Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 62

Thread: BLACKOUT vs BE Meyers -- drop test

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    356
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    My analysis could not be more first hand. I did it myself.
    Except that you called it a "Drop Test" and it is actually a computer simulation...not a real drop test and not a first hand experience of the failure. First it was a "Drop Test" and now its an "anaysis." Conveniently you also change your post to make it look more benign.

    This sure looks like you are trying to make Be Meyers (and SF by default) look bad. I'm curious, what was the goal of your original post if it wasn't to show BE Meyers' FH is inferior to your AAC Blackout?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    I would like to and when I do I will post it. I think you would need a rail system so that you could get the same results each time.

    The FEA simulation is the type of thing that we did internally while developing the BLACKOUT in order to make it as strong as possible. We tested hundreds of variations. The main reason why it is three prong rather than four is so that each prong can be thicker. We also were able to get the prongs rather short to keep the length down. For reference, they are 32% shorter than the BE Meyers.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    5,963
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Trim2L View Post
    Except that you called it a "Drop Test" and it is actually a computer simulation...not a real drop test and not a first hand experience of the failure. First it was a "Drop Test" and now its an "anaysis." Conveniently you also change your post to make it look more benign.
    Enough with the direct attacks. Please conduct yourself with a little more tact. Thanks.

    It's a computer simulation drop test of what is likely to happen if these FH mounts were dropped.

    He made the simulation and presented the data output.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    This is a FEA. The A means 'analysis.' It was in my first post.

    Finite Element Analysis. It is a simulation. A virtual nondestructive test. It is well known in the engineering world. It is what it is. It is obvious from the computer images that this is a computer simulation and is how many products are developed and tested.

    Yes, I posted this to show how the BLACKOUT is of stronger geometry than the BE Meyers.
    Last edited by rsilvers; 02-26-08 at 19:41.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    592
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Trim2L View Post
    Is it just a coincidence that AAC is releasing destructive test results on the heals of the BE Meyers/SF product announcement?
    Nope. It's just business as usual at AAC...

  6. #16
    Dano5326 Guest
    NEATO

    Computer simulation not taking into account the actual values of the products. The metal alloy, heatreat, etc.

    IMO it's a one sided cheapshot, not-relevant, slam against a business competator.

    I will note your company, & can only assume your; production, QA/QC, customer service protocals are also held to the same (lacking) ethical standard, and advise logs types not to to buy your wares

    We've been known to spend a couple dollars or a couple mil.

    Have the best day ever!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    Correct. All it was is a geometry comparison. The materials were set to plain carbon steel for the analysis and were made to be the same only to compare design and not materials.

    In reality, the BE Meyers I measured is actually 17-4 stainless at about HRC 33 (126,000 PSI yield strength) and the BLACKOUT is 17-4 stainless at about HRC 44 (183,000 PSI yield strength).

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    5,963
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Gentlemen:

    Please refrain from the full frontal assaults. You can disagree with anyone, and any of their tactics, findings, etc. Just do so in at least a respectful, or tactful, way.

    Openly attacking any members of the forum is counterproductive.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by SHIVAN; 02-26-08 at 21:51.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    838
    Feedback Score
    0
    the Rc33 would have a tendency to bend and the Rc44 (which is pretty damn hard) would more than likely break wouldnt it? If in fact thats true, a breaken tang on the flash hider would be a bitch but wouldnt render it virtualy inoperable as opposed to a bent tang in the bullets path.
    Then again I could be talking out my ass.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    Well for reference, a knife is generally around HRC 55 to 62 where 60 and above is considered pushing the limits.

    HRC 44 is a comfortable number and not pushing any engineering limits.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •