quote:

Originally posted by Howard:

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"

Howard you are back peddling like a politician with his pants around his ankles.

First you try to agree with Phillip on the account of his second post.

Then you go to say how it doesn't matter why it failed just that the gun doesn't have a secondary safety system. and that is a poor design and is therefore the guns fault.

Then you back peddle and start to agree with me just long enough to contradict yourself then take it all back in the next paragraph.

I'm not arguing if the action is safe or not. What I'm arguing is ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS.


As for the actual PSI the rifle is rated for.
Quoted from jA,rgen "A German prooftesting only requires a presure of 30% abowe CIP maximum. For a standard 308, that is a total presure of apx56.000psi"

Incorrect:
125% of the max CIP of a .308 Win is not 56Kpsi
CIP.
100% is aprox. 60KPSI
125% is aprox. 75KPSI

I think you got CUP and PSI mixed up

The analogy of the steering column is bogus as well. You are not asking the column to be loaded to 50% of it's load capacity then ask it to collapse as soon as the load shifts. Apples and alligators here, not even apples and oranges

Then there's the statement on the "fixed" barrel
Asking the "barrel to pop" before the action. Obviously you don't know what surface area is.
That whole statement is based on a plugged barrel. And didn't we just go over that you guys didn't care why it failed???

MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

Again I'm not for nor against the Blaser action. I just don't like facts and opinions getting mixed up and to ignore why the action failed in the first place is again nonsense.
To use the Car accident analogy again.
A person of good health is driving along at aprox. 45 MPH and strikes an object bringing the vehicle to a near immediate stop killing the driver. All safety device functioned as designed. The seat belt was worn and did not fail. The SRS (secondary restraint system) deployed and functioned as designed, The vehicles crumple zones collapsed absorbing the amount of energy these area were designed to absorb. But the driver still died?? WHY?? With all these safeties he should have lived at such a low speed. Ah but wait. I said he was driving at 45 MPH I did not say that was the speed of impact.
WHAT IF HE DROVE OFF A CLIFF!!

He obviously exceeded what the vehicle was designed to handle.
And same here. We need to know was this a design flaw of the action or was this user error creating some sort of over pressure condition exceeding the rifles design limits???

So to put it bluntly yes we friggin do need to know what caused the rifle to fail

Kerry I tried to be polite despite your very pointed sarcasm, oh well. Now you are just being a jerk.

I am not back peddling at all.

Show me where I said, "that is a poor design and is therefore the guns fault."


You can argue "root cause analysis" all you want, or try to change the subject to that. It's not my fault you have poor reading comprehension. Or perhaps in your rush to force your "facts" on us you don't even bother to read.

To use YOUR car crash analysis. Suppose it's your family member that crashes at 45 mph and dies. Then you discover that said vehicle had no safety equipment that other vehicles have as standard equipment. Tell me.........are you going to argue that the vehicle should have been designed, engineered and built to commonly available safety parameters or will you just shrug your shoulders and say, they were drunk and you can't engineer for everything?

Any reasonable person knows that cause of crash is irrelevant to the built in safety equipment or lack thereof. Please enlighten us as to how your vaunted "root cause analysis" will address that issue.

Please explain to me the correlation between the cause of the crash and the absence of safety equipment. Better yet tell me why you need to know the cause of the crash before you explain the lack of seat belts and SRS.

quote:

Originally posted by Dago Red:
It's easy to understand what you're saying Howard, "what does it do to the shooter if something bad happens?"

Not very easy for at least one person.

Howard I get and have gotten what you were and are saying. I simply choose to disagree.

You may believe anything you like. Ignoring the cause because it's "irrelevant" as you put it.

Now I will agree the cause is irrelevant to the extent that it will not change the injuries to the poor sap with the busted face. That I never disagreed with. But to just totaly discount the cause and say the rifle is unsafe with out knowing (by your own admission) how it functions is nonsense.

How the rifle protects the shooter is just as important as how the rifle will not protect the shooter. That is the fact that you can not seem to get through the dimly lit thick head of yours.

You see, You seem to think I'm trying to get you to change your mind or change your opinion. I'm not. I'm simply asking for you and everyone else to examine all the facts right down to WHY it happened Before you pass judgment on anything, be it the action the ammo or the weather that may have caused this. Examine everything.

