Page 22 of 40 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 399

Thread: HPT and MPI: still viable and necessary or outdated bureaucracy?

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 5pins View Post
    I never inferred it was inferior. What I said was that the price is more or less the same but it’s not tested like the others. So if testing cost so much more then where is the savings?
    Well, what matters is not getting a bad bolt - that should be what you pay for. Company X may have figured out how to not ship bad bolts in some other way.

    If you really want to know, buy 10 or more bolts from a dozen companies and give them a full hardness, material analyses, and dimensional check, and post the results. Buy the brand which has all of the parts tested in spec.

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central FL
    Posts
    273
    Feedback Score
    0
    A companies track record is all the data I need as a end user. You can etch HP, MP, Colt, Ferrari, Unobtainium, or anything else you want on the side of a turd, but in the end, it's still a smelly piece of shit.


    Maybe it's material choices, maybe it's the manufacturing process or QC/QA, but the fact is some people get it right and some people get it terribly wrong. I'd be willing to bet it's a combination of the above and more, and that's why I pay the extra money for Colt/DD/BCM/LMT products.

    Is it a coincidence that companies known for producing the best rifles have chosen to HP/MP? Maybe. I view it as one of many 'good' choices they've made in the process of producing a rifle worthy of praise, respect, and my money. I would think if one is smart enough to build a superb product they would also be smart enough to figure out when they're wasting time, money, and resources. Successful companies pay people to do just that.

    History. We can learn a lot.

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,311
    Feedback Score
    0
    IMO, testing of a bolt is justified, but not so much for the barrel. For an LEO, military, or home defense gun, I can see the need to have proofs. The average M-F white collar/weekend commando guy probably feels better at the range knowing his barrel has stamps on it + bragging rights. I can't remember the last time I saw or heard of a barrel failing because it was or wasn't HPT/MPT.

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    Do we really need to continue this thread? It has been discussed often enough.
    I haven't seen it discussed in this level of detail, this civilly (save the last page), ever. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. It would be shame to trash a thread simply because you find it repetitive and to use a couple of slightly objectionable posts to do so, when so many others clearly find it interesting.

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    it comes down to how many bad parts it catches vs how many bad parts you could catch by spending the same amount on other things.
    What you quote above is what an engineer would say. What an end user would say is that the concequences of the part not being caught matters more.
    If MPI only catches 1/10,000 bad parts but those bad parts are ones that would cause total failure of the gun, and micing catches 100,100 bad parts but those bad parts would never cause a single failure of the gun, then MPI is still more important.

    The data on manufacturing defects is not going to find its way onto the internet, and so each company will decide if they want to do it or not. Somehow it has become a litmus test that if you don't do MPI, you are a junk brand. I feel that it should be an engineering decision.
    Unfortunately the discussion seems to be boiling down to one of faith. Both sides claim to have information that the other doesn't, and that supports their claim.

    and, as posted above, it needs to be an engineering system with some sense. I see a LOT of things in the shooting world that are designed by engineers that don't know shit from brown bread, and appear to have never fired a shot away from their test bench. They get obsessed with what SHOULD work and ignore what does work, or has worked. Or they become consumed with stamping their name on some new way. Believe me when I tell you I see this virtually every day in the construction industry. There seems to be this idea that "engineers" are somehow flawless and immune to ego, financial compensation, where their bread is buttered, emotion, etc. It's nonsense.

    As stated, we are heading down a path of things being taken on faith, and "engineers" are being held up as minor deities or priests.

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    625
    Feedback Score
    38 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    No, I am advocating reclaiming the QC/QA budget and do more dimensional and hardness testing.



    I am drinking the cool-aide of our engineer.

    As far as I know, all Freedom Group companies at least HPT every gun. We do not use their bolt carrier groups in our uppers. We source our own parts.

    I am still confused by this, you have stated that you feel that the HPT is just wasting bolt life, but I see no point in doing it without doing the MPI. I mean why subject the bolt or barrel to those pressures without then doing the MPI to look for flaws.

    I do realize that you have no control over the tests that your company conducts.
    -They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security- Benjamin Franklin

    -Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded man shall say to his assailant, "If I Live, I will kill you. If I Die, You are forgiven." Such is the Rule of Honor.- Lamb of God- Omerta

    ابن بيت وأنا كافر

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    I don't have the ability to stop HP testing as it is required. We do inspect the parts visually and with gauges after HP testing. We do it very close to how HK and Swiss Arms does it but HK fires two HP shots and we fire one. But then we do normal ammo function testing.

  8. #218
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    Rob,

    No one said anything about trashing the thread. I simply said that we have discussed this quite often before. straitR actually hit the nail on the head in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    I haven't seen it discussed in this level of detail, this civilly (save the last page), ever. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. It would be shame to trash a thread simply because you find it repetitive and to use a couple of slightly objectionable posts to do so, when so many others clearly find it interesting.



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

  9. #219
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,459
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    There seems to be this idea that "engineers" are somehow flawless and immune to ego, financial compensation, where their bread is buttered, emotion, etc. It's nonsense.
    NO, I do not believe engineers are infallible. But when going over the details like we are in this thread the "we always did it that way" military requirement isn't objective proof it is the best way or ever needed.

    I think it should be pretty easy for us all to agree that HPT/MPI doesn't actually reject "injurious defects" because of the way an M16 bolt actually fails. Some claim the test is also useful to detect a bolt that may have a shorter service life. BUT without actual evidence of that AND being beyond the original specified purpose of the test I would take a good engineer's opinion over "we always did it that way."

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    2,047
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    I have not seen anyone posting "We always did it that way" though...?

Page 22 of 40 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... 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
  •