SVI BROKEN BARREL

[MIGUEL]

15 hours ago, jschroep said:

Can we get a working link to the report again? I'm not seeing what material is used on the SVI barrels on the website. Also in the original post it was stated that the material used to manufacture the barrels is 416R, That's the material that was recommended in the article that posted from schuemann. So was the original post wrong in saying that the barrel was made with 416R and it is actually made with 416? 

 

I really think it is irresponsible as a reloader to not consider that there could be quality issues with the ammo. 

 

It was also previously stated that bullet setback is not an issue with 38 super ( or was it 38 supercomp?) I have a hard time reconciling that in my engineering mind pressure should increase if volume decreases? IE the bullet is setback further in the case.

the shuemann informe.

Problem number 5: Because of Problems 1, 2, 3, and 4 Type 416 Stainless is not a good material for sub-gun barrels

[MIGUEL]

Just now, MIGUEL said:

the shuemann informe.

Problem number 5: Because of Problems 1, 2, 3, and 4 Type 416 Stainless is not a good material for sub-gun barrels

file:///C:/Users/Miguel Mondaca/Desktop/SVI/Barrels breack/pagina/Infinity Barrels and Compensators.html

[RIIID]

Just an observation of a few decades of shooting and pistolsmithing IPSC guns, I've seen barrels split, cracked, ruptured, bulged and what ever adjective you can come up with. Nearly all of them had the same common factor reloaded ammo and I've seen a couple damaged by name brand ammo. I've had a couple fail while I was shooting them. I personally witnessed the most catastrophic failure to date, an Open pistol(brand new) shooting steel loads, the very first stage two rounds fire two poppers fell and the only parts that were reusable was the mag well and mainspring housing the dot landed in the next bay over. The shooter had a minor cut and a little rattled.

 

The vast majority of these failures occurred after the power factor was lowered. An under charge can be just as destructive as an over charge. Anyone who shoots reloads accepts the risks when doing so, some manufactures even state shooting reloads will void the warranty. If you reload use due diligence  when doing so and accept the responsibility that goes with it.

 

As to the issue of the original post was it poor quality barrel material or poor quality ammo that caused the failure it will probably be never known. Since the original poster likes to quote Shuemann's info maybe you should do some research and find out who set up SV in barrel making.

Rich

[CalTeacher]

Interesting that SVI just came out with a barrel labeled “strength, velocity, precision” made out of 4340.

[MartnH]

Interesting sv has not responded to op
Is that normal? Or they know fanboys will defend them

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

[HIREDgun45]

3 hours ago, MartnH said:

Interesting sv has not responded to op
Is that normal? Or they know fanboys will defend them

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk
 

 

 

Go back to page 4.  On March 29th, op posted that SV/Sandy Strayer sent him a reply on Jan 26, 2020.  SV requested the barrel be sent to them but op refused to do so until he gets 'test certificates'

Edited April 15, 2020 by HIREDgun45
sp

[Cardinal]

But you do realize its most often not as simple as putting the barrel in box and popping it the mail for us outside the US, right?

Barrels are frequently a restricted item, sometimes with extra paperwork/licensing.

[HIREDgun45]

17 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

But you do realize its most often not as simple as putting the barrel in box and popping it the mail for us outside the US, right?

Barrels are frequently a restricted item, sometimes with extra paperwork/licensing.

 

But that's not why he isn't sending it back.

[HIREDgun45]

On 4/4/2020 at 7:15 AM, MIGUEL said:

file:///C:/Users/Miguel Mondaca/Desktop/SVI/Barrels breack/pagina/Infinity Barrels and Compensators.html

"On 4/4/2020 at 7:13 AM, MIGUEL said:

the shuemann informe.

Problem number 5: Because of Problems 1, 2, 3, and 4 Type 416 Stainless is not a good material for sub-gun barrels"

 

 

 

 

SO what are your thoughts on number 6 in the Schuemann Barrel Steel document?