BTW A proper RCA will tell you if the action was safe for the intended pressures it was designed for. RCA will also tell you if the failure was due to a plugged bore, a design flaw, or a dumb ass user dumping in too much powder. That is what it is for, nothing else. You insist on hinting that the action is not safe yet you, still again by your own admission, can not tell me how this action functions. I have the copy of Shooting times floating around here some where that has a full description of the action with very nice exploded (pun intended) views.

For lack of better terms it's a expending collet with an over center lock. Very simple design
I'll try to dig up the copy scan it and post it here for reference.

KC seems like every time you DON'T misquote me or put words I never said into my mouth you agree with me. I will just leave it at that.

I would like to have a copy of that Shooting Times article. Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
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.

You probably haven't thought of it this way, but in the above sentence you just said nothing is better than something. Probably not what what you meant but even what you meant was incorrect. Rem/Win "third lug" systems may be weaker than some others but they exist. The R93's does not.

quote:

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.

I didn't see anyone draw that conclusion (that is was the rifle's fault). What is being said is that there are safer systems in the event of a catastrophic failure.

quote:

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.

Resorting to silly rhetorical tricks doesn't do much to advance a technical argument.

quote:

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

No but you can do a cost benefit analysis as incidents begin to occur and issue revisions to the design. Evidently that happened and voila: the R8. I'm not an engineer but I AM in a Holiday Inn as I type this. I can bet you a dime to a dollar that this topic came up around the table during the design of the R93 and whoever had ownership of the collet design defended the lack of a secondary bolt containment system by extolling the excellence of the design. And must have won.

quote:

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.

More rhetorical gymnastics. Stating the obvious doesn't forward the discussion either.

Statements taken out of context do nothing to further the discussion as well

Something very fishy about this. It would be nice to know the full story, but we seldom ever do in these cases.

In a Swedish gun test, the Blaser 93 was fired with a completely and thoroughly blocked barrel, with no untoward consequences.

The Browning and Remington rifles in that test blew up.

The Blaser 93 is of course not foolproof. No rifle is. Fools are always capable of being more foolish than we can imagine.

I agree with you Michael. But it is important to consider that the Blaser in the test was most likely a sound specimen, while the rifle that injure the guy's face may have suffered from some unknown issues(improper heat-treat, etc.)

The point is: if the main lugs fail, what is going to keep the bolt from becoming a rocket?

It seems Blaser has addressed this with their newest model.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
Something very fishy about this. It would be nice to know the full story, but we seldom ever do in these cases.

In a Swedish gun test, the Blaser 93 was fired with a completely and thoroughly blocked barrel, with no untoward consequences.

The Browning and Remington rifles in that test blew up.

The Blaser 93 is of course not foolproof. No rifle is. Fools are always capable of being more foolish than we can imagine.

In a series of barrelblocking tests i performed, blocking a barrel in the muzzle doesnt give higher presure in the chamber, as more than 90% of the powder generally is burned within the first 4".
To show any sighns of high presure we had to block the barrel within the first 3". Blocking further out simply stopped the bullet, only leaving a slight bulge in the area where the bullet got stuck. The bulge was imho caused by the bullet expanding when hitting the blocking.

The Swedish barrelblocking test didnt show anything about actionstrength, the only thing it actually tested, was the quality and design of the riflebarrel itselv.

I have tested several targetrifle based on a m96 action, blocking their barrel apx 4" out in the bore. All those actions survived even thoug that those actions was the weakest in regular highpresure blowup tests.

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
The Swedish barrelblocking test didnt show anything about actionstrength, the only thing it actually tested, was the quality and design of the riflebarrel itselv.

I have tested several targetrifle based on a m96 action, blocking their barrel apx 4" out in the bore. All those actions survived even thoug that those actions was the weakest in regular highpresure blowup tests.

exactly that video is much more about marketing then it is actually useful or informative

quote:

Originally posted by 350 Remington Magnum:
[FLASH_VIDEO]<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"
height="385"
width="640"
><param name="allowScriptAccess"
value="never"
></param><param name="wmode"
value="transparent"
></param><param value="never"
/><param value="transparent"
/><param value="never"
/><param value="transparent"
/><param value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e4AqMl1A4aQ?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"
name="movie"
/><param value="true"
/><param value="always"
/><embed allowScriptAccess="never"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
wmode="transparent"
pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
height="385"
width="640"
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e4AqMl1A4aQ?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"
/></object>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

Good video, gay music

Well, I had noting to do with the music!

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
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.

