|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You just spent 20 million dollars to find one bad rifle whereas I could find thousands of bad rifles for the same amount of money using more useful tests.
I have a better idea. Go get a rare disease test. The chances of you having it are better than one in a million. Ignore your doctor when he says it is a waste to do the test. Tell him for the $20 co-pay, it is worth it for you to be sure you don't have whatever. And then be sure to not spend $20 checking blood pressure because you already spent your health care budget on the rare disease test.
Last edited by rsilvers; 05-19-11 at 06:55.
Here's the problem with the "MPI is a waste of money" argument.
It pre-supposes that there are no failures, or a statistically insignificant number of failures, through MPI. Some claim to have insider information, which they also say they conveniently can't share, that this is true. Given that there's simply no point discussing it any further. If you can't cite your source, you shouldn't be sharing the information you got from the source.
An alternate means of testing, or better use of the MPI budget, has been suggested, but there has been no claim as to how much better, or how many more pieces would get rejected, or even if the criteria used for rejection would matter at all.
Finally, there keeps being made reference to the Chart in this. The Chart is not a judgement, it's a list of facts. If someone decides that they don't think HPT or MPI are important then they can choose a brand that skips those things. On the new version they will have all sorts of other criteria from which to choose their bolt.
Track record only goes so far. It does make the laser etching on their bolt mean more than say another brand who has been shady about their testing, but at some point even Colt/BCM/DD/____ can't go on reputation alone.
Ok, but in this instance it seems to me like the bunch of bad rifles that you are concerned with will still fire. The ones I am concerned with have flawed bolts that will fail significantly earlier than one that has been HPT/MPI.
I do not disagree, but we are talking one particular item here, you keep stretching it out to the point where we are spending $50 to check the wire gauge on the FSP detent spring.
I am assuming a carbine will have a few hundred rounds through it before it ends up in the hands of a soldier. This means that the out of spec mag catch will be found before it is relied upon. A bolt is an instant failure and it is possible for it to make a few hundred rounds and then fail, your dimensional issues will be obvious right away.
The decision would have to be based on, like you said, actual data. Colt makes parts to drawings and so they are in a much different position than brands which just buy parts by name.
rsilvers, when a bolt fails to pass HPT, is the failure obvious? How often does MPI after HPT find flaws in a tested bolt that would not have been found otherwise? Does HPT ever cause micro fractures or a partial failure in the bolt?
Last edited by MistWolf; 05-19-11 at 07:40.
INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
- ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
- MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
- MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
- BOOM!
- HA-HA!!
-WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"
I am American
Bookmarks