HunterCA
Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
My point on the firearm in the OP. People that are uninformed or unaware, handling a firearm that is defective, is even more at odds of injury or death. Yes, most firearm users handle loaded arms with care. Its quite different when the safety is on, and the gun STILL discharges. Something one might not expect.
Is this due to some sort of state and/or federal requirement under law? Or a standardized process within the industry? If 'no' to each previous question, are the rules and process the same or near same between companies?
Have seen a 3D printed firearm do an entire magazine from an AK (single fire, not full auto). Technology will evidentually improve upon that. I have no doubt about it....
quote:
ORIGINAL: MercTech
There are rarely recalls on firearms. One of the reasons for that is the proof testing done on firearms. That will catch any defects in design or manufacture before things are marked, serialized, and readied for sale. At least the problems that don't require long term wear to surface as a defect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_test
Even the best quality assurance groups I've seen, will have a deflect slip through the process. Coca Cola will produced a few hundred cans every minute. While the can may sound like a simple design, it does come in different parts. Likewise, the liquid has to have the right ingredients. There are many places were one screw up can cause a problem later on. An that each can is marked to help company officials determine how far reaching the problem might be when and issue arises.
No product, from the simple pencil on up to a Boeing aircraft can be created without the chance of a defect. And that defect could make it pass the quality assurance inspection only to be found later on by the customer.
Many court cases to date show judges and juries being informed on how the manufacturing and QA processes operate. This is to demonstrate that they have done the best they could in removing the deflects before the point of sale. Doesn't always work as a tactic in the court room.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MercTech
From what I've seen; the only things with more stringent QC requirements than firearms are Submarines, Nuclear Power Plants, Bomb Manufacture, and Aircraft Manufacture (Including missiles and manned space flight).
Think table saw. I'd suggest that leaving the room with a table saw running and leaving an 11-year old unsupervised in the room is inherently more dangerous to that kid then a rifle.
Think industry standards. I Recently successfully hunted with a rifle that was made in 1868. It functioned fine.
The firearms industry has international standards set by SAAMI. All firearms are proof tested to be able to handle twice the pressures set by international standards. (SAAMI sporting arms and ammunition manufacturers institute)
Think personal responsibility. I have a rifle range on my porch. I don't pick up a gun, any gun, without checking if it's loaded. Even if I just one minute ago set it down and know it's not loaded, because that was how I was taught. I teach safety to people before I let them touch a gun. My hunting buddy will often come to my home and teach gun safety to kids. He teaches the exact same way he taught, literally, thousands of Marine recruits how to be safe. Everyone is taught a safety is a mechanical system that should be assumed will fail. Guns I've had for twenty years I still test the safety every time I sit down at a bench to shoot them. Just as with a table saw there are reasonable adult assumptions that must be adhered to in order to insure safety.
In thirty years I've had two guns fail. Both were completely repaired or replaced by the respective manufactuors with no questions asked. One was Smith and Wesson and one was Tauras. Tauras is a Brazilian company that paid me to ship it to Brazil for repair and paid to ship and import it back into this country. (Ed: sorry, just had a third gun fail. A new $3,000 FA handgun with a lifetime guarantee broke a spring which lightened the trigger pull to a couple of ounces. I immediately unloaded it and stopped shooting it and called FA. They were horrified as each gun is hand made from start to finish by one guy. So they had a record of who made mine. The owner got on the phone, apologized to me, sent a prepaid FedEx shipping package to me for return. Three days later I got it back. The owner called and told me that he personally had stopped what he was doing and fixed my gun himself. He explained to me the problem...putting himself in a hugely liable position but taking personal responsibility...and told me he personally took the gun into his workshop and fixed the root cause of the problem.)
Think rules. You drive a car on the proper side of the road. You wear shooting glasses and ear protection when you shoot a gun. In fact the rules are endless. What to do with a hang fire, which I've seen once in maybe millions of rounds I've seen being shot. But, it did happen once and the shooter followed the safety rules with no ill affects to anyone.
If you're involved with the industry then you will have seen product liability lawsuits galore. I've seen recalls that haven't been posted here. For instance Winchester and Browning no longer offer the BOSS system on their rifles. Although I have one and think it's the bees knees. The lawsuits were brought on by idiots not following rules. So FN, which owns Browning, which owns Winchester, just stopped making them and offered anyone who wanted it a fix. I didn't want the fix and so kept the system. Old Ruger pistols can be sent back to Ruger to have a free updated safety installed. They'll even return the old parts with the rebuilt gun so the collector value remains while the function is considered more safe. But, since it's a mechanical safety system, I don't consider it a safety at all and would rather have the original gun in original configuration and operate it safely, letting my brain provide safety just as I would with a table saw.
Gunsmiths all over the country make part of their living inspecting guns for safety. Many people take old guns to gunsmith and pay to have them inspected for safety. I know that part of the industry is larger than anything similar in the automobile industry.
I once shot an elk in Montana. As I was field dressing it a Game Warden came up to me and told me someone claimed my bullet passed through the elk and near them. I knew for a fact that I had moved a hundred yards in order to make a shot on the elk where there would be a solid background to stop the bullet if it went through and through. I also knew that given physics I could not guarantee my bullet didnt hit a bone and deflect where I hadn't planned so I manned up and asked the Game Warden how he needed to handle the situation. While we talked, we found my bullet under the hide on the off side and the point became moot. But, I did man up understanding the seriousness and also understanding the length I went to in order to make a safe shot.
The only thing your supposition lacked in your initial thread was any fact based understanding. I could go on at length here about safety in the industry, but I've made my point, I believe.
< Message edited by HunterCA -- 4/29/2015 1:03:14 PM >
|
RE: The Big Lie - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread