Hey Dharwell, First off, Welcome Aboard! I must admit you have entered the ongoing discussion concerning the SAKO Blow-ups from a different perspective. It appears you have some things listed that a lot of folks would normally agree with. But, it also appears you have missed the major issue - Little to no Manufacturer response! And no concern for the end user by placing a WARNING NOTICE in prominent publications about the potential for blow-ups. SAKO Management not only dropped the ball, but is refusing to take a pre-emptive SAFETY lead for their customers and potential customers.

Quote:

---

...I really do not know how someone can simply state verbally that the gun is "absolutely safe" to shoot without at least a minor doubt?

---

I believe everyone could agree with that.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, I am always reluctant to believe everything I see on the internet as well.

---

Me too, but it certainly would be difficult to pull the barrel apart with bare hands or tools as shown in the flicks. It sure looks like an explosive force to me. How do you think they did it without blowing it up?

Quote:

---

The facts of why the gun blew up are really not confirmed and until that happens there is no basis for all these durogatory statements being made or "scaring" the general public! That does not help.

---

Here is where you are missing the "concern" of everyone else. We are all wondering why SAKO Management has not chosen to take a positive approach about the situation. If the comments on this Board, and anywhere else people are talking about it, causes the "SAKO money inflow" to slow or stop, SAKO Management will eventually respond to the Blow-Up Problem.

S&W made egregious Corporate Management errors by siding with Moscow bill, heil-ery, algore, schumer, feinstein, carvelle, etc., and the S&W "customers" held them accountable by refusing to buy. The Company was sold to people who understood not only firearms, but their customers and they are now as respected as before.

SAKO Management needs to take notice.

Quote:

---

the way for these folks who have claims to communicate with the public is to provide all the data to the professionals from the manufacturers of the gun and shells so that the proper data can be gathered from which a "real" evaluation and conclusion can be made. Stainless guns have been around for a very long time and very successfully so I see no reason to doubt their(Edit in: stainless) credibility until the FACTS are gathered and evaluated properly.

---

I doubt many would disagree with that.

Quote:

---

...I have my doubts about these pictures that have been posted....

---

How do you suppose the firearms got in that condition?

I believe you are correct concerning yourself when you said:

Quote:

---

let's face it, the vast majority of gun folks like myself are certainly not in a position to make these determinations...

---

But, there are many of us out her who do have the education and experience to make the determinations you mention.

The problem needs to be addressed by SAKO - openly and with WARNING. Their cloak of silence is seriously hurting them. Darn shame for SAKO to be lead by such pathetic Management.

Hi fellas
Rumors and facts...
Here Sako have informed gundealers of "minor problems" conserning stainless rifles and collected in all stainless rifles made after 02.2004.
They have tracked buyers of polise files etc..ok here U can do so BUT..how about the rest of the world

Im afraid that there must be shooters who dont know this danger at all..who dont visit theese pages,hunters who dont get the warning from anywhere.

Eweryone of us should take care that this info of blowups reaches all hunters and shooters worldwide.
We all have friends and they know some more fellas..eweryone should be informed about theese blowups.

Im one of the luckyones..I have newer kept stainless a gunmetal,I dont have one,I will newer buy one.

Take care

Elias

Amen

Referencing your comments regarding the SAKO "Blow ups" I too own one of the SAKO 75 Finnlites in a 300WSM. I had my serial number checked by Beretta/SAKO representative who informed me it was absolutely fine and safe to shoot. I purchased it in February of 2004. I really do not know how someone can simply state verbally that the gun is "absolutely safe" to shoot without at least a minor doubt? On the other hand, I am always reluctant to believe everything I see on the internet as well. The facts of why the gun blew up are really not confirmed and until that happens there is no basis for all these durogatory statements being made or "scaring" the general public! That does not help....the way for these folks who have claims to communicate with the public is to provide all the data to the professionals from the manufacturers of the gun and shells so that the proper data can be gathered from which a "real" evaluation and conclusion can be made. Stainless guns have been around for a very long time and very successfully so I see no reason to doubt their credibility until the FACTS are gathered and evaluated properly....let's face it, the vast majority of gun folks like myself are certainly not in a position to make these determinations as long as we are using the gun properly with the proper ammunition! I have my doubts about these pictures that have been posted....manufacturers are certainly not in the business of hurting people intentionally.

