Proof-testing

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

But you have a new theory on an alternative to proofing

I don't think "theory" is the right word, since nondestructive testing has been a field under development since the middle of the 1800s.
Generally after the first century, it's silly to call it a theory.

..would that not be an improvement to proofing in your mind ?

No, for the same reason that I wouldn't consider a car to be an improved catapult.

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 .

*he*
*heh*
*heheheheh*
Oh, that's funny
Thanks Tomcat, I'll be laughing at that for a while
Will I explain calculus to you in the same post and prove how it's better than arithmetic, or should I do that in a seperate post?

The current proofing methods are based on gun safety

No, they're not. They're based on:
"Hm. That blew up. That wasn't good."
"Now what do we do?"
"I dunno, but if we blew it up a bit more and it didn't go bang, maybe it'll be safe?"
"Sounds good to me"

Followed by three hundred years of "we've always done it this way" combined with "shut up you idiot, if you didn't have to proof the gun, why would we pay the guild fees?" and finally political lobbying for legislation.

"Gun safety" and that new-fangled "science" thing had nothing to do with it....

so prove

Oh ffs. Look, I'll just say it will I?
I can't prove it to you. It'd be a waste of time to try because you'd nit-pick over words whose definitions you don't even know, and arguments you're not following and if I tried to explain it more, pretty soon I'd need the tequila to make the voices stop. There's a reason it takes years to get a degree in engineering; because it's not simple. That's why we can earn a living doing it, because it's difficult.

But that doesn't mean it can't be proven. Hell, we know it works. Want to know how?

• Turn out your lights at night. Do you glow in the dark? Hey, guess what, nondestructive testing of the welds in the pipes in sellafield worked!
• Go fly somewhere. Did the engine explode, sending white-hot shrapnel through the cabin before the airliner tore itself apart and you found yourself doing 200mph through empty air a mile up? No? Hey, guess what, nondestructive testing of the turbine blades and the plane's structure worked!
• Go drive somewhere. Did your car explode? No? Hey, guess what, nondestructive testing of the petrol tank worked!

Seriously tomcat:

tomcat220t

Hi Sparks,it ok ......No surpprise with your reply .
God himself couldnt stop your ego if you had a real answer :rolleyes:
Regrads ,Tomcat .

Sparks

tac foley

I've come back into the maelstrom that seems to have developed here [again] just to remind those of you who are still confungled about the level of over-pressure used by the CIP to establish proof - here are the figures - leaving the politics of the requirement in law [unlike SAAMI that is advisory] -

'The standard proof of firearms consist of firing two overloaded cartridges producing 25% more chamber pressure than the C.I.P maximum pressure limit for the same cartridge in its commercial version. For pistol, revolver and rimfire cartridges the standard proof is performed with overloaded cartridges that produce 30% more chamber pressure than the C.I.P maximum pressure limit for the same cartridge in its commercial version. Voluntarily testing beyond the C.I.P. maximum pressure limit is also possible for consumers who intend to use their firearms under extreme conditions (hot climates, long strings of shots, etc.). A proof mark is stamped in every successfully tested firearm. The C.I.P. does not test any further aspects regarding the correct functioning of the tested firearm. For example aspects like the correct cycling of cartridges etc. are not part of the proofing process.

Primarily oriented towards the proof houses and manufacturers, the C.I.P. independently assesses, approves and publicizes manufacturer's data such as ammunition and chamber dimension specifications, maximum allowed chamber pressures, caliber nomenclature, etc. All this C.I.P. established data can be accessed by everyone.

Technical procedures describing how to perform proofing are also established by the C.I.P. and updates to the various test methods are issued in the form of "decisions". These decisions can also easily be obtained by everyone involved.

The C.I.P. formally distributes established data and decisions to the member states through diplomatic channels for publishing in their official journals. After official publication C.I.P. established data and decisions obtain(s) indisputable legal status in all C.I.P. member states.

Governmental organizations, like military and police forces and other firearms bearing public power agencies, from the C.I.P. member states are legally exempted from having to comply with C.I.P. rulings. This does not automatically imply that all firearms and ammunitions used by governmental organizations in C.I.P. member states are not C.I.P. compliant, since those organizations often choose to self-impose the relevant C.I.P. standards for their service firearms and ammunition.'

It's really not a matter of getting all hissy with each other about this - let's just accept that some nations choose to test EVERY gun that they make by using a method that MIGHT be destructive, no matter how well the item has been built and no matter what materials were used to build it.

