Proof-testing

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Sparks ,what exact NON-DISTRUCTIVE method of rifle proofing would you recommend .How hard is it to say you dont have an answer ?
Regards ,Tomcat.

Tomcat, that was an exact answer. But honestly, if I said I thought eddy current testing was one potential solution, but radiography was probably better and UT was going to be cheaper... would you actually know what I was talking about or would it be just word salad to you? Did you ever study mechanical engineering or metallurgy or anything that would tell you the difference between an MRI and a CT? Or UT and liquid penetration tests?

C'mon lad, be honest now. Spell non-destructive properly first, at the very least, especially if you're going to post it in capital letters like that.

(and while you're at it, post up some of those "many facts and figures out there" you mentioned a few posts back and still haven't remembered to post when you were asked for them, would you?)

tomcat220t

Sparks wrote: »

Tomcat, that was an exact answer. But honestly, if I said I thought eddy current testing was one potential solution, but radiography was probably better and UT was going to be cheaper... would you actually know what I was talking about or would it be just word salad to you? Did you ever study mechanical engineering or metallurgy or anything that would tell you the difference between an MRI and a CT? Or UT and liquid penetration tests?

C'mon lad, be honest now. Spell non-destructive properly first, at the very least, especially if you're going to post it in capital letters like that.

(and while you're at it, post up some of those "many facts and figures out there" you mentioned a few posts back and still haven't remembered to post when you were asked for them, would you?)

Hi Sparks ,are you a student engineer or qualified in some way on this subject of proofing ????
Go on Appease this fool , and throw up your theory on how YOU would do a better job of proofing rifles .
Regards,Tomcat.

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Sparks ,are you a student engineer

No.

or qualified in some way on this subject of proofing ????

Proofing? No. Testing metals? Well, I wouldn't try earning a living at it but technically yes.

Go on Appease this fool , and throw up your theory on how YOU would do a better job of proofing rifles .
Regards,Tomcat.

I'm really sorry, I was sure I'd typed it loudly enough. I'll try again:

Sparks wrote: »

I'd suggest another, non-destructive, more informative test. If you'd like a few examples of those tests (in two years of mechanical engineering courses, we didn't even get through half of them, so it's a chunk of reading), the wikipedia article is a reasonable attempt at a one-page summary of a century or more of R&D: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondestructive_testing

I must have typed it loudly enough this time...

IRLConor

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi IRLConor,im not the one questioning the effectiveness of proofing ..you are and without any data to back this up .Necessary Data would be for you to collect to back your ideas .Either way ,i like to hear someones better suggestion on how to test a rifle .
Regards ,Tomcat.

You're misunderstanding my argument about the false-positive and false-negative rates from proofing as an argument about the true-positive and true-negative rates.

To be perfectly clear: I'm not questioning the ability of proofing to detect faults in guns. I'm questioning its ability to do so without incurring any damage which is subsequently not detected by the post-proof testing.

If you wish to disagree with this, I would like to see some evidence suggesting that we live in a world where the post-proof testing is 100% accurate. If it's not 100% accurate, then my argument is correct.

As for replacements for proofing, how about we combine modelling (the statistical, abstract kind, not the thing you do with clay or balsa wood) with the fluoroscopy that they already do? Use fluoroscopy to test for flaws in the metallurgy, use a statistical model to predict the safety margin built into the gun design, then do a visual inspection to test that the gun matches the design within acceptable tolerances.

tomcat220t

Sparks wrote: »

No.

Proofing? No. Testing metals? Well, I wouldn't try earning a living at it but technically yes.



I'm really sorry, I was sure I'd typed it loudly enough. I'll try again:


I must have typed it loudly enough this time...

Hi Sparks ,just so my simple mind is right...
NO relevant qualification on this subject of rifle proofing !
NO suggestion of exactly what way you would proof rifles, other than the word NON-DESTRUCTIVE!
NO evidence that the current methods of proofing is harmful to rifles afterwards !
Would you regard yourself as been qualified enough to work in a uk proof house ?
Regards,Tomcat.

It wasn't me!

I believe the point was that you could take your pick from a big pile of non-destructive tests, and any one of them would have an inherent advantage over destructive testing.