Dharwell,

I generally agree with you on that.....thanks for posting.....and I see it's your first post.....welcome aboard.

Now you should get back to your job of marketing manager at Sako/beretta

Let me see if I understand the situation correctly. Sako has admitted to a recall, and that rifles have blown up because of a metal composition issue, (not anything to do with stainless itself, the guns just happened to be stainless), and that these guns, made with this, shall we say, bad lot of metal, were made after 2/2004. They did next to nothing to warn the public of possible problems, or to have their guns checked, by serial number, through the factory. They did nothing in the way of posting alerts on their, or Beretta's website. Gun dealers and wholesalers were asked discreet questions about sales of affected guns without being given notice of the reason.

I don't mean any disrespect, believe me, but this is absolutely crazy. Now, maybe I've got the whole issue misstated, but if what has been reported is correct, then they deserve all the bad press they get. AND if it's not correct, why in the world don't they come out and inform the public of the lack of true details? I don't mean to start an argument, but this is wild behavior out of them. I wouldn't doubt that this problem can be traced back to job cuts and skimping on quality, and for what Sako charges for their rifles, they have no excuse for such a failure of the system, expecially in light of the dire consequences.

Well, I have to disagree with some of your post. For many reasons. First I own a SAKO 75 stainless, and have been involved in this since the beginning. There is NO DOUBT that these problems are a SAKO problem not a coincidence. I have seen at least 4 pictures of different rifles which have had COMPLETE failures in which injury has resulted. If I recall all but one was using factory ammo.

"The facts of why the gun blew up are really not confirmed and until that happens there is no basis for all these durogatory statements being made or "scaring" the general public! That does not help....the way for these folks who have claims to communicate with the public is to provide all the data to the professionals from the manufacturers of the gun and shells so that the proper data can be gathered from which a "real" evaluation and conclusion can be made."

I have tried on numerous occasions to get answers out of Beretta(by email and by phone) as to the cause of these failures, even tried to get a letter with them stating my gun is safe to shoot. I have been IGNORED. No response what so ever. They say nothing about this recall on either Sako's or Beretta's website. So due to their lack of concern in getting the word out, I say the solution is to SCARE EVERYONE. It is much better to do this than to take the chance of one blowing up in someone's face. Had Beretta been forthcoming on this issue, or even made it seem like they had resonable concern for their CUSTOMERS who were unsure about their rifles, then I would say this is maybe not the route to take. But they did none of this, and have OBVIOUSLY tried to keep it hush hush to save their reputation. How hard would it have been for them to write me a short letter telling me my gun is safe, or even saying they can't do this at this time? THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING. It is almost like they could care less if I am a customer or not. SO considering how quiet they are trying to keep all this I agree with the original post. SCARE EVERYONE, and maybe then the MBA bean counters that run that business will learn the consequinces of trying to keep a potentially deadly situation a secret.

"but this is wild behavior out of them"

I think reckless and irresponsible would be a better choice of words. But very well put.

Here's an example of the right way to do things, as opposed to the Beretta/Sako approach.

About a year and a half ago, Blaser discovered that some of their R93 trigger pins were not stainless steel, but were carbon steel. It was a vendor problem. Blaser was concerned that the pins might corrode over time (my question: When, in 100 years?) and took immediate action.

They contacted everyone on earth, posted recall notices via pop-ups on the Blaser and the SIGARMS websites and paid the shipping costs to and from the factory or repair facility to replace the pins.

THIS WAS FOR TRIGGER PINS.

Now we have the Beretta/Sako people with rifles blowing up left and right who are doing virtually nothing to warn people. That is so wrong on so many fronts I don't even know where to start--not to mention stupid from a legal liablility perspective.

Whoever is calling the shots on this one needs a serious job adjustment.

Yes there is a proper way - for example right now on the Remington website there is, on the front page , in red letters , a recall notice. For Beretta it's the three monkeys - hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Here is a press relase from a company which know what customer service is all about........ Not like someone!!!

I own a couple of Sakos but how they are handling this burst cases is like stabing their customers on the back!!


I. PRESS-RELEASE


DEVA-report proves undoubtedly:
Destruction of the Rifle was due to inadmissible, extremely excessive gas pressure.

Due to a shooting accident in January 2004 near Koblenz / Germany and partial misleading reports, speculations occurred in the recent past concerning the R93, to which Blaser Jagdwaffen GmbH issued on January 26th their opinion on this matter.