This is a left-over from the times when each and every gun and every part of it was literally made by hand from beginning to end, often by one man.

tac

Kramer

Sparks wrote: »

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.

:D:D:D:D

Regarding your transmitter/receiver supposition, I believe October 24th is the official switch off day. Tomcat may just have poor or selective reception.
An increase in attenuation might help....

tomcat220t

Kramer wrote: »

:D:D:D:D

Regarding your transmitter/receiver supposition, I believe October 24th is the official switch off day. Tomcat may just have poor or selective reception.
An increase in attenuation might help....

Hi Kramer ,
126 comments and no answers as to how the current rifle proof/testing could be matched or improved on .
Nothing but what ifs ,pigs+ piston rings :o:o

Regards,Tomcat.

rowa

Someone put a bullet in the rifle and take this thread 'round back and put it out of its misery like ol yeller :rolleyes:.

Grizzly 45

http://www.gunmakers.org.uk/proofhouse.html
Link to the Birmingham& London proof houses.
Intrestingly,I didnt know this one,the proof houses are also required to proofUK military ordinance of the larger calibres ,like apache chain guns , Challanger 2 tank barrells etc.
Also the head man running this at the moment was a former technical advisor to Holland & Holland.

Glensman

tomcat220t wrote: »

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

The pig thing is an old engineer's joke... Nothing to do with the discussion only that the thread had gone on a long time, lending itself to the idea that engineer's enjoy an argument/discussion.

As far as the piston rings. Mechanical engineering and metallurgy are Mechanical engineering and metallurgy whether it's engines, barrels or precision tools.

stick shooter

this thread has being an eye opener for me on the whole subject of proofing .

open bolt face ,
fluted bolt,
fit sako style extractor,
flute barrels ,
reprofile barrels .
rechamber used factory barrels ,
manufactured and alter sound moderators and muzzle breaks ,
recycle actions (some up to 70 years old )

the list above is only some of the services offered by rfds (gunsmith)here in the rep Ireland . who have no gunsmith qualifications , training , insurance but worst of all the cavalier , misleading attitude when it comes to proofing

public safety should become more of a priority to rfds (gunsmith)

tomcat220t

Glensman wrote: »

The pig thing is an old engineer's joke... Nothing to do with the discussion only that the thread had gone on a long time, lending itself to the idea that engineer's enjoy an argument/discussion.

As far as the piston rings. Mechanical engineering and metallurgy are Mechanical engineering and metallurgy whether it's engines, barrels or precision tools.

Hi Glensman ,its about proofing-testing not rifle break-in methods or engine break-in methods
Regards ,Tomcat.

tomcat220t

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

http://www.gunmakers.org.uk/proofhouse.html
Link to the Birmingham& London proof houses.
Intrestingly,I didnt know this one,the proof houses are also required to proofUK military ordinance of the larger calibres ,like apache chain guns , Challanger 2 tank barrells etc.
Also the head man running this at the moment was a former technical advisor to Holland & Holland.

Hi Grizzly ,did not know about the tank barrels either :cool:. Technical adviser to Holland &Holland ......what would he know about proofing :rolleyes::rolleyes::D:D:D:D
Regards,Tomcat.

Hondata92

tomcat220t wrote: »

ND testing would not be substitute to rifle proofing .

Sparks wrote: »

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

DEFINITION OF NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

Nondestructive testing (NDT) has been defined as comprising those test methods used to examine an object, material or system without impairing its future usefulness. The term is generally applied to nonmedical investigations of material integrity.
Strictly speaking, this definition of nondestructive testing does include noninvasive medical diagnostics. Ultrasound, X-rays and endoscopes are used for both medical testing and industrial testing. In the 1940s, many members of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing (then the Society for Industrial Radiography) were medical X-ray professionals. Medical nondestructive testing, however, has come to be treated by a body of learning so separate from industrial nondestructive testing that today most physicians never use the word nondestructive.
Nondestructive testing is used to investigate the material integrity of the test object.

What Is Not Nondestructive Testing?


Nondestructive testing asks "Is there something wrong with this material?" Various performance and proof tests, in contrast, ask "Does this component work?" This is the reason that it is not considered nondestructive testing when an inspector checks a circuit by running electric current through it. Hydrostatic pressure testing is usually proof testing and intrinsically not nondestructive testing. Acoustic emission testing used to monitor changes in a pressure vessel's integrity during hydrostatic testing is nondestructive testing.

