off a Wby the bolt handle would hold. The fact that Ken Howell agreed with me on that point does not of course mean it is law and set in stone

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Mike378:


Sometime ago there was a post where someone blew a 30/06 up with 60 grains of Bullseye or one of the other other other Alliant flake shotgun/pistol powders. Pure bullshit as you won't get nearly that amount of that powder type in a 30/06.

I put 38.5 grains of Bullseye into a 6.5 mm Arisaka, created a barrel obstruction just ahead of the chamber, then pulled the trigger with a string. As you know, an Arisaka is a bastardized M98. The gun did not blow. The extractor and the bottom metal blew off. The stock had a mild split. And the lugs were set back so that I could not open the bolt. There was no powder burns on the wood. The barrel was fine.

quote:

On the 24HourcampFire thread Ken Howell agreed with me that if you machined all the lugs off a Wby the bolt handle would hold. The fact that Ken Howell agreed with me on that point does not of course mean it is law and set in stone

If Ken said it, I would put it in the category of "Investigate thorougly before believing".

quote:

If Ken said it, I would put it in the category of "Investigate thorougly before believing".

Agree

As to blow ups etc, I donlt think it is really an issue (except on the forums) for any of the rifles that are sold all over the world, such as Ruger, Rem 700, Wby, M70 and so on.

Undoubtely there is the odd hickup.


It might even be reasonable to say that when a company like Sako heads down el cheapo avenue then caution might be wise.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
carcano
What do you think is causing this tremendous pressure increase?

The pressure "as such" is not - repeat NOT, repeat *N*O*T* - the problem. That is the trick which Blaser uses to lull the gullible.

The pressure can cause problems (notably, rearward gas escape if the cartridge case fails). That is where the trouble begins. Against rearward force as such, the bolt is definitely sturdy enough - that's how Blaser tries to weasel around admitting what is wrong. A cheap and low sham.

quote:

then what would happen if these same over pressures occured in other makes of rifles.

I have answered that before. Fortner has even tested it in the Heym SR 30.

quote:

I do find it strange that almost all "blow ups" have occured in Europe.

Not really strange; most R 93 have been sold and are being used in Europe.

As a personal PS to NE 450 No. 2:
I should probably apologize for my dismissive and haughty tone, where one could write more soberly.
But I am just fed up with that mass of lies and cheap shyster maneuvres surrounding the R 93, and with so many shooters most willingly being misled. The truth has been out for YEARS. The R93 owners just don't WANT to admit the facts, which are plain and clear. The R93 is perfectly safe with normal ammunition under normal circumstances. For many, this may suffice. If things go wrong however, it is far less safe than most comparable bolt action rifles.

Carcano

Carcano
I realize you have strong fellings about the Blaser suitation, no offense taken.

quote:

The truth has been out for YEARS.

This is beginning to sound like an episode from "The X Files"!

Carcano,
While I respect your opinions, and your dislike of the R93, your last post is full of contradictions.

quote:

The pressure "as such" is not - repeat NOT, repeat *N*O*T* - the problem.

Then what is the problem?

quote:

The pressure can cause problems (notably, rearward gas escape if the cartridge case fails).

I thought that pressure was "NOT" the problem? If the cartridge case fails that would cause problems in any gun wouldn't it?

I am assuming that this statement...

quote:

Against rearward force as such, the bolt is definitely sturdy enough -

are Blasers words. These however are yours.

quote:

that's how Blaser tries to weasel around admitting what is wrong. A cheap and low sham.

Assuming that Blaser's words are true and that the bolt is sturdy enough, what is wrong, and where's the sham?

I'll skip a little and go to here...

quote:

The R93 is perfectly safe with normal ammunition under normal circumstances.

These appear to be your words. Again, it makes me ask, where's the problem then?

I'm not sure what normal, vice abnormal circumstances are but, I do know that you shouldn't be shooting abnormal ammunition from ANY gun.

It sounds to me like there are some out there practicing unsafe reloading. Using the same brass too many times. Improper quantities and types of powder. Or, they are doing something else.

I am not a reloading expert. However, I do know that you had better be paying attention or you're likely to get a bolt through your head.

Again, I respect your opinions, your likes and dislikes, but this sounds personal. Without some solid evidence, I have to assume that the R93 is a safe and reliable firearm.

quote:

Originally posted by geese:

quote:

The pressure "as such" is not - repeat NOT, repeat *N*O*T* - the problem.

Then what is the problem?

I wrote it. Read it.

quote:

If the cartridge case fails that would cause problems in any gun wouldn't it?

Not so. You get minus 20 points for a purposeful misleading and dishonest question, Blaser-style.

quote:

quote:

that's how Blaser tries to weasel around admitting what is wrong. A cheap and low sham.

Assuming that Blaser's words are true and that the bolt is sturdy enough, what is wrong, and where's the sham?

I wrote it.

quote:

quote:

The R93 is perfectly safe with normal ammunition under normal circumstances.

These appear to be your words. Again, it makes me ask, where's the problem then?

You are truly dishonest. For how *stupid* do you take the readers of thios forum to be ?

quote:

I'm not sure what normal, vice abnormal circumstances are but, I do know that you shouldn't be shooting abnormal ammunition from ANY gun.

I know you shouldn't *have* any traffic accidents in any vehicle. If do you nevertheless, feel free to burn in your defective car however. The shine of the fire might enlighten others *shrug*

quote:

However, I do know that you had better be paying attention or you're likely to get a bolt through your head.

a) If the latter happened to you (which I hope does not), it would obviously not cause any substantial damage.
b) Are you playing the clown only in your spare time, or are you being paid for it? Inquiring minds want to know...

Carcano

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
Carcano
I realize you have strong feelings about the Blaser situation, no offense taken.

To some extent, the degree of potential danger is caliber dependent. Almost all accidents (and it's some list) that have been reported, took place with magnum or high-pressure cartridges (exception the Austrian case with a 7x64).

Apart from that, it's simply a question of product liability. My car accident parallel should have clarified this.
By common standard of US tort litigation, chances are high that courts might rule an R 93 defective by construction, due to insufficient provisions in case of large-scale rearward gas escape. The fact that the R 93 has purposely been advertised as "safety rifle" (one of main advertisement arguments) can also be held against the manufacturer.

Lastly, the long webpage of Lutz Moeller presents *tons* of material on R93 accidents, including names, dates, damages etc.

Carcano

I presume you have a link, you can share with us, to Lutz Moeller's sites?

Rusty,

http://www.deportiro.com/english_articles/al10_english_version.shtml

http://www.deportiro.com/armaslargas/bl10.shtml

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Kipplaufwaffen.htm

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Zylinderverschluss/Zylinderverschluss.htm

http://www.jimshockey.com/news/news.asp?ID=807

This is just a small sampling that got me started. Tons of info out there. I'm going to wait for some official verdict or settlement one way or the other before I pass judgement. In the meantime, I feel it's too risky for me to invest in this rifle.

Gary