In the meantime the experts' report from DEVA-Institute (Deutsche Versuchs- und Pr�fanstalt f�r Jagd- und Sportwaffen e.V.), ordered by the Public Prosecutor, has been received and we have been informed on its content.

The experts' report rules out any faults regarding manufacturing and technical design as well as handling-errors and puts the accident down solely to extremely excessive gas pressure caused by the loaded ammunition.

The destruction of the R 93 was without doubt due to inadmissible, extremely excessive gas pressure caused by the ammunition.

The metallurgical analysis ordered in addition reports moreover that all locking-elements were in perfect condition.

The experts' report proves definitely and as expected the secure
technical design of the Blaser R 93.

II. DETAILED TECHNICAL STATEMENT / BLASER JAGDWAFFEN GMBH

As clearly stated in the Press-release, DEVA's report definitely proved the R93's secure technical design.
As there have been recently several attempts from different sides to discredit the R93, we would like to take this opportunity to clear up some major points.
Therefore, please allow us to present you with the technical basics.

1. Concerning the technical design it has to be stressed that the total strength of a locking-system is generally the result of two individual factors which are mutually dependent:

1.1 the stability / solidity of the individual locking-elements of the entire locking-mechanism and
1.2 the dynamic processes during the shot

This definition is of basic validity and therefore independent of the type of action and lockup being regarded.

For the same token it is of mistakable belief that rifles featuring a so-called secondary lockup (for example via bolt-handle) in addition to the primary lockup in the barrel or receiver cannot be subject to a destroyed bolt being pushed out backwards due to inadmissible, excessive gas-pressure (or even excessive gas-pressure in combination with back blast caused by defective cartridge case).

2. Depending on the dimensions of the individual locking-elements, the overall-strength of a lockup-system featuring a primary lockup only, can therefore be way stronger than the overall-strength of a lockup-system featuring both primary lockup in the barrel or receiver plus secondary lockup (via bolt-handle, for example).
Actions featuring multiple lockups do not automatically mean more security.
Therefore it should not be assumed that systems with multiple lockups are identical to "more secure" systems.

3. Besides the locking-lugs being sheared-off it is therefore also possible that in addition the bolt-handle or the corresponding surface in the receiver can be sheared-off due to the above mentioned reasons (excessive gas pressure with or without back blast).

We have long concluded this fact by extensive testing.

As already described in the beginning, in such cases besides the dimensions and quality of the material being used, the dynamics of each individual case (dynamic course of gas pressure, peak of gas-pressure, etc.) and the resulting strain on the different locking-elements have to be taken into consideration.
The whole process is extremely dynamic, i.e. the rise in pressure only lasts 0.5 milliseconds and the entire dynamic process only about 2 - 2.5 milliseconds.

The dynamics of extremely excessive gas pressure can lead to results which differ significantly from static calculations of "normal" gas pressures, e.g. in controllable spheres.
As a sumup, the results of inadmissible, excessive gas-pressure are of highly individual and complex nature.
In other words: Extremely simplifying assumptions, calculating with static pressures in controllable spheres are totally inappropriate.
They should therefore neither be consulted for unobjective influencing nor in order to reassure oneself�



What does that mean for our R 93?

The R93's massively designed surface of the collet-spring lockup-area as well as the use of scientifically proven state-of-the-art materials ensure maximum strength under massive dynamic forces.
This not only prevents failure exceeding the maximum allowed gas-pressure of the cartridge (Pmax), but even gas pressures that are significantly higher than the proof-pressure realized by the State Gun-barrel Proofhouse.
Not yet mentioned is the R93's secondary lockup, the so-called camplate that supports the locked action against a hardened steelplate in the rear part of the magazine-box.

These engineering principles as well as permanent, extensive quality management all have but one thing in mind: Our customers' safety.

Referring to our introduction and to the DEVA report, our R93 is - after the unambiguous expert's report - a safe rifle and a sound Blaser product.

Yours sincerely in good hunting

Blaser Jagdwaffen GmbH
Bernhard Kn�bel

Is there any similarity in the cartridges that the guns were chambered for? The Blaser was a 300 WM Federal load as I remember.

'I have my doubts about these pictures that have been posted....'

Dharwell, do you think the pictures are fakes? Just wondering. Plateau Hunter