I don't have a piece of paper that qualifies me to read though, so I could be mistaken.

tomcat220t

IRLConor wrote: »

You're misunderstanding my argument about the false-positive and false-negative rates from proofing as an argument about the true-positive and true-negative rates.

To be perfectly clear: I'm not questioning the ability of proofing to detect faults in guns. I'm questioning its ability to do so without incurring any damage which is subsequently not detected by the post-proof testing.

If you wish to disagree with this, I would like to see some evidence suggesting that we live in a world where the post-proof testing is 100% accurate. If it's not 100% accurate, then my argument is correct.

As for replacements for proofing, how about we combine modelling (the statistical, abstract kind, not the thing you do with clay or balsa wood) with the fluoroscopy that they already do? Use fluoroscopy to test for flaws in the metallurgy, use a statistical model to predict the safety margin built into the gun design, then do a visual inspection to test that the gun matches the design within acceptable tolerances.

Hi IRLConor,your a little mixed up yourself ,sorry mate.
Im happy with the current proofing methods ...it you thats NOT!!!
You are free to suggest with an exact method that you regard as better,simply really !
Regards ,Tomcat.

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Sparks ,just so my simple mind is right...
NO relevant qualification on this subject of rifle proofing !

Well, no specific qualification on the specific proofing test for firearms, no.
Er, just to be clear, do you have a specific qualification in proofing for firearms?

NO suggestion of exactly what way you would proof rifles, other than the word NON-DESTRUCTIVE!

I take it you missed the references to eddy current tests, UT, and RT?

NO evidence that the current methods of proofing is harmful to rifles afterwards !

Well, other than the injured shooters I mentioned earlier in the thread...

Would you regard yourself as been qualified enough to work in a uk proof house ?

Yes, but it doesn't take many qualifications to make the tea...

IRLConor

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi IRLConor,your a little mixed up yourself ,sorry mate.
Im happy with the current proofing methods ...it you thats NOT!!!
You are free to suggest with an exact method that you regard as better,simply really !
Regards ,Tomcat.

That's not the way logical argument works, sorry.

tomcat220t

Sparks wrote: »

Well, no specific qualification on the specific proofing test for firearms, no.
Er, just to be clear, do you have a specific qualification in proofing for firearms?


I take it you missed the references to eddy current tests, UT, and RT?


Well, other than the injured shooters I mentioned earlier in the thread...


Yes, but it doesn't take many qualifications to make the tea...

Hi ,Sparks .....your last comment sheds complete light on your total disregard and knowledge to the proofing rifles .
Also your theory /methods on improved rifle proofing would be flawed ,imo!
Dont take my word ...ask someone who knows more on this subject .;)
For that reason im out of this for now !
Regards ,Tomcat.

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi ,Sparks .....your last comment sheds complete light on your total disregard and knowledge to the proofing rifles. Also your theory /methods on improved rifle proofing would be flawed ,imo!
Dont take my word ...ask someone who knows more on this subject .;)

It does? My word. I'll have to take note of that. I'll pass on your observation to TCD's mechanical engineering department too, let them know that their courses aren't worth doing because the metallurgy components of their courses don't give students a specific qualification in applying a specific test to a specific product, and that tomcat220t said that based on his experience and qualifications in this field. They're honest people, they'll shut down the department immediately and you may be getting a phone call shortly to help them restructure their school to be far more fit for purpose.

(BTW, don't bother listening to Rice if he comments on your unique interpretation of English spelling and grammar rules; that lad was always a bit of a nazi about that kind of thing. You'll be fine, just remember where you came from and that you're right, and if they knew what they were on about, their students could proof test rifles professionally from day one. Good luck with the work!)

rowa

Whats the big objection to proofing rifles ? According to the border barrels website rifle barrels work on a safety factor of 2 to 1 or more , eg. the barrel is at least twice as strong as it needs to be to be safe, if the proof load is 30% above the normal working pressure then the rifle should be well able to handle it without distress, even the proof load doesn't come anywhere near the yield point of the barrel steel unless something is drastically amiss, incorrect spec steel or wrong heat treatment etc.

