Hi Dimitri....one correction....Krieger doesn't make light-contoured stainless barrels.


SHOOTIST

Shootist,

Thanks! I now know I'm not the only one here who has heard of this

Mind you one of the guns that had this failer was in October in Washington State I've got to assume it wasn't cold enough to have the stainless cause a problems just because of the inherite problems of using it as a barrel metal

www.hs.fi/english/arti...1978285825

Quote::

Sako CEO Henry Paasikivi says that a total of six guns are known to have malfunctioned in the same way - one of them in Finland. In one case, a Swedish boy lost the tip of his thumb. The barrels would break up lengthwise into several fragments, and in some cases, other parts of the gun also broke. The problem was attributed to a weakness in the stainless steel used in the manufacture. Guns of the series in question were sold to several countries, from the United States to New Zealand, before the defect was noticed.

See this is what gets me, They attribute the problem to the stainless steel they used and yet they apprently never decided to test the design of the stainless steel fluted barrels and they didn't test to see if the batch of metal they purchased would work right. This I belive is 100% Sako/Tikka's fault as this could have been found before they even shipped the first rifle of this series that had the failers.

Dimitri

Hi Dimitri...I think that the stainless alloy has been revised a few times.
There have been some warnings but a 50,000 rifle recall will certainly affect the current owners and will certainly influence potential buyers. I for one wouldn't purchase a new Sako stainless until they clear up the current problem. I own only 1 rifle that's stainless and that is a Browning Stainless Stalker in .338 Mag. My concern with it is that I have a back-bored brake machined into the barrel (non-fluted). It gets quite cold in the Poconos during hunting season. I'm thinking of loading down about 5%.


Regards,


SHOOTIST

Sako, Beretta and Tikka use the same barrels using the same manufacturing process. They all use a "hammer forged" stainles steel. The process is fairly new and there have been some unknowns that have popped up in the aftermath of some dramatic failures. The process was fine for tapered and bull barrels but the fluted barrels have been separating along stress lines that were not predicted. When working with exotic metals in new and exotic processes there is bound to be a learning curve. Even when all the current proceedural checks are applied during the manufacturing process it is possible for unexpected and unseen problems to arise. The barrels that failed are the same barrels that withstood proof testing that all the previous barrels had undergone and were expected to be fine. When the failures were reported an investigation ensued and the problem areas were defined and eliminated. The problems were not limited to an alloy, a process or other single component. The failures were due to a combination of the alloy and a production process that reacted with the alloy in unexpected ways. Failures were catastrophic and occured in the early life of the barrels. No one predicted or found any hint that there was anything wrong until after the failures. I suppose that you could say it should have been expected with new metals and new processes to have something go wrong. No one did.
The problems are being addressed, warnings are being distributed to owners of firearms in affected serial numbers. Damages and equipment are being paid for. The process and materials have been changed to eliminate the problem.
The stainless alloy is a better barrel material than previous alloys. The hammer forging process has been around for decades. Combining the two with a fluted barrel has never been done before now. On the surface it seems that hammer forging a fluted barrel would eliminate the stress that is common to barrels that have machined flutes in them but it obviously wasn't the answer.
Like I said the problems have been resolved, they no longer exist. The companies involved are taking care of the liability and things are better than before. If I was in the market for a rifle I would not hesitate to buy one from Sako, beretta or Tikka. As inadvisable as it may seem sometimes the end user id the last quality control agent in a long line of quality checks.
Sometimes things like this will happen - it is an accident that was caused by attempting to improve guns and gun safety. Nobody hid the problems associated with these failures. Nobody knew there were problems before the failures occured. No neglegence was found.

Hi Pauls...I agree with you about Sako/Tika ....but Ruger also hammer forges barrels. I haven't heard anything about any cautions.
Obermeyer had SS barrels burst in Alaska, I believe he button rifled the stock and I don't remember fluted or not.
Krieger doesn't supply thin contoured SS barrels at all.
Some machinists believe the high sulfur content of the stainless for improved machining speed is the problem. But Sako's reputation is damaged. I also think that the photo of the Federal Premium cartridges won't help Federal sales.


