In the event of a catastrophic failure with T97?
- Thread starter Vancouvergunnut
- Start date
Very little, and all of it is 3rd party QC'd in Europe.
This. The odds of T97 owners getting their facial features rearranged in a car crash are probably a lot higher than their getting rearranged by a T97 KB. And let those of the naysayers who've never driven to work without consciously considering traffic risks throw the first stone.
No stones are getting thrown...some people are making the point that there's driving to work, and there's driving to work in a car with a windshield that may be made of plate glass, not safety glass.
And fans of the plate glass windshield are accusing the comparative analysis people of being "haters".
The "hater" label is ####ing stupid, because it presumes that all criticism of machines is based on feelings, and that all machines are functionally equal.
The T97 may well turn out to be great in the event of an OOB detonation or a case head failure. We don't know. But there are design features that make it a little worrying, or ought to. You may never shoot it enough to care. You may shoot it once and realize there was a big reason to care. You may shoot it for the rest of your life and never encounter the conditions under which it would matter.
But that doesn't make the observation that it might be a spectacularly bad rifle to have a case head failure in, invalid.
And fans of the plate glass windshield are accusing the comparative analysis people of being "haters".
The "hater" label is ####ing stupid, because it presumes that all criticism of machines is based on feelings, and that all machines are functionally equal.
The T97 may well turn out to be great in the event of an OOB detonation or a case head failure. We don't know. But there are design features that make it a little worrying, or ought to. You may never shoot it enough to care. You may shoot it once and realize there was a big reason to care. You may shoot it for the rest of your life and never encounter the conditions under which it would matter.
But that doesn't make the observation that it might be a spectacularly bad rifle to have a case head failure in, invalid.
Now, call me crazy, but explain to me how having steel and aluminium fragments flying outward after a kaboom, is safer than than plastic anyway? The brass usually splits, it's pieces of the gun that tears you up. Most of the rifle kabooms I've seen pictures of, show no containing anything, regardless of all the glorified steel around, and the shooters were injured, by that steel, in fact. Explosives gain their power from tamping, and generally containing the force, to allow it to build pressure. Here's a great link to explain it better. http://stardestroyer.net/Resources/Science/Explosives.html
Here's the bit I found interesting: When an explosive shatters a physical object, it does so by building pressure inside the object until the object fails. The fragment velocity will be related to the internal pressure, the mass of the object, and the ductility of the object, as shown in the equations developed by R.W. Gurney. There are different Gurney equations for different shapes of vessel, with constants that vary with metal type and explosive type, but their most important aspect is that in all cases, fragment velocity is proportional to the inverse square root of vessel mass divided by charge mass [1]. In other words, the velocity is generally proportional to 1 divided by the square root of M/C, where M is the mass of metal and C is the mass of charge. Therefore, if you double the mass of metal, the fragment velocity drops to roughly 71% of its original value. Conversely, if you double the mass of charge, the fragment velocity increases by 41%.
Another fact to keep in mind is that most experimental data on fragment formation and velocity is based upon ductile metals, because that is what you would logically use for a fragmentation weapon. A ductile metal will expand for a relatively long time before breaking, thus allowing gas pressure to do more work on it. A brittle material, on the other hand, will tend to shatter at very low strain, thus wasting more of the expanding gas volume's ability to do work on its environment because the gas will flow out through the resulting cracks and holes. Typically, brittle metals produce only 80% of the velocity of ductile metals in fragmentation [1], and since no one makes fragmentation weapons out of rock, relevant research is either obscure or nonexistent.
And finally, the velocity of fragments is affected by the tamping of the explosive; obviously, if the explosive is allowed to expand into open air on one side, this will reduce fragment velocity. This is normally handled by reducing the effective charge, thus assuming that large portions of it are wasted. In the case of a round plate with an explosive cylinder attached to it, we would assume that all of the explosive outside a 60 degree cone is wasted, based on experimental data [1].
In short, steel bad, plastic good. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Here's the bit I found interesting: When an explosive shatters a physical object, it does so by building pressure inside the object until the object fails. The fragment velocity will be related to the internal pressure, the mass of the object, and the ductility of the object, as shown in the equations developed by R.W. Gurney. There are different Gurney equations for different shapes of vessel, with constants that vary with metal type and explosive type, but their most important aspect is that in all cases, fragment velocity is proportional to the inverse square root of vessel mass divided by charge mass [1]. In other words, the velocity is generally proportional to 1 divided by the square root of M/C, where M is the mass of metal and C is the mass of charge. Therefore, if you double the mass of metal, the fragment velocity drops to roughly 71% of its original value. Conversely, if you double the mass of charge, the fragment velocity increases by 41%.
Another fact to keep in mind is that most experimental data on fragment formation and velocity is based upon ductile metals, because that is what you would logically use for a fragmentation weapon. A ductile metal will expand for a relatively long time before breaking, thus allowing gas pressure to do more work on it. A brittle material, on the other hand, will tend to shatter at very low strain, thus wasting more of the expanding gas volume's ability to do work on its environment because the gas will flow out through the resulting cracks and holes. Typically, brittle metals produce only 80% of the velocity of ductile metals in fragmentation [1], and since no one makes fragmentation weapons out of rock, relevant research is either obscure or nonexistent.
And finally, the velocity of fragments is affected by the tamping of the explosive; obviously, if the explosive is allowed to expand into open air on one side, this will reduce fragment velocity. This is normally handled by reducing the effective charge, thus assuming that large portions of it are wasted. In the case of a round plate with an explosive cylinder attached to it, we would assume that all of the explosive outside a 60 degree cone is wasted, based on experimental data [1].
In short, steel bad, plastic good. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Certainly possible and part of what makes me concerned about the one little blast shield/projectile in the T97.
If you trust the Chinese to have tested this thoroughly, you should be good to go. I don't, and I'd like to see testing before leaning my face against the chamber of a rifle designed and built by a country that's absolutely notorious for putting unsafe garbage on the market.
I would guess that testing won't happen, so my solution is to view this as an emergency-use-only rifle.
If you trust the Chinese to have tested this thoroughly, you should be good to go. I don't, and I'd like to see testing before leaning my face against the chamber of a rifle designed and built by a country that's absolutely notorious for putting unsafe garbage on the market.
I would guess that testing won't happen, so my solution is to view this as an emergency-use-only rifle.
I think the idea is to #1: create a design that does not allow the firing pin to protrude past the bolt face, without complete bolt lock with the receiver.
#2: make minimal attempts to contain a failure, except at the top, where the shooter's face is.
Without resistance, and time for pressures to build, the explosion is allowed to expand in relatively open air, below the shooter's noggin, dissipating the energy in a relatively harmless manner. Sore hand, some cuts maybe, a destroyed gun, but no steel grenade. Smart.
#2: make minimal attempts to contain a failure, except at the top, where the shooter's face is.
Without resistance, and time for pressures to build, the explosion is allowed to expand in relatively open air, below the shooter's noggin, dissipating the energy in a relatively harmless manner. Sore hand, some cuts maybe, a destroyed gun, but no steel grenade. Smart.
Shhh. Don't tell anyone I said something serious. I have a reputation to keep up.
Runningfool
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
Metal fragments show up on xray, plastic shards do not...this poses a challenge in locating and removing said fragments. If you have a kaboom involving plastic, better let the ER doc know.
Thank you, I will. "Good sir, I have some bits of Chinese plastic in me, I have been drinking Vodka cocktails, and I am allergic to shellfish. While you're in there, could you add a couple inches down below?"
Runningfool
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
Just shoot your T97 from the hip...two birds with one stone so-to-speak (or perhaps more accurately, one bird and two stones).