Anschutz and walther target rifles being european are proofed and they don't seem to be suffering any negative results from it. How many medals have anny's picked up in the past few olympics ? The fea analysis and ndt testing is genuinely good, but it still comes down to someone picking up the rifle for the first time, chambering a round and firing it, no big deal with a .22lr , what about a .338 lapua or .408 cheytec though ? would you risk the side of your head on the off chance that accuracy might be diminished by proofing?

Anyway ireland doesn't have a proof house or firearms industry and its unlikely a thread on boards is going to get the 200 year old proof laws in the uk, germany, austria , france, switzerland etc repealed.

Kinzig

You gotta laugh at this tomcat guy, every time he gets screwed on his post he thanks the guy that screws him:D

Glensman

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud- after the first half an hour it dawns on you that the pig actually is enjoying it!

Kramer

rowa wrote: »

what about a .338 lapua or .408 cheytec though ? would you risk the side of your head on the off chance that accuracy might be diminished by proofing?

My .338 never went through a "proofing" process. I am not risking the side of my head every time I shoot the rifle. I have also fired (& even hunted with) larger calibre rifles in the US, all of which were not proofed in the European sense.
Proofing proves nothing other than the firearm was safe when discharged on that day with a mildly over pressure charge. CIP proofing rounds are available for rifles & they are no where near 30% over pressure as stated throughout this thread. Usually just 5/10%.
I've nothing against proofing though & wouldn't be too concerned about it causing damage to guns.
With regards to rifles, the barrel would probably be the last component to fail. First things would be the ejector/extractor, firing pin assembly, bolt lugs, bolt etc., all far weaker than the barrel at the chamber area.

Sparks

30% over is the SAAMI standard I think Kramer (as opposed to the CIP standard that's the mandatory one in countries like the UK, France, Germany and so on).

tomcat220t

Kinzig wrote: »

You gotta laugh at this tomcat guy, every time he gets screwed on his post he thanks the guy that screws him:D

Hi Kinzig,how on earth would you think im getting screwed on my posts ???
Please explain .
Regards ,Tomcat .

tomcat220t

Glensman wrote: »

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud- after the first half an hour it dawns on you that the pig actually is enjoying it!

Hi Glensman ,
Arguing with an engineer ???
First ,whos arguing ?
Second, whos the relevant Engineer on this topic ??
I agree with the Proofing Engineers method of proofing a rifle .
Maybe you would prefer to agree to some of the waffle been written on proofing ,instead ?
Regards ,Tomcat.

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

Second, whos the relevant Engineer on this topic ?

Oink.

Proofing Engineers

No such thing I'm afraid, any more than there's a Flu Shot Doctor.
Proofing is a specific test; not a field of engineering.

tomcat220t

Sparks wrote: »

Oink.

No such thing I'm afraid, any more than there's a Flu Shot Doctor.
Proofing is a specific test; not a field of engineering.

Hi Sparks ,did you get to speak to Henry yet on your improved rifle proofing theory ?
Regards ,Tomcat .

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Sparks ,did you get to speak to Henry yet on your improved rifle proofing theory ?

Do you mean "Hey Sparks, did you ever get a reply back to your email asking a question off the people doing the thing you're asking about", no, I haven't gotten a reply since (the tidied up version I could release, that is). If you mean "Hey, did <namedrop> get back to you to say you were great", well, no, 'cos I never asked them to do that.

And if you mean (which I think we all know you do) "Hey Sparks, I've changed what I'm arguing for so many times that I no longer know where I started and now I'm just arguing to argue and don't you remember that time I won last time", then no, not really.

tomcat220t

Sparks wrote: »

Do you mean "Hey Sparks, did you ever get a reply back to your email asking a question off the people doing the thing you're asking about", no, I haven't gotten a reply since (the tidied up version I could release, that is). If you mean "Hey, did <namedrop> get back to you to say you were great", well, no, 'cos I never asked them to do that.

And if you mean (which I think we all know you do) "Hey Sparks, I've changed what I'm arguing for so many times that I no longer know where I started and now I'm just arguing to argue and don't you remember that time I won last time", then no, not really.

Hi Sparks ,the link you just put up ...why not link the whole thread from start to finish ?Another thread where your facts turned into nothing more than an unfounded opinions and im not just basing it on my replys ...other boards members replyed too!!So if a boards member disagrees with you opinion they are arguing :rolleyes:.
Sparks ,its not about winning or loosing ..even though you seem to think so .
Im simply not agreeing with your theory on improved proofing methods ?
You cant explain exactly how the current system is flawed and cant explain how your improved proofing theory method would be better .
If i taught you were up to listening and maybe learning something i would pm you my opinion why/how your suggested NEW proofing method would not be a viable alternative to the current system .
With your personal comments like my "unique interpretation of english spelling and grammar rules" .... goes a long way to show your true mind-set on me posting here !
It must really rub you up the wrong way when a non-collage going boards member might have a different opinion to yours !
Regards ,Tomcat.

It wasn't me!

Tomcat, screw the PM cloak and dagger stuff. Sparks is a qualified engineer, so if you want to comment on how proposed ND testing methods are not suitable replacements for the current system, then do it out here in the open. Taking discussion to a private arena after this thread is just dodging (further) the questions of your own qualification (You've been so keen to find out other people's!) to comment on and discuss the current system of proof-testing as well as the possibility of proposed changes. You've also completely failed to understand the actual subject matter of Conor's posts, and can't figure out whether he agrees or disagrees with you, let alone what he's actually saying. So how about you actually comment, in depth, in public, about what makes the current system of testing effective and why proposals of ND testing would not be suitable alternatives.

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Sparks ,the link you just put up ...why not link the whole thread from start to finish?

Because (a) you can see the whole thread from that link if you want to; and (b) that post was the salient one for the point I was making. I didn't link to the 04 area telephone directory either for the same reason.

Another thread where your facts turned into nothing more than an unfounded opinions

My questions are facts now? Whoa, dude, you just, like, blew my mind, man...

So if a boards member disagrees with you opinion they are arguing :rolleyes:

Ummm....

Merriam-Webster wrote:

argue: to contend or disagree in words

So, I guess, yes?

Im simply not agreeing with your theory on improved proofing methods ?

Again, I don't have a theory on improved proofing methods, and nobody has suggested one. There's pretty much only the one proofing method, because "proofing" means (approximately) "safety testing by using a larger than normal load in a test round/shell" -- and we're talking about alternatives to proofing, not improvements to proofing (because the alternatives we're talking about would still be superior to an improved proofing test; it's more a matter of training and economics and tradition that prevent them being the norm).

You cant explain exactly how the current system is flawed and cant explain how your improved proofing theory method would be better .

To be fair, the problem's not on the transmission end, and we've tried a few different transmitters now, but the receiver seems to be malfunctioning. Or mistuned. Or someone hasn't plugged it into the mains. Or something.

If i taught you were up to listening and maybe learning something i would pm you my opinion why/how your suggested NEW proofing method would not be a viable alternative to the current system .

Please don't, I prefer it when my brains don't dribble out my ears in an act of self-defence from what's trying to come in through my eyes.

With your personal comments like my "unique interpretation of english spelling and grammar rules" .... goes a long way to show your true mind-set on me posting here !
It must really rub you up the wrong way when a non-collage going boards member might have a different opinion to yours !

Ah here, none of my mates went to collage either you know. They hated sticking things to things, you see; always thought it was a silly way to make a picture.

tomcat220t

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Tomcat, screw the PM cloak and dagger stuff. Sparks is a qualified engineer, so if you want to comment on how proposed ND testing methods are not suitable replacements for the current system, then do it out here in the open. Taking discussion to a private arena after this thread is just dodging (further) the questions of your own qualification (You've been so keen to find out other people's!) to comment on and discuss the current system of proof-testing as well as the possibility of proposed changes. You've also completely failed to understand the actual subject matter of Conor's posts, and can't figure out whether he agrees or disagrees with you, let alone what he's actually saying. So how about you actually comment, in depth, in public, about what makes the current system of testing effective and why proposals of ND testing would not be suitable alternatives.

Hi it wasnt me , i could well understand Conors posts !! As for Sparks been an qualified engineer ....by that you mean a SOFTWARE engineer ....thats true and fair play to him ! Whats your point ?ND testing would not be substitute to rifle proofing .If you think i dont know what im talking about on this subject ..thats fine .
Regards ,Tomcat .

It wasn't me!

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi it wasnt me , i could well understand Conors posts !!

Explain it then.