Nondestructive testing or Non-destructive testing (NDT) is a wide group of analysis techniques used in science and industry to evaluate the properties of a material, component or system without causing damage.

The above quotes outline what non-destructive testing is or not.

From my own research non-destructive testing can only investigate the metal integrity of a firearm.

@sparks, If a firearm passed NDT would that mean its safe to fire??

Sparks

Hondata92 wrote: »

@sparks, If a firearm passed NDT would that mean its safe to fire??

Assuming you used an appropriate kind of NDT and did it properly, yes.

Hondata92

Sparks wrote: »

Assuming you used an appropriate kind of NDT and did it properly, yes.

How would you assess the structural design and strength of each indivdual firearm via a NDT?

Sparks

Hondata92 wrote: »

How would you assess the structural design and strength of each indivdual firearm via a NDT?

First, I'd finish checking to see if I had pants on. Because, you know, when you get a question phrased like that at my age, it's usually a sign that I'm in a flashback dream to second year and my 2E8 materials exam, often brought on by eating brie too close to bedtime. But I wear the cheese, the cheese does not wear me; so I suppose I'd give the firearm to someone who chose to pursue a career in NDT instead of in computer and electronic engineering, and I'd pay them to do the testing for me (I'd imagine it'd be a combination of eddy current testing and radiography, but I'd leave the choice down to them).

tomcat220t

Hondata92 wrote: »

How would you assess the structural design and strength of each indivdual firearm via a NDT?

Hi Hondata,good question.
NDT can NOT assess the over all design or strenght of a firearm (FACT).
Theres any amount of world class NDT companys set up in Ireland ,ring them if you think im wrong on this .
NDT can only determine that the INDIVIDUAL PARTS used to build a firearm is free from defects !!!!That would not mean the rifle was safe to fire .

Regards,Tomcat.

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

NDT can NOT assess the over all design or strenght of a firearm (FACT).

Oh, well why didn't you just say so? I mean, if tomcat220 says it's a FACT, then it must be so, especially if he says it in all capitals like that.

tac foley

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Hondata,good question.
NDT can NOT assess the over all design or strenght of a firearm (FACT).
Theres any amount of world class NDT companys set up in Ireland ,ring them if you think im wrong on this .
NDT can only determine that the INDIVIDUAL PARTS used to build a firearm is free from defects !!!!That would not mean the rifle was safe to fire .

Regards,Tomcat.

That's why a rifle or any firearm is tested for fitness for purpose in an assembled state, less woodwork/plastic work or whatever, by means of a cartridge or charge in the chamber.

If it busts, then it is the problem of the builder, NOT the person who buys it. Needless to say, failing proof means that NOBODY gets to buy it....

tac

Sparks

tac foley wrote: »

Needless to say, failing proof means that NOBODY gets to buy it.

But that's the weakness of the test - it's binary, ie. either the rifle failed or the rifle passed on that day, for that load, at that age. That's all it tells you. It doesn't tell you if there's a flaw in the material that will markedly reduce the number of rounds you'll get from that barrel. It doesn't tell you if the proof test itself reduced that number. And therefore it does not absolutely tell you if it's safe or not - it's not capable of telling you that.

It's akin to testing a bridge by driving two or three times the expected peak load across it. Your bridge may well pass this test on day one; but Tacoma Narrows showed that that doesn't mean that things we don't fully understand yet may mean it's not safe; and the Silver Bridge shows that it doesn't have to be a visible problem that renders it unsafe. It's perfectly possible that it'll look fine, right up to the point where it fails.

Now we've been doing proof testing for 400-odd years, so it's obviously not useless; but there are better tests that we've developed in the last 150-odd years, so it's equally obvious that we could do something better today. And why we're not is more likely to be down to tradition, economics and a lack of desire to retrain technicians and re-equip labs. Which is symmetrical at least - proof tests didn't become mandatory for safety reason, but economic ones; and they won't be replaced anytime soon because of economic reasons as well.

tomcat220t

tac foley wrote: »

That's why a rifle or any firearm is tested for fitness for purpose in an assembled state, less woodwork/plastic work or whatever, by means of a cartridge or charge in the chamber.

If it busts, then it is the problem of the builder, NOT the person who buys it. Needless to say, failing proof means that NOBODY gets to buy it....

tac

Hi Tac, i agree mate. Sensible reply:cool::cool: Firearms could be built with the very best flawless materials and still be nothing more than a shiny hand-grenade :eek:
Thats why NDT is not used as a means of testing for Firearms Safety.