Regards,

SHOOTIST

PaulS,

If it was new in general using stainless steel thin contour barrels using fluting (didnt know it was one of the first didnt fallow the reasoning much :)) how isn't this Sako/Tikkas fault ??

First if your making something new for the first time which might have a problem and any competant engineer should have figured that out So wouldnt that be enough to cause you to actually make a small production run of lets say 100 barrels and expose them to harsh conditions (read multipul proof loads being fired to see if they can handle high stresses) to make sure they are safe. Wouldnt you test a product before shipping thousands of them out ??

Dimitri

Dimitri,
New manufacturing processes are sometimes incompatible with old testing and quality control techniques. If Sako had not done a good job of testing their product then I could see blaming the outcome on them. I believe that they took every prudent step to determine the safety of their product - the fact that two other gun makers used the same barrels shows that they had some form of testing in place. They were not negligent - they just didn't have test procedures in place to find the existance of the problem. There was no reason to expect a problem or that new testing procedures were warranted.
I am not saying that if they had made a batch of rifles and done destructive testing on them that the problem couldn't have been discovered but gun manufacturers need to make a profit - otherwise we would have to make our own guns from the ground up. No one has done the kind of destructive testing that you suggest in centuries. In most cases the engineering software that is used today could take the place of even proof testing. They still proof test each gun and test each gun for accuracy with a given ammo (not the same as proof loads)
I can't find any fault with their testing - it is the same as everyone else does. I can't find fault with the way they are accepting the liability for the failures. I can't find fault with the speed at which the problem was corrected or with their recall and replacement of SUSPECT firearms.
I think they have handled every aspect of the incident very well.

PaulS,

Your prehaps right, my method of thinking is probably outdated not by centuries though

I understand completly that companies do need to make a profit but tell me how much did Sako/Tikka lose replacing all of the rifles that were recalled ?? I think pushing a few rifles to the limit to see if they can match the proven methods would have saved them quite abit of money seeing as replacing a few thousand rifles cost more then distorying a few in a good R&D testing phase.

Oh and it hasn't been Centuries look at the M1 Garand. Garand started at 70,000 PSI proof loads increasing to 120,000 PSI where the bolt started to crack

Quote::

Hatcher's Book of the Garand reveals that it took a 120,000 C.U.P. proof load to burst a Garand. The Mauser and Springfield actions blew up at around 80,000 C.U.P

Quote::

Mr. Garand built up progressively higher proof loads in increments of 5,000 lbs. pressure, from the regular proof load of 70,000 lbs. to the extreme figure of 120,000 lbs. per square inch. At this later figure, cracked left lugs on the bolt began to be encountered. A gun in which the bolt had the left lug cracked by one of these excessive high pressure overloads was then fired an endurance test of 5,000 rounds of service ammunition, using the cracked bolt, which showed no further deterioration.

Engeering software is good for the lab. There are too many variables in different ways to make the same product but as well as the chemical composition of the metal is different from one supplier to another that you shouldn't rely on them.

Dimitri

Yep, the Garand had to prove to the military that it was better under all conditions before he could sell it to the military - but then HE wasn't trying to make a profit and neither was the government.
Those gov't men like destroying stuff.

I am sure that IF they had known when rifles were going to fail they would indeed have destroyed the 100 or twoo rifles to keep costs down but no manufacturer can do that with every batch of rifles and still profit from the production of rifles. The trick would be in the knowing which rifles to destroy and which to sell.
Hind sight is 20/20 but looking into the future are rarely as good.

PaulS,

I'm in agreement, a company shouldn't do distructive tests on all production runs of there stuff.

But look at the ASA/CSA they do distructive testing for safety and preformance on all the new/modified products from companies that make everything from electronics to glasses to boots. So what makes firearm companies different from pushing there products when they design and build a new firearm/change quite abit of the design. Thats all I'm saying.

Mind you if I had a company making anything if I wasnt certian a product would give a lifetime worth of use for the owner I wouldnt even think of selling it off to the public but thats just me.

Dimitri

So anyway...

These Sako rifles. Don't know why, but i've sort of gone off the idea.

And there is this brand called Howa and they do kit in Stainless. Anybody interested?

D

Oh - been away for a few days....