Ernest, good information from your experience. And who says the practice of law is not practical.

I remember when Tuffpaks first came out. As I recall, they were originally designed for camera equipment (not cameras) and such. They were not designed from the ground up as a gun case.

Before I bought mine, I researched what they were all about. I recall one statement in particular which Tuffpak presented as fact that spurred me to buy one. That statement was that strapping a rifle down was just about the worst thing you could do.

I just took a look at their website. The site has changed drastically since my first peek and now is primarily focused on firearms. But that statement is still there under FAQs-Protection:

quote:

In an attempt to give the traveling sportsman a sense of security, some metal case manufacturers have included straps inside to lash down your firearm. The problem with this is that it prevents the firearm from moving in relationship to the outside of the case. The amount of G-force a case experiences is directly related to a calculation of acceleration divided by time. The firearm and the case, if accelerated (or decelerated) the same amount over the same period of time, will experience the exact same G-force or shock! Worse yet is the fact that all of that energy is focused at the point where the firearm is lashed down. Several people who have used that type of case tell us they've wound up with broken stocks even though there was very little damage noticed on the outside of the case.

This is a 180 from Americase's position, which looks like is backed up with data from actual tests. I cannot find anywhere on the Tuffpak site what the basis for their claim may be. If there is a basis.

This to me is a critical difference. Both Americase and Tuffpak cannot be right, which means someone is wrong. And per our Judge G's post above, the difference is one that keeps your firearms from breaking or causes them to break.

Does anyone know if there is any data supported by tests from Tuffpak to back their sales claim that strapping a rifle in is bad?

At this point, I am more inclined to go with construction supported by tests that held up in a court of law versus a claim that has been there from day one and appears to be unsupported.

And if there is no support, the "looser is better than foam and straps" sales claim may be the cause of some pretty expensive firearms being damaged. And I'll be the first to admit that I bought it hook, line and sinker before I shelled out $300 for a rifle case.

Jim:

The AmeriCase straps, at least the one I have, close with velcro. First, you can't strap a rifle down... or at least I can't... where NO movement is possible and second, velcro will give some, too. So, the America case does allow SOME "give", but not to the point of the muzzle and toe slipping down and touching hard stuff.

BTW, put your rifle on the floor and see if the toe and muzzle touch the ground. I did it with five or so rifles last night and all touch only there. Not one touched at the forearm or pistol grip????

All of the above written in my and others posts, when it is legal (and maybe necessary) for ICE or whomever to inspect your rifle, it ain't gonna be packed back the way you did it originally. In other words, your rifle is only as safe as a Federal minion wants it to be.

thanks for the offer Ernest, but I'm unable. BTW, the wife says thanks for the compliment and if you are bringing a date this year to Dallas? jorge

Ernest,

None of my rifles touch at the forearm than placed on the ground at the toe and muzzle either. Interesting.

Especially with a rifle "balanced between the hands" like a fine double, at least half of the weight of the rifle is forward of the pistol grip. I would imagine that when dropped flat toe to muzzle, the weight distribution helps to snap off the stock at the grip like a wishbone.

I have cases of all makes with straps as well, and all of them have some give. But it makes more sense to me than not that good foam plus straps protect a rifle better than a tough shell with stuff stuffed around the rifles.

We need to commission an experiment at the next DRSS shoot you attend. We need you there to lend a keen judicious eye to the proceedings insuring fair and honest process. But we'll ose eggs in sealable plastic bags rather than expensive doubles. Pack 'em inside each type of case and drop them from various heights.

If Jeffe or Dan attend, they can monitor to insure that the descending case has the proper twist rate on descent!

I would imiagine that for both the testors and monitors, several tots of a good scotch (or for those who do not drink scotch, the swill of choice) will be required to establish the proper test medium. Come to think of it, there will be a need to imbibe during the process to maintain the testors and monitors within the proper "alchobalance".

Obviously, the rigors of such a test will require frequent refreshment breaks.

At the end of the day we should have some results. And since it would be a shame to waste such a carefully crafted test set up, a trip to a local zoo with refreshments along the way should be able to help resolve a burning question on these forums - does a tuffpak dropped on a live elephant have a different effect on the beast if spinning or not?

Oh,, and bring extra cash. I don't think they take out of state check for bail money...

Tony,
Just in case you need another idea on how to get your gun back to top condition, there's a fellow named John Garvin that does masterful work on gun stock repair for people around the country. I've known John for years and would highly recommend him.
Here's his web address.

Sorry to hear about your rifle.

One more Tuff-Pak damaged rifle incident among many that I have heard of. There is no way I would ever use one.

IMO, carrying a rifle in a Tuff-Pak is like carrying an egg in a gallon milk jug. And with TSA involved, slamming the egg into and out of the jug once or more per trip, no one should be surprised when it breaks.

quote:

One more Tuff-Pak damaged rifle incident among many that I have heard of.

I've only heard of two. Perhaps you could bring some light to your statement?

Spring
Thanks for the info.

Again I do not blame the tuffpak for the damage to my rifle. It might have been broken in any other case, and the only other case I would trust is a Pelican, and stocks have been broken in them, and every other case as well.

Sometimes bad things happen.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:


IMO, carrying a rifle in a Tuff-Pak is like carrying an egg in a gallon milk jug.

That is an excellent analogy. Tuffpak cases are quite good at withstanding abuse. However, it does not appear that they are particularly successful at protecting their contents.

As for the Pelican in which a stock was broken, it appears the owner removed some or all of the foam and then put 2 guns in there, one in a soft case and one not! The guns rattled around (like they were in a tuffpak) and one stock broke, unfortunately.

But is anyone aware of a stock being broken in a Pelican where the foam was properly cut to fit the rifle being transported?