Sorry, the discussion has become too involved to read every last reply, so I apologize if this has already been pointed out.

The quoted statement above is not factual. I don't know what Blaser calls this part in English ("cam plate", perhaps?), but an R93 does have a secondary locking mechanism - in German Blaser designates it the "Kurvenscheibe".

- mike

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
The Swedish barrelblocking test didnt show anything about actionstrength, the only thing it actually tested, was the quality and design of the riflebarrel itselv.

I have tested several targetrifle based on a m96 action, blocking their barrel apx 4" out in the bore. All those actions survived even thoug that those actions was the weakest in regular highpresure blowup tests.

exactly that video is much more about marketing then it is actually useful or informative

I agree, the video proves nothing. IMHO it's border line propaganda.

Also, it would seem the "Kurvenscheibe" could stand some improvements. It's a shame to see these men blinded from shooting a rifle.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by mho:

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
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.

Sorry, the discussion has become too involved to read every last reply, so I apologize if this has already been pointed out.

The quoted statement above is not factual. I don't know what Blaser calls this part in English ("cam plate", perhaps?), but an R93 does have a secondary locking mechanism - in German Blaser designates it the "Kurvenscheibe".

- mike

Direct translation is "Cam"

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:

quote:

Originally posted by mho:

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
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.

Sorry, the discussion has become too involved to read every last reply, so I apologize if this has already been pointed out.

The quoted statement above is not factual. I don't know what Blaser calls this part in English ("cam plate", perhaps?), but an R93 does have a secondary locking mechanism - in German Blaser designates it the "Kurvenscheibe".

- mike

Direct translation is "Cam"

This camplate is hinged over a 1/8" cross pinn. That surely improves pasive safety In a blowup senario, it is almost as eficient as a mosqito trying to stop an elefant

I have the copy from the Feb 1995 copy of Shooting Times. If anyone would like a copy It's in PDF format Just drop me an Email and put Blaser 93 in the subject line.
I'll send it right out to you.

Granted this is just the gun rags review of this rifle. There is some good info in it and there is a clear explanation with pictures of how this action works. Skimming through it I could find no mention of the cam plate or any other devices used to as a secondary means of locking the action.

Seems to be that Blaser share the design fault with all bolt-action rifles, we place our head behind the bolt

However the mauser and similar have the locking lugs secured in the receiver, in the event of catastrophic failure the barrel lets go as may the front of the receiver, however the locking lugs are still in place and can hold the bolt.

The Blaser locks into the barrel, if the barrel fails it may release the bolt. This type of failure might happen with other designs that lock into the barrel, Model KR1, Mauser 66, perhaps even the Sauer 202, although for this rifle the rear of the barrel does receive some additional support from the receiver.

We are dealing with catastrophic failures, even if the bolt or action doesn’t hit you expelled gas are risking our eyes - the rifle will be scrap

quote:

Originally posted by Lincs Stalker:
even if the bolt or action doesn’t hit you expelled gas are risking our eyes - the rifle will be scrap

And some actions are better then others at dealing with escaped gasses. Those can also be dealt with by wearing shooting/safety glasses. Not a bad idea anyway.

Of course the rifle is ruined........does that mean the shooters face has to be ruined too?

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
...Skimming through it I could find no mention of the cam plate or any other devices used to as a secondary means of locking the action.

It is there alright. The best I could do for now was to find the following quote from Blaser for you (you'll have to exercise your German a bit...):

quote:

Hinzu kommt noch die sekundäre Verriegelung der R93, die sogenannte Kurvenscheibe,
welche den Verschluss an einer gehärteten Stahlplatte am hinteren Ende des
Magazinschachtes abstützt.

If you want the source of the above quote, look in:

http://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&...0-VcZUxOkbuw&cad=rja

I'm sure there is an illustration available somewhere, I just can't locate it right now.

Please note, I'm trying hard not to get involved in the discussion regarding the safety (or otherwise) of the R93. I believe we have covered this ground in the past. I simply wanted to point out a factual error in the discussion so far: the claim that the R93 has no secondary locking mechanism. With all the experts participating, it is probably not too much to expect that the facts be presented correctly.

- mike

What is more the secondary locking lug of the R93, the so-called cam disc, which engages in a hardened steel plate at the rear end of the magazine shaft support.

translation

Bekam Deutsch???

Above quote translated by Google.

Add to that the secondary locking the R93, the so-called cam,
that the closure of a hardened steel plate at the rear end of the
Magazine well supported.