Hondata92

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Hondata,good question.
NDT can NOT assess the over all design or strenght of a firearm (FACT).

Thanks Tom, i was in contact with one of the largest NDT companies in the country today and they said that NDT would be unable to determine if a firearm was safe to use after testing.

tomcat220t

Hondata92 wrote: »

Thanks Tom, i was in contact with one of the largest NDT companies in the country today and they said that NDT would be unable to determine if a firearm was safe to use after testing.

Hi Hondata, firearm proofing has been performed for 100s of years but the notion that its some how backwards/out-dated and other methods of proofing would be better ,is unfounded !
The best engineer minds in the world say different .CIP engineers meet and review their standard and methods of proofing every two years .
Regards ,Tomcat.

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

The best engineer minds in the world say different

Hm. Y'know tomcat, I know what professional qualifications you need to work in the field of engineering, but even I'm not sure what professional qualifications you need to be able to say that the engineers who work for CIP are better minds than those who work in the NDT field.
A BA in ChalkVersusCheese? A PhD in ApplesAndOranges? Or just a DSc in Bull****Comparisons?

CIP engineers meet and review their standard and methods of proofing every two years

Yes, so they can execute proofing tests better. Not to decide on whether or not to execute proofing tests at all - that decision is out of their hands.

They cannot vote to abandon proofing for NDT (or any other method) because (a) they have mortgage payments to make and few companies employ people who try to destroy the sole source of the company's income; and (b) mandatory prooftesting is a legal requirement and outside the area they're allowed to reviews.

Sparks

Hondata92 wrote: »

Thanks Tom, i was in contact with one of the largest NDT companies in the country today and they said that NDT would be unable to determine if a firearm was safe to use after testing.

NDT ltd?
Or NDT Inc? Cos that lot are a bad joke, they know more about kebabs than NDT.
Or was it NDT'r'us? They're not so bad, but they more focus on the american market...

tomcat220t

Hi Sparks ,is it that difficult for you to say you may be wrong?
AGAIN
If this was about caliber vs caliber it would be funny, but its about firearms safety so put your views to some one else more gullible,please.
Regards,Tomcat.

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Sparks ,is it that difficult for you to say you may be wrong?

its about firearms safety so put your views to some one else more gullible,please.

So you're saying that an entire field of industry; as well as every gunsmith in Ireland and quite a few outside of Ireland; are utterly unsafe, on your say-so; despite you not having any qualifications?

stick shooter

Sparks wrote: »

So you're saying that an entire field of industry; as well as every gunsmith in Ireland and quite a few outside of Ireland; are utterly unsafe, on your say-so; despite you not having any qualifications?

Just think of the logic of your argument . You are noting more than an anonymous person at the end of a keyboard . And you expect people to believe that you are some way right and ,

Cip engineers ,
Sammi engineers,
Proof house engineers,
NDT engineers,
Gun companies,
Gunsmiths,
The world of engineering in general ,
Are wrong , and you are right , One word comes to mind, DELUSIONAL.

Sparks

stick shooter wrote: »

Just think of the logic of your argument

I'd better; you sure aren't and at least one of us ought to, just for politeness' sake, don't you think?

You are noting more than an anonymous person at the end of a keyboard

Woof.

And you expect people to believe

Nope.

Cip engineers ,

...who don't decide whether or not to proof...

Sammi engineers,

...who don't decide whether or not to proof, but SAAMI (you generally capitalise acronyms) don't require it to be legally mandatory anyway...

Proof house engineers,

...are generally technicians rather than engineers, but the engineers they would employ don't decide whether or not to proof...

NDT engineers,

...who don't decide whether or not to proof, but I doubt strongly if they'd tell you that the field they spend their professional lives in is worthless...

Gun companies,

...don't care about proofing or safety, but only about quarterly profit margins, being companies; hence our laws on liability, and I note that those companies not in CIP countries don't go running to sign up...

Gunsmiths,

...don't all proof in Ireland, and in quite a few other places; and not all are technically qualified enough to evaluate NDT methodologies accurately...

The world of engineering in general

...doesn't lose much sleep over the question at all, because it's not worth that much money (seriously, even the firearms industry worldwide's not that big, realistically speaking - it's what, 15 billion or so a year? IBM alone has a 100bn turnover. Guns just aren't all that in the engineering world).