[lneel]

While certainly difficult to tell exactly what happened, there is no doubt this is a severe over-pressure event and not just an issue with the material. The barrel failing at multiple different points, having enough pressure to also fracture the slide so badly as well as blow everything out the bottom of the magazine is not caused by a simple barrel failure. While no one ever wants to blame themselves for either a squib and cranking another one off or a double charge the evidence I can see surely looks that way. We see chronograph results of Open. Limited and Single Stack shooters all the time in the 190PF range at major matches almost every L2 and up matches. Those are ALL WAY over-pressure from SAAMI spec (with very few exceptions) but we don't have catastrophic barrel failure all over the place. The reason is that barrel can take a lot of pressure, just not double/squib pressure.

[louu]

Why is this thread still going on? He's never going to admit he f*#ked up 

[pjb45]

15 hours ago, louu said:

Why is this thread still going on? He's never going to admit he f*#ked up 

+1 then +1. I personally know Sandy. The guy is an anal retentive type when it comes to materials and engineering.  FYI; I spent 7 years in a high energy physics weapons lab with 25 PhDs.  I might have a little sense about quality. . Not much but a little. 

[shred]

FWIW, the lab specs posted were close enough to 416R that it could well be made of that.

Also the lab report says this wasn't just from one event, it was a slow-growing crack that finally "failed rapidly". So entirely likely not a squib or double charge that did the final blow up, just a leetle crack that grew and grew over time until the remaining metal couldn't hold anymore. That's pretty much how airplanes fall from the sky these days too.

[TONY BARONE]

How about a thorough inspection of the reloads.

[ltdmstr]

2 hours ago, shred said:

FWIW, the lab specs posted were close enough to 416R that it could well be made of that.

Also the lab report says this wasn't just from one event, it was a slow-growing crack that finally "failed rapidly". So entirely likely not a squib or double charge that did the final blow up, just a leetle crack that grew and grew over time until the remaining metal couldn't hold anymore. That's pretty much how airplanes fall from the sky these days too.

 

The OP started by asserting that 416R is inappropriate for use as barrel material.  That's simply incorrect.  It's an industry standard for that specific application.  I even posted above a list of 1911/2011 barrel manufacturers that use 416R, and it's pretty much every big name company.  I'm sure if I kept going, I'd find more.  So that, in itself, is not a problem.  And assuming the lab report is correct about the crack developing over time leading to ultimate failure, that doesn't change the fact that there's no way you'd have that much damage to the frame, slide, and other major parts of the firearm without some form of massive pressure event.  I've seen barrels fail, double charges, squibs, and pretty much everything over the years, and none of those come close to the amount of damage this guy had.  Add to that the fact that he did it twice!  Also, if the barrel material were defective, there would be other examples of such failure from barrels that came from the same lot.  That hasn't been the case as far as I'm aware.  So all indications point to the OP.  Not saying the barrel material wasn't a contributing factor, but it seems very unlikely that's the whole story here.  Most likely, it was exposed to excessive pressure repeatedly over a period of time, which compromised the material and resulted in failure.  That would be entirely consistent with the lab report, and explain the damage to the various other parts of the firearm.

[MIGUEL]

On 4/3/2020 at 7:12 PM, jschroep said:

Can we get a working link to the report again? I'm not seeing what material is used on the SVI barrels on the website. Also in the original post it was stated that the material used to manufacture the barrels is 416R, That's the material that was recommended in the article that posted from schuemann. So was the original post wrong in saying that the barrel was made with 416R and it is actually made with 416? 

 

I really think it is irresponsible as a reloader to not consider that there could be quality issues with the ammo. 

 

It was also previously stated that bullet setback is not an issue with 38 super ( or was it 38 supercomp?) I have a hard time reconciling that in my engineering mind pressure should increase if volume decreases? IE the bullet is setback further in the case.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XJdFuxRq5VAnBqKzBqTmHTuFrvPurIn1

[TONY BARONE]

A lot of analysis of the barrel but none of the reloads. 

[lneel]

With the pic of the right side of the barrel with the crack starting half way down the barrel there is even more evidence of a squip/barrel obstructution with a subsequent round fired causing the over-pressure failure. Still would love to get the barrel back to Sandy for analysis.

[Whoops!]

Just wow.  So many people trying to defend a firearms company.  And, why exactly?

 

Let me break this down.  

 

Sandy, the engineer/creator at SVI, had NOTHING to do with this error and did NOTHING wrong in design of the pistol (at least from a readily accepted barrel design standpoint).

 

Miguel, the OP did NOTHING wrong - as evidenced by a VERY conclusive and well made report.  THANK YOU MIGUEL FOR PUTTING IN THE EXTRA EFFORT TO PROVE IT WAS NOT A FAULT WITH YOUR RELOADS.  

 

THE STEEL MILL IS AT FAULT HERE.  THEY PROVIDED SVI WITH INFERIOR MATERIAL - AS IS COMMON WITH METAL PROVIDERS AROUND THE GLOBE.  SVI COULD HAVE TESTED THE METAL SUPPLY MORE FREQUENTLY, AS SOME COMPANIES ARE NOW DOING (NASA INCLUDED), BUT THIS IS NOT THEIR ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY.  THE CONTRACT SVI HAS WITH THE STEEL MILL WAS VIOLATED BY THE METAL PROVIDER AND SVI HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT WOULD BE. 

 

STEEL MILLS AROUND THE WORLD ARE SCAMMING MANUFACTURERS BY NOT PROVIDING THEM WITH PROPER MATERIALS, THERE ARE MANY REPORTS ON THIS THROUGHOUT MANY DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES.  IT IS DANGEROUS FOR US, THE END USERS, AND IT IS NOT JUST HAPPENING WITH SVI.  IT IS LIKELY HAPPENING TO EVERY SLIDE AND BARREL MANUFACTURER OUT THERE, WHICH IS QUITE LIKELY WHY SLIDES ARE CRACKING AT SUCH RANDOM ROUND COUNTS EVEN FROM THE EXACT SAME MANUFACTURER AND WITH SIMILAR SPEC AMMO.

 

Now that this has been broken down, does anyone have any questions? 

 

Look guys, you can tell by my past threads that I will equally blame the user, the firearms company, or now, the metal provider if they are at fault.  There is rarely just one entity to blame.  I strongly encourage everyone to read into situations the best they can.  Let's make our own decisions, not let others make them for us.  

Edited April 27, 2020 by Whoops!

[Brooke]

Liked its not the buyers responsibility to assure the materials he obtains meet his requirements. Its not my fault finger pointing is pretty popular now. f*#k that!

[MartnH]

Can any fan boy respond to the report? Have you read it?

 

Expression of your loyalty or affections to a brand doesn't help.

 

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[Whoops!]

5 hours ago, Brooke said:

Liked its not the buyers responsibility to assure the materials he obtains meet his requirements. Its not my fault finger pointing is pretty popular now. f*#k that!

 

This is a great point and I didn’t want to get into it in my original post because of how long and complicated it would be.

 

Let me try to discuss some of it now.

 

Most manufacturers have contracts with their material providers stating the specs of the material they are purchasing.

 

This is easy if you are an assembler of handguns, because it is easy to say slides suitable for normal use with a 1911 - or something along those lines.

 

This is harder with a grass roots manufacturer like SVI who is sourcing the base material.  They would need to specify metal contents and functions if they want to properly lay out their purchase.

 

In order to prove it was an issue with their supplier, SVI may then have some obligation to show their end manufacturing methods were suitable for the task at hand.

 

In one of SVI’s e-mails, it sounded like they knew what they were doing in this regard because they cited an abnormal composition of .5% from the metallurgical report in the metal that was used in the barrel.

 

If they continue to go down that path, (which, they would likely need the actual barrel in order to do that) then SVI appears to be doing the right thing in terms of addressing their contract with their material provider and essentially saying, “Why the hell are you giving us the wrong material?”

 

This all being said, I don’t have any personal exposure to the situation listed in this thread, besides what is listed in this thread.  Read the facts and make up your own mind.

[ltdmstr]

7 hours ago, Whoops! said:

Just wow.  So many people trying to defend a firearms company.  And, why exactly?

 

Let me break this down.  

