Page 14 of 40 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 399

Thread: HPT and MPI: still viable and necessary or outdated bureaucracy?

  1. #131
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by spr1 View Post
    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.
    Or you could just spend the $20 on lottery tickets.

  2. #132
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    848
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    Or you could just spend the $20 on lottery tickets.
    Would you be so kind as to dispense with the snarky comments and start backing up your claims with hard evidence and facts that can be independantly verified.

  3. #133
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,797
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Let's see some real DATA to make your argument hold water.

  4. #134
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    Sorry I meant that the concept of spending money in the hope of some significant but very rare benefit is like playing the lottery. I did not mean it to be sarcastic.

  5. #135
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    32
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Does anybody know how many lawsuits have been filed against a firearms manufacturer due to injury from a bolt/barrel failure? If HPT/MPI was done in any of these cases did it make a difference in the outcome?

  6. #136
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    848
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    Sorry I meant that the concept of spending money in the hope of some significant but very rare benefit is like playing the lottery. I did not mean it to be sarcastic.
    And I am asking you to provide independantly verifiable proof that this something significant provides but a very rare benifit.

    Untill you are willing or capable to do so, your continued involvement in this discussion brings in to question your professionalism and in turn brings in to question those who you are representing in your sigline.

    Beating around the bush, he said she said, and generally bucking the trend of proven and generally acceptable manufacturing and QA procedures is going to make you appear foolish unless you can back that position up with real facts and evidence.

    You and the company you work for may make the best products on the face of the earth, however the method you are approaching this discussion leaves many to wonder about the veracity of your claims, and in turn you.

  7. #137
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,459
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Based on the spec and the original question, Outdated. Read the spec, no mention of defects that shorten the service life of the bolt can be found. The spec is designed to test for injurious defects. An enormous number of AR rifles have been made without HPT/MPI and how many injurious failures have we seen caused by bolt failure?

    The issue of culling bolts that may have a shorter service life vs possibly shortening the service life with a proof load is an interesting debate but does not appear to be the intent of the testing.

  8. #138
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4
    Feedback Score
    0
    A folly is to think that dimensional issues and material inclusion issues will manifest themselves in the same way, and to deem each manifestation equally important to discovery.

    With 16 years in protyping and materials testing, material inclusions do not necessarily shorten the functional life of a material or part and in rare cased have been known to extend said life. The same can be said for dimensional issues though it is probably easier to identify which dimensional measurements are more critical.

    Makes me wonder how many bolts have been thrown away due to false positives of an MPI test.

  9. #139
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    902
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd.K View Post
    . An enormous number of AR rifles have been made without HPT/MPI and how many injurious failures have we seen caused by bolt failure?


    I'd be curious just how many bolts those that insist on HPT/MPI have personally witnessed break or fail. If you know someone, great, but I know someone who shot over 50,000 rounds on a DPMS bolt across 4 ARs before the extractor broke.
    Last edited by Boss Hogg; 05-19-11 at 14:16.

  10. #140
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by An Undocumented Worker View Post
    You and the company you work for may make the best products on the face of the earth, however the method you are approaching this discussion leaves many to wonder about the veracity of your claims, and in turn you.
    Please no ad hominem attacks. It would be good if you could limit the discussion to logic and technology.
    I am well aware that I am speaking out on the unpopular side of this issue and it is regarded as heresy and remaining silent or playing along is by far the safer choice.
    Last edited by rsilvers; 05-19-11 at 14:14.

Page 14 of 40 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... 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
  •