Page 13 of 40 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 399

Thread: HPT and MPI: still viable and necessary or outdated bureaucracy?

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by TehLlama View Post

    However, given the proliferation of fantastic options that are made quality AND are HPT/MPI tested (BCM, DD, Colt, LMT, etc.) that are negligibly different in cost, it's silly to buy many of the other brands that don't and roll that difference into their margin.
    Better yet, all of them which are not having parts fail MPI may want to stop doing it and reclaimed the money to do more gauging. Colt has to for certain contracts but not for the 6920.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by spr1 View Post
    Think one in a million. But, that one instance can ocurr anywhere in the million.
    That testing is worth 20 bucks to me. Ymmv.
    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.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    Part 1 - we do hear about unreliable ARs often. This is going to be out of spec parts.
    So you're saying that these parts fail because they are dimensionally out of spec?
    Last edited by rob_s; 05-19-11 at 07:03.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    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.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    So you're saying that these parts fail because they are dimensionally out of spec?
    I am saying rifles, not parts, are unreliable mostly because of out of dimensional spec parts or assembly.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    I am saying rifles, not parts, are unreliable mostly because of out of dimensional spec parts or assembly.
    Would you expect to see a reduction in the number of 6920 failures if Colt changed from HPT/MPI and spent an equal amount on dimensionally checking their parts?

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    2,047
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd.K View Post
    It's just an example of if a track record should be enough. If they can't make bolts that pass HPT/MPI after all these years I would say there is a design flaw.

    I've always wondered how much the pressure increase when the 5.56 ammo was developed plays in the service life of the M16 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    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.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    I am saying rifles, not parts, are unreliable mostly because of out of dimensional spec parts or assembly.
    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.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,421
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    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
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  10. #130
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    458
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    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.
    Thanks for the helpful advice.
    That bolt problem I referenced would have, at best, forced an emergency landing. Worst case scenario would have made testing the million plus bolts we have used cheap by comparison. Like I said, ymmv.

Page 13 of 40 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... 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
  •