Entire letter again translated by Google.

Blaser dealer
IMPORTANT!
DEVA opinion clear:
Damage due to unauthorized violence, extremely excessive gas pressure
Dear Sir,
letter dated 26.1.2004, we had you on a shooting accident near
Koblenz informed while making you a first assessment of the situation from
our view, to send.
Meanwhile, the commissioning authority is the opinion of the DEVA (German Versuchsund
Test Institute for hunting and sporting weapons eV) before.
The result of the opinion is clearly and fully confirmed by Blaser
made assessment. Literally it means:
"The assessor does manufacturing, construction and operating error and
the claim to a excessively high gas pressure is reduced, the charged by the
Ammunition ran out. "
The destruction of the R93 is thus beyond doubt only to illegal, massive over-
due to gas pressure from the ammunition.
The additional metallurgical investigation also documented the proper
Nature of all sealing components of the weapon itself
Thus, the safe construction of the Blaser R93 expert and doubt
confirmed.
Unfortunately, in recent weeks, trying in various quarters in the R93
to bring disrepute.
Friday, 07/09/2004
I: \ SALES \ Blaser domestic \ SERIENBR \ FH 2004 \ DEVA_Gutachten_R93_06-07-04.doc
- 2 -

Whether by conscious and intentional misrepresentation to the technical
Fundamental relationships.
Or it is an inaccurate simplification of highly complex dynamic processes in the
Shot in the absence of better knowledge.
In any case, it is essential here to clarify some important points, so we hereafter
first want to outline some basic technical relationships:
1. Structurally it is the first point to note that the strength
a closure principle, always regarded as a result of two factors
must be that conditional on each other:
• namely the stability of individual interlocking elements of the entire
Closure system on the one hand
• and the dynamic processes associated with firing the other.
This mode of connection, which, whatever the nature of each
used lock.
It is therefore a misconception to think that in cans, in addition to
primary locking in the run or in the receiver via a so-called
secondary lock (for example, with the chamber stem) providing them with
Closure at a weapons damage due to improper, much over-
Gas pressure - possibly even in connection with a rear gas outlet
("Through Wind") - basically could not escape to the rear.
2. may, depending on the dimensions of each element, therefore
- Outlined in the physical context - the closure strength
as the sum of the individual locking elements in a design
"Primary means of locking closure warts plus secondary locking
(For example, with the chamber stems) "clearly weaker than in a purely
primary lock.
A greater emphasis on interlocks is not always a safety More!
So we can with systems with multiple locks not immediately secure
Equate systems.
3. In addition to the shearing of the locking lugs is the shearing of the
Chamber stem or the support surface in the housing as a result of excessive gas pressure far
alone or in connection with possible gas leak.
The Blaser has long been documented in extensive test series.
As already shown, in such cases by the size and
Material properties of the individual components, above all, the dynamics of
each case (dynamics of the gas pressure profile, gas pressure spike, etc.) and the
considered resulting from exposure to the components.
This is a complex, highly dynamic process with a
Pressure rise time of less than 0.5 milliseconds and a total
Gas pressure duration of about 2 to 2.5 milliseconds.

The dynamics of massively excessive gas pressure can lead to results which
assumptions of purely static pressure within manageable ranges in some cases significantly
differ. This means that the impact of illegal, far over-
Gas pressure of highly individual and complex nature.
Extremely simplifying assumptions of static pressures in manageable
Pressure ranges go, here are entirely inappropriate!
You should not apply in so far - irrelevant - evidence nor the peace of mind
be used ...
What does this mean for our Blaser R93 bolt action rifle?
The strong dimension of the closure components, the massive primary locking
"Radial collar closure" and the use of dynamic highly resilient materials of the R93
not only prevents a failure far beyond the permissible maximum gas pressure
out.
The R93 has even higher gas pressures was that much above the official
Bombardment gas lie.
Add to that the secondary locking the R93, the so-called cam,
that the closure of a hardened steel plate at the rear end of the
Magazine well supported.
All these design and manufacturing principles and an ongoing, comprehensive
Quality management are clearly a single goal:
The safety of our customers.
Regardless of the weapons, unfortunately, always make rare individual cases are known in
where faulty despite safer arms ammunition (apparently mostly re-loader) then
Weapons damage resulted.
We can as a weapons manufacturer, of course not with complete certainty exclude
defective ammunition that could lead to weapons damage. It would be incorrect,
it statistically relevant probabilities for weapons seriously damages under
Circumstances, even when firing ammunition from standard to derive.
Coming back to the beginning and the DEVA report:
Our R93-so is a clear confirmation of the experts a safe product!
We wish you continued success in selling our weapons and remain
Yours sincerely
Blaser USA
Bernhard Knoebel
Managing Director

Howard
I don't mean to mince words but google translate sucks

I can't help but wonder. With I believe over 100,000 Blasers sold in the U.S. not one blowup. What's the deal? Do we reload and buy factory ammo that is wimpy?

