A guide on Argali hunts recently got injured when a Blaser R93 blew up in his face.

The article states that the ammo was factory ammo in .300 WM.






Full narrative here (unfortunately only in solid German hewn from the block): http://lutz-moeller-jagd.de/Waffen/Blaser-R93.htm

Philip

I don't read German, but from what I can decipher from that website....

Obviously I am not a doctor, but anybody notice the difference in pupil diameter.

Ouch

The source of this article is Lutz Moeller. He's a known Blaser basher.
At one point he was trying to sell some idea to Blaser. It was rejected and since that time he is doing his utmost to discredit Blaser's R93.

So far there is not one proven case where the receiver of a R93 has come into the face of a shooter.

Agreed since it is the bolt that is accused, not the receiver. Are you saying all of these internet stories with photos are frauds and no one has ever been injured while shooting an R93?

I have no dog in the hunt, just curious if the three of four accounts I've read were fictious.

I've heard the argument before, "Lutz is this, Lutz is that, etc..."

Wrong argument. The question is not about who gives the news, but about the news themselves: is it true, or is it false?

So far no-one has come forward saying "Such and such accident reported by Mr. Lutz is a fabrication. This DID NOT HAPPEN".

That's the only valid argument that could be made (and I guarantee you that if this was the case, Blaser would have long ago debunked the lies).

It happens in every field where there is a controversy: instead of debating the facts, those who do not like the story attack the messenger...

There has been an official investigation into the stability of the R93. It withstood pressures far beyond any practical application. At pressures exceeding 10,000 bars the bolt casing took damage und the locking lugs of the bolt were bent, but still fulfilling their duty. The bolt stayed in place.

Some of the early bolt casings were made of plastic instead of aluminum. Those have been replace by Blaser. There have indeed been incidents with those rifles, but non of the kind reported by Lutz. Nobody but Lutz knows or has heard first hand of what he is claiming.

If there had been, the rifle would be off the market. German authorities would have it banned within hours, believe me.

Similar story with the Remington trigger and again with secondary detonation using small charges of slow burning powder. Eventually the correct set of circumstances were achieved to prove both cases. I wouldn't predict the same to be true here, but I wouldn't be surprised either.

McFox, since you speak German...

"Am Samstag, den 10. Januar 2004, ereignete sich gegen 17.30 Uhr auf dem Schießstand Jakobsberg (südlich von Koblenz) ein schwerer Unfall mit einer R93. Waffenhändler Albrecht Huf aus Ingelheim bei Mainz wollte einen Repetierer nach der Reparatur des Zielfernrohres einschießen: eine Blaser R 93 im Kaliber .300 Weatherby Magnum. Zum Einschießen wurde ausschließlich Fabrikmunition benutzt. Beim fünften Schuß wurde der Verschluß nach hinten geschleudert. Dabei erlitt der Daumen der rechten Hand einen Trümmerbruch. Dann trat der Verschluß unter dem Auge ins Jochbein ein und am Kiefer wieder aus. Der Notarzt war innerhalb kürzester Zeit vor Ort. Nach der Grundversorgung wurde der Schütze in ein Krankenhaus nach Koblenz gebracht. Dort stellte der Arzt fest, daß die Verletzungen nicht lebensgefährlich waren. Albrecht Huf ist seitdem in stationärer Behandlung. Der Unfall wurde durch die Polizei und Kriminalpolizei aufgenommen. Zeugen sind Ralf Helmich, Jagdaufseher im Revier Jakobsberg, und Jochem Klämbt, Schießstandaufsicht, sowie Birgit Helmich. Die Beweisgegenstände wurden beschlagnahmt. Es handelt sich um die R 93 mit der Waffen-Nummer 9/36148. Das Kaufdatum ist der 25. Juli 2000. Wir werden über den weiteren Verlauf des Falles berichten."

