Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Videos Of Tech Stuff And Reviews
Rifle burst tests, how good is your rifle?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Muddyboots" data-source="post: 2564512" data-attributes="member: 63925"><p>10 year old thread! Still kind of "interesting" but I have a much different take on the test results. </p><p></p><p>Whenever you are working with an enclosed "area" that can have a rapid build up of pressure, you ALWAYS and are legally required to incorporate a "blow out" panel, plug, bypass etc that will direct the rapid build up of pressure in a safe(r) direction.</p><p></p><p>All the rifle actions held to the best of our visible observation. What is not provided is the structural eval of each one of the actions. The ones where the barrel did not blow apart clearly took more pressure force but what we don't know is their condition. Were those actions ready to disintegrate back into the shooters face from the added pressure?</p><p></p><p>Personally, I would feel safer having the barrel as the pressure escape "valve" go versus the action that takes 100% of the pressure and who knows?</p><p></p><p>Yes, there is risk from the barrel but it is far less than having an action come back into your face. </p><p></p><p>Just think if the test was a 300WM versus .308. Would those actions hold under that test versus a barrel busting apart. Which action would you rather be behind?</p><p></p><p>Hats off to JE who immediately opined you can make any test to meet your results. Dang miss him!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Muddyboots, post: 2564512, member: 63925"] 10 year old thread! Still kind of "interesting" but I have a much different take on the test results. Whenever you are working with an enclosed "area" that can have a rapid build up of pressure, you ALWAYS and are legally required to incorporate a "blow out" panel, plug, bypass etc that will direct the rapid build up of pressure in a safe(r) direction. All the rifle actions held to the best of our visible observation. What is not provided is the structural eval of each one of the actions. The ones where the barrel did not blow apart clearly took more pressure force but what we don't know is their condition. Were those actions ready to disintegrate back into the shooters face from the added pressure? Personally, I would feel safer having the barrel as the pressure escape "valve" go versus the action that takes 100% of the pressure and who knows? Yes, there is risk from the barrel but it is far less than having an action come back into your face. Just think if the test was a 300WM versus .308. Would those actions hold under that test versus a barrel busting apart. Which action would you rather be behind? Hats off to JE who immediately opined you can make any test to meet your results. Dang miss him! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Videos Of Tech Stuff And Reviews
Rifle burst tests, how good is your rifle?
Top