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
Howard
I don't mean to mince words but google translate sucks

If you can understand it you are doing better then me.

quote:

Originally posted by M16:
I can't help but wonder. With I believe over 100,000 Blasers sold in the U.S. not one blowup. What's the deal? Do we reload and buy factory ammo that is wimpy?

100k? Not sure I believe those numbers are even close to correct. Maybe worldwide????

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
Howard
I don't mean to mince words but google translate sucks

If you can understand it you are doing better then me.

Vell vit da name like Stottlemyer It helps.

I can actually read and understand a wee bit of German not much but enough to know those online translators suck. But you can at least get the gist of what they are trying to say

The article I was skimming through was the Shooting times article That one I could find no mention of a secondary locking system. But that was just a gun rag review (even if I do like Rick Jameson)

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by M16:
I can't help but wonder. With I believe over 100,000 Blasers sold in the U.S. not one blowup. What's the deal? Do we reload and buy factory ammo that is wimpy?

100k? Not sure I believe those numbers are even close to correct. Maybe worldwide????

Seems like I read the 100.000 world wide figure elsewhere. Doesn't really matter how many are sold though. Seems no doubt that the R93 is a very well made, very stout rifle. Also appears that the bolt lockup mechanism, primary and secondary (whatever that may be) is the weak link.

I am not sure that having the part of the rifle that keeps the bolt from flying back into the shooters face should be the weak link. Has anyone heard of any other part of the rifle failing?

I know I will regret even getting involved here, but what the hell, if I an take what my wife doles out, I can survive this joint....

The object of car safety design is not to make a car so strong that T-boning into a tree won't harm it. It is to keep the human(s) inside from becoming secondary projectiles, thus reducing the damage to them.

Ditto, sporting rifle safety design at least SHOULD NOT be to make a rifle indestructible, but to minimize damage to the person most likely to be closest to it if it DOES destruct...that person being the shooter.

I would hope it would do that in at least two ways in bolt action rifles:

1. By having strong secondary locking of the bolt in a forward position.

2. By redirecting the path of the bolt away from the shooter if it is none-the-less blown out of position.

From the incidents documented through photos of the victims here, I do not see that good safety engineering was conducted in design of the R93.

Maybe it was, but based on what I see here, I sure as hell would not buy one....just like I won't fly on an Airbus with their cuckkoo electrical control-surface glitches and lack of protective hydraulic/manual redundency.

The Mauser '98 based designs I have seen blown up may not stand as much pressure before they fail as the Blasers will, but when they DO fail, they all seem to retain their bolts, though usually at some odd angle.

That's enough for me. I don't need to know more than there is less protection than I would want in case of catastrophic mechanical failure.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I know I will regret even getting involved here,

So you went ahead and said it three times?

Some things just bear repeating.

Jerry Liles

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I know I will regret even getting involved here,

So you went ahead and said it three times?

Sorry about that Howard. Sometimes about 11 p.m.PST, for some reason my computer's communication with the AR site seems to become very sporadic. When it happens, I either lose posts completely, or they seem to repeat.

Anyway, I appreciate both your humour and your straightforward stance in this particular thread.

Best wishes...

350 - the pictures of the shot through the foot were from a CZ .458 Lott, not a Blazer.

I see many blown up rifles each year- sometimes the shooter is injured , occasionally not. On investigation it is usually a barrel obstruction or a reload. This year I have seen blown up Sako's (2) CZ (1) and Winchester M70 (1). 3 were with reloads and the last was putting a .30-06 in a .300win mag. In this case (a Sako) the rifle held but the bolt design channeled all the gass back into the shooters face and there was some serious flame cutting...if you are going to be stupid...it is not the makers fault.

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:
Has anyone heard of any other part of the rifle failing?

FWIW, I had an R93 for a number of years and it got a fair bit of use. I was delighted with the rifle until I took it to Namibia for a client to use. The client had been a registered firearms dealer (in the UK) for some years and knows firearms and (fortunately) firearms safety, backwards, forwards, sideways and inside out.

One day he stepped out of the truck, took the rifle, pointed it in a safe direction, loaded the chamber and as he de-cocked it, the rifle went off....... He swore his finger wasn't anywhere near the trigger and as I'd been watching him at the time, I knew that was true.

Before all the blaser fans chime in and tell me that effect is impossible with a Blaser, I understand the theory of that but nevertheless, it happened and what's more, it happened more than once and we were (sometimes) able to re-create the problem. I don't know how or why it happened but it did happen a number of times.

I got back to RSA and as it was under extended guarantee due to (previous) the pin problem they had, was able to send it back to Blaser in Germany for them to look at. They kept the rifle for months and eventually returned it saying there was nothing wrong with it, however, it took me ablout 10 minutes to discover they had changed/renewed everything that could be changed/renewed.

I was sufficiently concerned about this that I took the rifle and all the paperwork to a gun shop, explained everything that had happened and (happily) sold it to them at what I'd consider a reduced price.

There's a lot to be said for the R93. They're accurate and convenient (esp as a loaner where you can change from right to left handed bolts) and they take a lot of punishment but I have to say, I'd never own another one.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
One day he stepped out of the truck, took the rifle, pointed it in a safe direction, loaded the chamber and as he de-cocked it, the rifle went off....... He swore his finger wasn't anywhere near the trigger and as I'd been watching him at the time, I knew that was true.

Yes, there were rumours (or observations?) of this phenomenon. Blaser changed the R93 trigger design (because of this?) sometimes in the early 2000s, perhaps?

The difference in German (for lack of a proper English translation) is described as "rastfrei" (original version) as opposed to "Rastenabzug" (the later version). (I believe the "Rast" has something to do with the sear, but I'm not entirely sure of the proper English translation?). There was never any mandatory update of the original triggers, though, in contrast to a recall to switch trigger pins manufactured in non-spec steel.

Btw, I have seen a demonstration of how it is possible to get a M70 type trigger/safety combination to do the same thing. Don't ask me to remember what the "trick" is.

And another comment on the side, you should show the people to whom you lend the rifle, how it is possible (and proper) to load the rifle without cocking it. (Apart form the fact that decocking should not induce the rifle to fire). Being different to conventional rifles in terms of the "safety" (cocking/decocking mechanism), the R93 should only be used after the shooter has familiarized himself with the rifle. I just lent my R93 to a friend while in Zambia, and tried hard to provide him with adequate (?) instructions and trials before sending him afield with the rifle. This is an issue with the R93 in contrast to most conventional rifles.

- mike

Mike,

I see your point but I'd never own another one now anyway..... the other thing that I tend to have a problem with is some R93 owners want to carry the rifle in the truck with a loaded chamber and the explanation that it's safe to do so.......

As far as I'm concerned, that ain't gonna happen in a month of Sundays. I don't care what the rifle is or who the owner is, all rifle chambers stay empty on the truck at all times.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
...R93 owners want to carry the rifle in the truck with a loaded chamber and the explanation that it's safe...

Guilty as charged. The decocking mechanism does that to people.

When in Zim last, my PH had had a close call with a client (not carrying an R93). He had the scars on his Landcruiser and on his skull to prove what an unhealthy thing an accidental discharge is! He insisted we unload on the cruiser, and naturally I obliged. When in the field, he happily let his tracker carry his M70 .416 Rem loaded and on safe. His tracker was a nice guy, but I doubt he ever received much formal gun safety training. So as the column of hunters and trackers snaked through the bush, the barrel happily and regularly pointed at one or the other of the participants. Now, I doubt any of us are 100% safe all the time, as much as some may claim they are. In an environment like that, I have yet to find a better and safer combination of a loaded chamber on safe than a decocked Blaser (or any of the other rifles sharing this safety design). I guess all things in life are compromises.

- mike

Somehow this whole debate reminds me of one about 100 years ago....about something called the Model 1910 Ross...

I've owned and used Ross rifles for a number of years, but I have also now sold them all off.

Why? After using a Ross for years as a canoe gun in the far north of Alberta, one day when I fired it and happened to glance down instead of just habitually stroking in the next round, I found the bolt to be about 1/3 of the way open!!

No more debate in my mind. Away it and the rest of them I had went!