Traduction in English:

"On Saturday, 10 January 2004, around 17.30, at the shooting range Jakobsberg (south of Koblenz), a serious accident occurred with a R93. Firearms dealer Albrecht Huf from Ingelheim bei Mainz wanted to test a Blaser R93 in .300 Weatherby Magnum after repairs to the telescopic sight. Factory ammunition was exclusively used. At the fifth shot the bolt was thrown backwards, hitting him under the right eye, on the cheekbone and the jaw. He suffered a compound fracture of the right thumb, and a broken cheekbone. An ambulance was urgently called. After first aid, the shooter was taken to a hospital in Koblenz. There, the doctor noted that the injuries were not life threatening. Albrecht Huf has been hospitalized since then. The accident was recorded by the Police and the Criminal Police. The witnesses are Ralf Helmich, Game Warden in the Jakobsberg area, Jochem Klämbt, range supervisor, and Birgit Helmich. The evidence items were seized. The R93's serial number is 9/36148, purchased date on 25th July 2000. We will report on the case developments."


Now, there are two alternatives here:

A) All the above is a pack of lies, the accident did not happen, the witnesses do not exist.

B) The above report is factual, and an accident happened with a Blaser R93, which ended with the shooter being injured by the bolt hitting him in the face - REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE.


If A), state your facts and sources, and that's the end of the matter.

If B), that's also the end of the matter because there is no debate as far as I'm concerned.


The fact is, like it or not, that in case of catastrophic failure, a Blaser R93 MAY, under certain circumstances, throw the bolt in the face of the shooter.

A Mauser 98 system, in comparison, can blow to pieces too, but the bolt does not normally hit the shooter in the face (I'm not aware of any such case, even though I did extensive searches on the subject - but it may have happened somewhere sometime…).


By the way, the injuries described in the article are EXACTLY the same as those shown by the unfortunate fellow in the pictures above…

As I said, I'm not going to enter into a debate on this topic: it's A) lies or B) true. Period.

Over and out.

Philip

A statement by Blaser related to the accident posted above:

- As you mentioned in your email, on January 10th, 2004, at a shooting range
near Koblenz Germany, a Blaser R93 has been damaged and in that accident the
shooter was injured.

Unfortunately this issue has been taken and exaggerated from various people
in order to discredit the R93 in an un-objective and dubious way.

On January 22nd, 2004 the CEO and Technical Directors of Blaser Jagdwaffen
GmbH were able to look at the rifle in question, with three police officials
with the permission of the public prosecutors office Koblenz.

The steel showed deformation in the lockup area as well as two definite
cracks beginning at the rear end of the chamber. Powderized brass was found
in the lock-up area.There was deformation on the bolt head as well as
deformation on the bolt head elements.The cam plate, which supports the
assembly in locked position, and the right rail were broken away from
position while the assembly was in a closed and locked position.

In a series of tests through DEVA (Deutsche Versuchs- und Prüfanstalt für
Jagd- und Sportwaffen e.V.) measurements of the gas pressure were increased
to almost 8.000 bar /116.000 psi, whereby under this pressure there were no
measured deformations to the outer contour of the chamber area in the
barrel. There were also no seen deformations to the bolt head.

Without wanting to anticipate the results from the public prosecutors office
and after examination we have concluded clearly the damage was caused
through extreme overloaded gas pressure. With consideration to the above
mentioned DEVA examination, it is our opinion that the cause of this
accident is without doubt due to the ammunition and cannot be related to the
rifle.

At this point we would like to clearly state, that the technical design of
the R93, with more than 100 000 rifles supplied, has not been found
responsible for any accident where the rifle has been damaged. Every single
R93 is controlled and tested by the state/county proof-house according to
the C.I.P. regulations using proof cartridges exceeding the maximal allowed
gas pressure by a Minimum of 30%. The R 93, however, withstands loads / Gas
pressures way above proof-level as our in-house / combined DEVA-tests
clearly document.

In the test reports from DEVA it was confirmed that there is no reason to
doubt or fear the R93's strength and durability.

DEVA states:
"In the case of destruction to a rifle with an (illegal) gas pressure of
8.000 bar or above, this eventually may result in injury to the shooter.
This cannot be related to the rifle."

There are no reasons for us to doubt the safety of the technical design of
the R93.

Unfortunately, it happens in individual cases that the use of defective or
incorrectly loaded ammunition results in damage to the rifle and/or the
shooter, no matter what brand or type of rifle is used.
For example in 2003 we were aware that in Austria alone, three cases of
destroyed bolt-action rifles occurred due to incorrectly loaded ammunition
with three different rifle-manufacturers being involved.
Even through the enormous numbers of R93s on the market there are extremely
few cases occurring through inadmissible, well overloaded gas pressures
where a rifle is damaged or destructed. For this there are appraisals from
different institutes with clear statements:
In none of these cases a weapon-lateral cause of the damage was determined.

The Blaser R93, through its exemplery safe and practise suited technical
design is one of the most popular hunting rifles offered on todays market.
The straight fact is that with the enormous numbers of R93 rifles in the
field today it is extremely rare that a rifle is destructed through
incorrectly loaded ammuntion.

This is argument enough for the R93.

Best regards,

BLASER Jagdwaffen

Again, WRONG ANSWER. The question is not what caused the failure...

It's the failure mode.

Quote from above, just in case it was misread:

"B) The above report is factual, and an accident happened with a Blaser R93, which ended with the shooter being injured by the bolt hitting him in the face - REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE.

THE FACT IS, like it or not, that in case of catastrophic failure, A BLASER R93 MAY, under certain circumstances, THROW THE BOLT IN THE FACE OF THE SHOOTER."

Again (I'm repeating, but some people have difficulties hearing...) the question is NOT WHAT CAUSED THE FAILURE, but THE MODE OF FAILURE. Ad nauseam.

Blaser, or anybody else, cannot make these injuries disappear simply by saying "It's the fault of X, Y, or Z." Whoever fault it is, the bolts blew in the face of several shooters.

An engineer may, perhaps, understand IF he removes himself from the "Blaser-not-Blaser" emotional reaction, and considers the bare facts.

Now, I'm on the way to the bush and will be busy very far from any friggin' Internet connection for a few blessed days.

That is the heart of my concern. I know Blaser is a well made and versitile weapon BUT, failures of this type are caused by many different outside forces, some completely out of the hand of the shooter. The R93 is the only sporting rilfe in general distribution that has no secondary means of containing the bolt if the primary locking system fails. Its like Airbus or Boeing deciding they have a computer so reliable that secondary and terciary flight controls systems are no longer required. You can fly on that airplane all you want. I'll pass.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
That is the heart of my concern. I know Blaser is a well made and versitile weapon BUT, failures of this type are caused by many different outside forces, some completely out of the hand of the shooter. The R93 is the only sporting rilfe in general distribution that has no secondary means of containing the bolt if the primary locking system fails. Its like Airbus or Boeing deciding they have a computer so reliable that secondary and terciary flight controls systems are no longer required. You can fly on that airplane all you want. I'll pass.

Bravo bravo very well stated.

It's not how strong or how high of quality the materials used are.

It's how well the rifle protects the shooter when, not if, when, it fails.

PS: The R8 sure seems to have addressed all the supposed non-existent weaknesses of the R93.

PSS: To some, not all, but some Blaser Kool-Aid drinkers that simple common sense way of thinking makes me a Blaser hater. Oh well!

As strong as any action may be Anything man made will eventually under the right circumstances fail
And even the beloved 98 with it's redundant safeties can throw the bolt in the shooters face. Granted it would be unlikely with the third safety lug it can still happen

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
As strong as any action may be Anything man made will eventually under the right circumstances fail
And even the beloved 98 with it's redundant safeties can throw the bolt in the shooters face. Granted it would be unlikely with the third safety lug it can still happen

Of course everything will eventually fail. That is the whole point. How does it behave and how does it protect the shooter when it does fail?

I don't believe the the M98 can sheer the bolt lugs unless for some reason they were already weakened or otherwise defective. With the gas vents and other design features other parts of the action will fail before the bolt could let loose and "shoot back" into the shooters face.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
That is the heart of my concern. I know Blaser is a well made and versitile weapon BUT, failures of this type are caused by many different outside forces, some completely out of the hand of the shooter. The R93 is the only sporting rilfe in general distribution that has no secondary means of containing the bolt if the primary locking system fails. Its like Airbus or Boeing deciding they have a computer so reliable that secondary and terciary flight controls systems are no longer required. You can fly on that airplane all you want. I'll pass.

Ah beg to differ
The Rem 700 may have a third lug in the means of the bolt handle engaging in the tang of the receiver that bolt handle is not welded nor one piece to the bolt body and is a weakness to the action. I believe the some of the M70 are this way as well.

I'm not knocking Rem, Win, or anyone else. But to draw a conclusion that it's either the rifle designs fault or it didn't happen is BS. And the reason why it happen is just as important that it happened at all.