 

Sandy, the engineer/creator at SVI, had NOTHING to do with this error and did NOTHING wrong in design of the pistol (at least from a readily accepted barrel design standpoint).

 

Miguel, the OP did NOTHING wrong - as evidenced by a VERY conclusive and well made report.  THANK YOU MIGUEL FOR PUTTING IN THE EXTRA EFFORT TO PROVE IT WAS NOT A FAULT WITH YOUR RELOADS.  

 

THE STEEL MILL IS AT FAULT HERE.  THEY PROVIDED SVI WITH INFERIOR MATERIAL - AS IS COMMON WITH METAL PROVIDERS AROUND THE GLOBE.  SVI COULD HAVE TESTED THE METAL SUPPLY MORE FREQUENTLY, AS SOME COMPANIES ARE NOW DOING (NASA INCLUDED), BUT THIS IS NOT THEIR ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY.  THE CONTRACT SVI HAS WITH THE STEEL MILL WAS VIOLATED BY THE METAL PROVIDER AND SVI HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT WOULD BE. 

 

STEEL MILLS AROUND THE WORLD ARE SCAMMING MANUFACTURERS BY NOT PROVIDING THEM WITH PROPER MATERIALS, THERE ARE MANY REPORTS ON THIS THROUGHOUT MANY DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES.  IT IS DANGEROUS FOR US, THE END USERS, AND IT IS NOT JUST HAPPENING WITH SVI.  IT IS LIKELY HAPPENING TO EVERY SLIDE AND BARREL MANUFACTURER OUT THERE, WHICH IS QUITE LIKELY WHY SLIDES ARE CRACKING AT SUCH RANDOM ROUND COUNTS EVEN FROM THE EXACT SAME MANUFACTURER AND WITH SIMILAR SPEC AMMO.

 

Now that this has been broken down, does anyone have any questions? 

 

Look guys, you can tell by my past threads that I will equally blame the user, the firearms company, or now, the metal provider if they are at fault.  There is rarely just one entity to blame.  I strongly encourage everyone to read into situations the best they can.  Let's make our own decisions, not let others make them for us.  

 

I don't read the prior comments as people trying to defend a firearm company, but rather, providing their opinions on the basis of much experience and knowledge.  To that end, I'm not sure how you know with such certainty it's the steel manufacturer that's at fault here, and not one or more of the other parties involved.  It's also interesting that you chastise others for suggesting the OP or SV may be at fault, when you know for certain it's the steel company, then close by suggesting that we "make our own decisions, not let other make them for us."  I'll agree with that last commet.  The rest, not so much.

[Whoops!]

Just now, ltdmstr said:

 

I don't read the prior comments as people trying to defend a firearm company, but rather, providing their opinions on the basis of much experience and knowledge.  To that end, I'm not sure how you know with such certainty it's the steel manufacturer that's at fault here, and not one or more of the other parties involved.  It's also interesting that you chastise others for suggesting the OP or SV may be at fault, when you know for certain it's the steel company, then close by suggesting that we "make our own decisions, not let other make them for us."  I'll agree with that last commet.  The rest, not so much.

It’s very obvious and aligns with everything thus far provided and other industry interactions.

[ltdmstr]

There's no way to know for sure from the information that's been provided.  And the lab report cited by OP isn't definitive.  For example, even though it points to inclusions in the metal, that's always going to be the case at a microscopic level.  It doesn't address the possibility that even with the inclusions, the material fell within industry specifications for 416R, and therefore, was suitable for the application.  It also doesn't address the possibility that OP's ammo was a contributing factor.  It's very possible the OP's ammo subjected the metal to pressures that exceeded the limits of the material, and did so repeatedly.  And that resulted in a crack, that grew, and ultimately caused the barrel to fail.  There's noting in the lab report, or information that's been provided so far, that would contradict that scenario.  Also, from an evidentiary standpoint, if it were the material or manufacturing process, you'd have a number of failures from barrels that came from the same lot.  As far as anyone is aware, that hasn't been the case.  And what are the odds that of the small number of failures from this manufacturer's barrels, OP has two such examples, absent something on his end?