To answer your other question about what they actually knew & when they knew it:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Section.../Rem_Doc_03.pdf You do the math!
Aug ><>
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
what were the test rifles in this report? i didn't see it labeled in that document. </div></div>
The Model designation is at the top, along with the date, or in this instance along the left margin. M/721
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
were they rifles that were in the field being inspected after a problem? were they rifles that were being inspected before they left the factory? </div></div>
“Pilot Line Inspection” rifles - Are NEW rifles, still under development to prove the design, still inside the plant. In this instance 11 months prior to release of the M/721 rifle to the public. The release date for this model rifle was March 1948.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
what i got from that document was the triggers wer out of spec, not that there was a design flaw. </div></div>
What gives you that impression? For you to draw that conclusion, you have to correctly define the term “Design Limit” - which might imply, or suggest an out of tolerance condition to exist in the pilot line rifles granted - however, IF you are correct, in the last paragraph, why would the engineer have concerns that:
“From the inspection standpoint, situation #3 should be considered the most dangerous in that the malfunction might not occur during the relatively few cycles that the gun would be functioned during inspection”
This statement suggests that the engineer had concerns that production rifles could ultimately pass through the inspection process to the public for the rifles, or malfunction to be “dangerous” to anyone & that:
1 - “Firing Pin moves forward during the bolt locking cycle”
2 - “Possible to fire the gun by pushing the Safety to the “off” safe position”
3 - “Occasionally the firing pin moves forward during the bolt locking cycle”,
#1 & #3 reference “follow down malfunctions”. There are 2 (two) forms of follow down, hard & soft follow downs. For this condition to be dangerous, I believe we would be talking a hard follow down, which will allow tension to build up on the main spring as the bolt is closed - at the instant the connector fails to support the sear, would release the striker to impact the primer with enough force to initiate the firing process - WITHOUT TRIGGER CONTACT. Later, Remington termed this condition “FBC” (Firing on bolt closure).
Further - “Occasionally” implies an intermittent condition to exist. If you are correct in your assertion, answer this question for me - IF the condition were the result of specification, or tolerance conditions, why the concern that these forms of malfunctions could slip through the inspection process undetected, AFTER tolerance, or specification correction(s) to meet specification of the design were met in the production of these rifles that were to be distributed to the public?
Under your assertion, IF tolerance conditions existed & was ultimately corrected, no safety concerns would, or should be raised, regarding inspections to catch rifles exhibiting these forms of malfunctions that was at that time considered “very dangerous from a safety and functional point of view“.
One last thing of notable interest regarding this single document, dated April 9, 1947 - The malfunctions identified in this 1947 document ARE in fact EXACTLY the same forms of malfunctions we are discussing in this thread, are they not, in fact 64 years AFTER this document was in fact generated?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
maybe i missed something. it wasn't very clear and i got taco neck syndrome trying to read it. </div></div>
Apparently you missed a lot small details:
The most obvious - You missed the date of the document, the model designation of rifle discussed in the document, as well as the status of the rifles themselves - which is fair I suspect, unless you know what the term “Pilot Line Inspection” implies, or the release date of this product line to the public - so I will give you that one….
Probably should not apply as an investigative analyst!
Aug ><> </div></div>
ok, so i couldn't read the date sideways on my computer and i honestly didn't know what a pilot line inspection meant. since you cleared that up, so what if the pilot line was out of spec and the engineer acknowledged that it was a dangerous condition. how exactly does this prove that models sold in the future were out of spec? this document you posted proves absolutely nothing other than some test rifles were made out of spec and never made it into public hands.
i mentioned that the document lead me to believe that the triggers were out of spec, not a design flaw. you attack me for saying that. an out of spec part is just that. it was not made to the tolerances allowed. that is not a design flaw. more of a manufacturing flaw. no where in this article does it mention that out of spec triggers were released to the public. i had some prototype parts come off the mill today that were out of spec. that doesn't mean that i have a design flaw. it means that i have not got the machine set up perfect yet. those parts will get tossed in the scrap bin and considered part of the development process.
let me know when you have some proof or just keep trying to twist things to push your agenda.