By that logic every firearm should have it's barrel welded shut and it's firing pin removed to prevent every moron from shooting himself in the foot.

You can not feasibly design anything to prevent every foreseeable incident. If that were true we would not have airplanes let alone guns. Everything in life is a risk assessment. They felt the rifles design was safe enough. Maybe, maybe not, But we can't go around protecting the world from ignorant acts of stupidity.

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:

You can not feasibly design anything to prevent every foreseeable incident.

Of course not, nobody is suggesting you can. However overpressure is a common "accident" with firearms. It is only responsible and prudent to design your firearm to be able to handle and protect the shooter when that happens.

I am not saying the R93 doesn't do that. I am saying that to date nobody has been able to tell me how it does.

Triggertate is 100% correct. If you have a failure it does not matter why or whose at fault. All you care about is how the firearm reacts and protects you. Passing blame is secondary.

WHY a firearm fails is directly related to HOW it will react in said failure and what part of the firearm will come into play when it does. Attempting to separating the two is nonsense.

You want to know what caused it to fail so that one: You can try to prevent it from ever happening again. Two: So you can design safeties to protect the user. Ignoring what caused the failure for any reason is pure ignorance.

And no one expects the end user to fully understand how an action works. Why do you try to explain the HK double roller action Give that one a shot.

Explaining a rotating bolt action is easy compared to an advanced action.
And again you can load a cartridge that will blow up any action. So saying "overpressure is a common "accident" with firearms. It is only responsible and prudent to design your firearm to be able to handle and protect the shooter when that happens." is again nonsense. You can build a rifle to handle a reasonable amount of over pressure but you can not build it to handle any mistake in hand loading nor the secondary detonation phenomena. Failures and injuries are going to happen NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO!!!!

Yes of course you are right but it matters not if it was defective ammo, too much powder, too little powder, wrong kind of powder, wrong caliber, etc.

What matters is how the rifle reacts when it's pressure threshold is reached. Once you reach that point the why is unimportant, how it protects the shooter is.

The what caused it is for once it reaches the lab.

Howard you are splitting hairs here.
Again the firearm was designed to withstand a reasonable amount of over pressure.(safety factor) No firearm can be designed to stay together under all circumstances. Once the pressure threshold as you call it. It's actually called the yield point of the steel. Is reach it is only mildly predictable how an action will react and what areas will fail first.
Obviously you've never done RCA. or destructive testing.

So you mean to tell me that if a drunk driver hit you you would only care about how the car you are in did it's job to protect you. BS
We need to know why and for very good reasons. There are very strict laws in germany that over see the design and testing of firearms. each and everyone of them must be proof tested an a proof mark add the the barrel or action or both depending on the design and the requirements.

THE USA HAS NO SUCH PROOF HOUSE AND NO SUCH TEST. Think about that for a minute...

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
Howard you are splitting hairs here.
Again the firearm was designed to withstand a reasonable amount of over pressure.(safety factor) No firearm can be designed to stay together under all circumstances. Once the pressure threshold as you call it. It's actually called the yield point of the steel. Is reach it is only mildly predictable how an action will react and what areas will fail first.
Obviously you've never done RCA. or destructive testing.

So you mean to tell me that if a drunk driver hit you you would only care about how the car you are in did it's job to protect you. BS
We need to know why and for very good reasons. There are very strict laws in germany that over see the design and testing of firearms. each and everyone of them must be proof tested an a proof mark add the the barrel or action or both depending on the design and the requirements.

THE USA HAS NO SUCH PROOF HOUSE AND NO SUCH TEST. Think about that for a minute...

Try to look at it the other way around.
Germany has a prooftesting with equivalens of a mild reload. Only 30%. By passing that proof, some German riflemanufactores use this as an ecxuse if their product fails. Leaving them with an option to continue to produce weapons with wery limited passive safety. Compare it to an catolic going to churtch and confessing his sinns, and getting absolution/forgivness. The next day he does the excact sinn again.