Whats your point ?

That you have consistently asked people to provide backup certifications and qualifications for their opinions, while consistently dodging questions about your own. You have provided no substance to support your claims that the current method of testing is the best possible method or to explain why you don't believe ND testing would be as effective. If you want to call everyone else into question, you need to lay out what you believe, why you believe it, and what your qualifications are in the field, before you call everyone else to do the same.

ND testing would not be substitute to rifle proofing

Why not? Answer must include a detailed explanation comparing and contrasting the two in order to be remotely useful.

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi it wasnt me , i could well understand Conors posts !!

Your posts do not back this up.

As for Sparks been an qualified engineer ....by that you mean a SOFTWARE engineer ....thats true and fair play to him ! Whats your point ?

His point is that I did mechanical, civil and electronic engineering for the first two years of the course along with computer engineering and maths. All TCD engineers do, it's why we graduate with two degrees, a headache and the dire need for three months of uninterrupted sleep. So no, I couldn't earn a living doing rifle proofing today, but on the other hand, I've got a fairly decent understanding of the process (to the point where I could follow a finite element analysis of it reasonably easily).

But most of the time, I like to think of actually pointing this stuff out explicitly as being slightly unnecessary and just a little bit gauche. After all, finite element analysis is so last year and all the cool kids were into it before it went mainstream, man.


(But for the record, I'm not a software engineer. I'm a computer&electronics engineer. /preen )

ND testing would not be substitute to rifle proofing .

Yes, it would. That's the point of the past one hundred and fifteen posts...

If you think i dont know what im talking about on this subject ..thats fine .

Frankly, I think we're all past thinking it at this stage lad.

tomcat220t

Sparks wrote: »

Again, I don't have a theory on improved proofing methods, and nobody has suggested one. There's pretty much only the one proofing method, because "proofing" means (approximately) "safety testing by using a larger than normal load in a test round/shell" -- and we're talking about alternatives to proofing, not improvements to proofing (because the alternatives we're talking about would still be superior to an improved proofing test; it's more a matter of training and economics and tradition that prevent them being the norm).

But you have a new theory on an alternative to proofing which is (Non destructive) testing of rifles .You call it more informative ..would that not be an improvement to proofing in your mind ?
Your theory ....please explain .

Sparks wrote: »

I wouldn't suggest proofing them, I'd suggest another, non-destructive, more informative test. If you'd like a few examples of those tests (in two years of mechanical engineering courses, we didn't even get through half of them, so it's a chunk of reading), the wikipedia article is a reasonable attempt at a one-page summary of a century or more of R&D: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondestructive_testing

Anyone can post a link to Nondestructive testing .....explain how you would conduct your tests on rifles and prove how it would be better to the current proofing methods that is used world wide .
Also ,is there ANY other country or rifle companys using you suggested method ?
The current proofing methods are based on gun safety so prove how your method would work out with the end user having a safer setup .
Regards ,Tomcat.

Glensman

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Glensman ,
Arguing with an engineer ???
First ,whos arguing ?
Second, whos the relevant Engineer on this topic ??
I agree with the Proofing Engineers method of proofing a rifle .
Maybe you would prefer to agree to some of the waffle been written on proofing ,instead ?
Regards ,Tomcat.

I would have said Sparks was an Engineer
My Da and a lot of my friends are engineers. I helped put myself through college by working in an engineering shop on evenings and weekends. So I would have a better than average understanding of mechanical engineering.

I also have a feeling that the 'proofing engineers' you refer to are possibly not engineers at all. I would imagine, and I'm only hypothesising, that there would be an engineer at hand but that many of the people undertaking the proofing would be trained technicians...

tomcat220t

Glensman wrote: »

I would have said Sparks was an Engineer
My Da and a lot of my friends are engineers. I helped put myself through college by working in an engineering shop on evenings and weekends. So I would have a better than average understanding of mechanical engineering.

I also have a feeling that the 'proofing engineers' you refer to are possibly not engineers at all. I would imagine, and I'm only hypothesising, that there would be an engineer at hand but that many of the people undertaking the proofing would be trained technicians...

Hi Glensman ,why the silly comments on pigs + mud
What has piston rings got to do with proofing ?
Regards ,Tomcat.