The american mfg, has no way to excuse, therfor beeing scared to death about sombody suing him (generally with exception of Remmington, who dont give a shit, about ther capability to improove safety on ther 700 trigger. Ther excuse is improper gunhandeling)

Your statement about posibility to predict what hapens when shit hapens, must be based on limited expierince in design.
It is rather simple to build in deliberat weaknesses, directing the explotion forward/upwards
Doing tests involving gradually increased presure to the point wher the rifle blow up, and then preform a series of blowups, to werify what happens, is a werry limited cost in the process of designing and mfg a rifle.
Test also how an action handles brass defects or failures, is in the productionworld rather cheap.

The avarage time for an German Dr Diplom Engenier, to realize a problem, often is several years.
---------------=---------------------------------, to accept it as a problem is decades, as it would discredit is authority
-----------------=------------ Manufactore, to do something to solve the problem, is even longer

quote:

Germany has a prooftesting with equivalens of a mild reload. Only 30%

McFox called the proof testing at 116,000psi you call it a mild reload. I'm confused as to what the proof pressure is.


As another thought. If I drive my car into a tree (my fault no other) I sure hope the steering column collapses instead of becoming a spear through my chest. Yes things fail. A good design would minimize user injury as much as possible.

That sir is entirely incorrect. Designed in weekness?? In a pressure vessel? You can't be serious? The bolt action rifle in general is designed to direct gases away from the user. "Designed too", but the design is not flawless. The user can still be hit with escaping gases, metal debris, and broken parts. A rifle action may be designed to yield in a specified area first but there is no way to be certain how the steel will fracture and how much energy will be retained or absorbed. To say that you can design an action to throw it's parts away from the user is incorrect. Even with a so designed in weekness there is no way to know for certain where all of the fragments will go.

And you opinion on the Reminington trigger shows just how much you really understand firearms design. There is nor was there ever anything wrong with the Remington trigger other then misadjustment or improper care. Fact is a Timmney trigger functions the same way yet they seem to be untouched by this so called issue.

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
So you mean to tell me that if a drunk driver hit you you would only care about how the car you are in did it's job to protect you. BS

No of course not nor have I ever said that. Please re-read my post just above yours.

Regardless of reason for exceeding "steel yield point" how it behaves once that point is reached is/should be of high importance in firearm design. I don't buy for a minute that that reaction is not predictable. Nor do I buy that firearms can't be designed in ways to minimize the potential for harm to the shooter when that "yield point" is reached.

Which would you rather have?

Firearm A; with a "yield strength" of 116,000 psi, with no secondary locking feature, that once reached explodes in every direction like a hand grenade.

or

Firearm B; with a "yield strength" of 100,000 psi, with secondary locking, that once reached is designed to divert the force of the explosion and escaping gases and shrapnel away from the shooters head?

If either blows when you pull the trigger or you really gonna be worrying about why it happened or what is gonna happen?

Yield point is a fixed property of steel and the only way the get a higher yield point is to use a stronger steel.

You said the design should be in such a way the minimizes risk to the user. What makes you think they did not???
And you stated that you don't understand how the action works so how can you say for certain that is does not have a secondary safety??

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
You said the design should be in such a way the minimizes risk to the user. What makes you think they did not???

From one of my earlier post's, I am not saying the R93 doesn't do that. I am saying that to date nobody has been able to tell me how it does.

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott: And you stated that you don't understand how the action works so how can you say for certain that is does not have a secondary safety??

Because I have been told on several occasions that it does not have one and because my own inspection failed to show anything I could recognize as a secondary backup. There is apparently a little "tang" that protrudes up into the bolt from the bottom of the receiver that can provide some backup protection. My understanding is that the R8 has a much beefier "tang" and there are now two of them.

When we discussed this years ago here in Denmark some of the forum experts with several assumptions stated that snow in the barrel could make the R 93 blow up, the fact to this is that some Swedish guys forced a bullet 10 cm down the barrel of a R93, loaded a round in the chamber and fired it, only thing that happened was the barrel had a bugle 10 cm down the barrel

What I’m trying to say is go out and buy a R93 and blow it up and you will have some facts, anything else will just be a lot of assumptions, by that I didn’t state that a R93 can’t blow up

I asked Blaser if they had ever heard of this accident and got below answer
I think LM better ask his mailing friend to contact the authorities for an investigation of the accident, that could bring some facts to this discussion, from my POV better than all these assumptions.

quote:

Hello Bjarne,

Hope you are fine. Yes, we have heard from this accident over the internet but so far nobody has contacted us. At this stage we do not know anything whether the story is true or what circumstances led to this accident.

Best regards
Frank

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:

quote:

Germany has a prooftesting with equivalens of a mild reload. Only 30%

McFox called the proof testing at 116,000psi you call it a mild reload. I'm confused as to what the proof pressure is.


As another thought. If I drive my car into a tree (my fault no other) I sure hope the steering column collapses instead of becoming a spear through my chest. Yes things fail. A good design would minimize user injury as much as possible.

The test of 116.000psi, is not a standard German prooftesting. It was figures that Blaser came up with, when a lot of discusion about a serie of accidents forced Blaser to blow enough smoke, to cover up the whole thing.
A German prooftesting only requires a presure of 30% abowe CIP maximum. For a standard 308, that is a total presure of apx56.000psi

On a series of blowup test i performed 5-6years ago, all of the modern rifledesign we tested, withstood over 125.000psi in a caliber 6,5x55. 2 of then held for over 145.000psi.
The two non modern rifles, a m96 and a98 both blew at 85.000psi, primarily because of a casehead punkture, leading to an increased presurearea.
None of the total 7 actions that was blown up, did send any substantial parts backwards.

From 1 Specifik brand, we blew up 5 diferent actions, with loads abowe 150.000psi. The actions was in all 5 situations plased with a piece of catrbord 10" to the right of the action, covering the entire length of the barrel and action, and another piece of cartborard 10" behind the action, covering an atea of 2x2 ft. Imitating the head, torso and left arm of a shooter. In no of the blowups, ther was any piercing of those pices of cartbord.
In all cases, the bolt stayed in the rear of the reciever. The front of the reciever was split, poping the barrel 2" forward. On a slowmotion video we could see a piece of the top of the action flying 2feet up in the air, and then faling to the ground.

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
That sir is entirely incorrect. Designed in weekness?? In a pressure vessel? You can't be serious? The bolt action rifle in general is designed to direct gases away from the user. "Designed too", but the design is not flawless. The user can still be hit with escaping gases, metal debris, and broken parts. A rifle action may be designed to yield in a specified area first but there is no way to be certain how the steel will fracture and how much energy will be retained or absorbed. To say that you can design an action to throw it's parts away from the user is incorrect. Even with a so designed in weekness there is no way to know for certain where all of the fragments will go.

And you opinion on the Reminington trigger shows just how much you really understand firearms design. There is nor was there ever anything wrong with the Remington trigger other then misadjustment or improper care. Fact is a Timmney trigger functions the same way yet they seem to be untouched by this so called issue.

The designed weakness of an action, i ame werry serious about. Designing an action with a yeld strength of 15 ton of static presure, equipping this action with a barrelfixation, with an yieldstrength of only 12 ton of static presure, increase the chance to pop the barrel, releasing all presure, instead of sending the bolt rearwards, like a canonball.

On a Blaser the barrel is fixed. The bolthead is locked in place .75" up the rear end of the barrel, by a rearwards placed collet. Even if this lockingsystn can withstand over 116.000psi or the double. ther is only 1 way for the bolt to go, if this colletlock gives way. This way, is directly rearwards. When this collet gives way, it releases the bolthead to travel out tru this .75" long minicanonbarrel. If you puts those figures into Quickload, you would see some interesting velocities.

The 4 unfortunate shooters that has ben pretty well documented, all suffered from pretty identical injuries. (Austria, Koblentz, Norway, and now "Farawayistan").

During the debate years ago, i think the most objective conclution was that the Blaser R93 is a strong action, but due to its design, it will continue to produce a few incidence at the described, for as long as it is in service.

The New R8 is a mutch stronger design, reducing this risk to a minimum.

The analogy of the caraccident is pretty good.
You have realy no way to protect yourselv from a drunk driver. But you sure as hell has a mutch better chance of surviving, if your car has a lot of build in passive safety.

Regarding the Remmington trigger, there is a big difference between the Remmington and a Timney. This difference is called the Walker conector. A pretty free moowing triggerpart, with posibilities to gt stuck in a non correct an functioning place,
Specially if the production tolerences stacks up in the worst combination. This has nothing to doo with misajustment.

Remember that most shoters is only human with limited expierence. Human oftens make mistakes. And frankly i dont give a shit about all those gunhandeling excuses. As i have never come across a shooter that never violates those "rules" now and then.
All the bullshit about pointing in a safe direction. There is no 100% safe direction, at you have the old rule of "what goes up must come down" There is also this nasty habits of bullet to now and then to ricoshet.
Again i dont rely on other shooters safe gunhandeling, if the risk is mee taking a bullet. Especially if there is known issues about the weapon in question.

The longer and stronger you can make the line of safety precautions, the less risk there is that something goes wrong.

Ewen that there has been a whole line of blowing smoke, denial, blaming the shooter and so on. Both Remmington and Blaser has been pushed so hard that they have redesigned, based on issues. Why didnt they just listen from the begining, and changed those details mutch earlier. For Remmington it wouldnt have costed them more than a few cents pr rifle, to be delivered in the future.
Some might accuse me of beeing anti Gun. But realistically "Cleaning for our own door" is actually a signal of responcibility, this responcibility is nesseceary for the gunindustry.

Jan Sørlie from Norway got the bolt from a Blaser planted in his head.
Some of his skull is now in titanium.
Here is a pic of him, holding his new rifle. (yes It's a Weatherby)

And be carefull when you try to cock the action.
The pic's says it all!

I have seen very similar injuries with a Remington and an FN.

BOTH were due to USER ERROR ,

Both resulted in hand, face and ocular injuries.

One was an overload,(wrong powder 7mm Rem Mag)

One was an incorrect cartridge-(358 Win in a 270 Win)

To single Blaser out as the ONLY action likely to create such injuries is without merit,

IMO.

Disclaimer:

I do own Blaser rifles (two, both tactical a .308 Win & a 338LM, among my numerous other brands.

I do not have a financial interest in Blaser, nor do I sell new Blasers as a routine course of business.)

In most actions the bolt stays in place.
The problem is when the bolt hits your face in 2000fps...

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
The two non modern rifles, a m96 and a98 both blew at 85.000psi, primarily because of a casehead punkture, leading to an increased presurearea.
None of the total 7 actions that was blown up, did send any substantial parts backwards.

Clarification please.

Was this 7 different actions types or 7 different M-96 & M-98 actions? If all Mauser types then did any of the other "modern" actions send substantial parts backwards?

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:
As another thought. If I drive my car into a tree (my fault no other) I sure hope the steering column collapses instead of becoming a spear through my chest. Yes things fail. A good design would minimize user injury as much as possible.

Great example, that is the point I am trying to make. Others would say, "the brakes on my car are so good I will never hit the tree and if you do it's user error so it's all your fault end of discussion"

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
The two non modern rifles, a m96 and a98 both blew at 85.000psi, primarily because of a casehead punkture, leading to an increased presurearea.
None of the total 7 actions that was blown up, did send any substantial parts backwards.

Clarification please.

Was this 7 different actions types of 7 different M-96 & M-98 actions?

m98 m96, tikka, varberg, Remmington, Hva1900. S&L m97, S&L Classic

Basically our tests showed, that the type of exteactor (casehead support), determined the presure they could withstand

It's easy to understand what you're saying Howard, "what does it do to the shooter if something bad happens?"

I also see the point others are making, and think that in many cases if it's the persons fault well they deserve what happens. However, in this area there are times when it is not their fault, bad batch of brass, bad ammo from manufacturer, whatever the case.

I think it comes down to know how your rifle would fail, and decide if the desire to use it outweighs that danger. I have ridden, and will ride again, motorcycles. I know that no fault of the motorcycle, they are dangerous to ride, because of the factors I can't control. No motorcycle manufacturer has made any system that makes it safer to you in a crash (how could they?, though I do believe a loud motorcycle is generally safer than a quiet one because it gets noticed.) so when I get on one I'm deciding to take a higher risk than when I drive my car.

For me, since I can't see the blaser gives me anything my old mauser/springfield/enfield/m70 does, I wouldn't take extra risk to have one. Then again, I'm very handsome (those of you that know me can verify) and have a lot to lose

Red
PS
I had a custom victory motorcycle with fancy paintjob, 105" stroker, LOUD, it was actually MORE dangerous as i would have people staring at me as they inadvertantly drifted closer to get a better look!!

Hey 350RM, shouldn't your signature read "weatherby, symbol of superiority over everything but m98s"

(sorry to hijack, just having a good time)

Red