Elite Ammunition ProtecTOR II Problem

[HK SD9 Tactical]

I'm sorry I'm a person who covers all possibilites before blaming someone for something. I thought this thread was going to be heavily moderated to keep the flibber flabber crap out of here..

You are correct. I will review the entire thread.

[Furyataurus]

Your first post is from TC#1 and the other post from Buffman - where you reference your first post from TC#1.

I smell a troll.

-TH

I don't know......

His 1st part "ohh forgot to add in my original post I chrono'd pro II at 1710~fps (average) in 70*F weather." Has nothing to do with the pic he posted and he never claimed that pic was his own pic that he took of the different types of spent casings.

[HK SD9 Tactical]

I will remind everyone involved to keep an open mind and to keep this thread on track.

If I have to edit a post, I have to edit all responses that quote the post. Editing someones post is not a task taken lightly. An outright deletion of a members post can results in a loss of valuable information. Please keep this in mind when posting.

[Buffman]

I don't know......

His 1st part "ohh forgot to add in my original post I chrono'd pro II at 1710~fps (average) in 70*F weather." Has nothing to do with the pic he posted and he never claimed that pic was his own pic that he took of the different types of spent casings.

This was meant to state to post 11 that was automoderated and was my original reply...

[Valorius]

That's due to the PS90 having a longer barrel and as a result, the system is corked (dwell) for a longer duration (time) which allows the moving parts assembly to move rearward. In the pistol, this (time) is significantly less and shoulder movement, along with everything else associated (signs) of over-pressure are less likely to occur.

What appears safe in the FsN can be very detrimental to the PS90. Oh, and the shooter of the PS90 as well.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the PS90, is it?

[jhs27275]

Not really.

Even FN has a round designed just for the PS and they suggest it not be used in the pistol.

[Valorius]

Me and another poster will be testing Elite Protector II from a FsN vs a level IIIA vest and 1/4", 3/8" and 9/16" hard fiberglass ballistics tiles (then into ballistics gel after penetration) in the next few weeks to a month here. I'll post a link to the videos when it's all ready to go.

We'll also be testing Elite Protector I, Protector III, Protector IV (brand new loading), S4M and new style all copper T6.

[Operator]

I would NEVER advise someone to tell on themselves...as in contact FN and tell them they had fired handloaded, or otherwise potentially non-spec ammunition. Whether anyone likes it or not, firearms manufacturers cannot avoid civil liability with a simple disclaimer. Any manufacturer must consider that handloads WILL be used, and that said handloads will potentially exceed established safe chamber pressures. This is PRECISELY why gun manufacturers test their designs with "blue pills" considerably higher than "normal," yet even that does not automatically result in escape from liability. Despite what "we" think is the answer to errant blowups, the fact is, FN manufactures a mechanical device that MIGHT be damaged by a person using handloads and they cannot pretend they do not know this. The average consumer tends to assign "blame" to the end-user, yet he or she should NOT be assumed to have been culpable in a damaged firearm until EVERY variable is explored. Many firearms marketed today come with sub-standard engineering that puts the user at risk. FN CHOSE to make the FiveSeven blowback, and they did so KNOWING a certain portion of end-users would likely fire "reloaded ammo" through their product, ammo that would deviate significantly from the standard time-pressure curve, and their own in-house testing should have validated the operational parameters of the firearm versus ammunition pressure.
One must be aware there is a HUGE difference between an exploded firearm where the actual metal fails at chamber pressure, versus one where the basic components WOULD have held had the DESIGN been such to contain pressure.
"Early" opening is NOT a simple failure of the base material, but a compound failure related to a non-locking action that CAN-and the manufacturer KNOWs it can, open more rapidly than normal if the end user is firing ammunition that exhibits a different pressure curve.
In 40 years of "reloading" ammo I've blown up a few guns, and I've "assumed" the fault was mine. This, while and honorable notion, may not in fact be valid and firearms makers absolutely KNOW the end-user is likely to insert a "non-spec" cartridge, and of course they ATTEMPT to limit liability with a print warning. Thankfully most of the shooting world is composed of people who are highly responsible, and devoid of the victim mentality, however it only take ONE....
I live in Kalifornia...I would EXPECT if ANY gun - including the FiveSeven were to "blow up" a lawsuit would be filed, and despite any and all warnings about handloaded ammo, the FACT that the end user CAN use handloaded ammo creates a potentially massive liability. If a JURY sees a guy sitting there minus a HAND, any and all protestations about how the plaintiff should have "known better" or "the print warranty was clear..." will do little to sway a jury. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act provides the consumer with a clear directive.
The DESIGN of a firearm should NEVER be so narrowly tuned that it cannot tolerate ammunition "reasonably" out of spec.

[marinedoc187]

I think you make a good argument there, but where do you draw the line? A firearms manufacturer produces a product that is built and tested with specific limitations. They have no ability to control the actions of some bonehead who improperly loads ammo or blatantly and willfully misuses the product.

Sure, they can anticipate that someone might load a double charge. They could also anticipate that someone might use the weapon in a murderous shooting spree. I see no reason the manufacturer should be held responsible for either.

[HK SD9 Tactical]

I would NEVER advise someone to tell on themselves...as in contact FN and tell them they had fired handloaded, or otherwise potentially non-spec ammunition. Whether anyone likes it or not, firearms manufacturers cannot avoid civil liability with a simple disclaimer. Any manufacturer must consider that handloads WILL be used, and that said handloads will potentially exceed established safe chamber pressures. This is PRECISELY why gun manufacturers test their designs with "blue pills" considerably higher than "normal," yet even that does not automatically result in escape from liability. Despite what "we" think is the answer to errant blowups, the fact is, FN manufactures a mechanical device that MIGHT be damaged by a person using handloads and they cannot pretend they do not know this. The average consumer tends to assign "blame" to the end-user, yet he or she should NOT be assumed to have been culpable in a damaged firearm until EVERY variable is explored. Many firearms marketed today come with sub-standard engineering that puts the user at risk. FN CHOSE to make the FiveSeven blowback, and they did so KNOWING a certain portion of end-users would likely fire "reloaded ammo" through their product, ammo that would deviate significantly from the standard time-pressure curve, and their own in-house testing should have validated the operational parameters of the firearm versus ammunition pressure.
One must be aware there is a HUGE difference between an exploded firearm where the actual metal fails at chamber pressure, versus one where the basic components WOULD have held had the DESIGN been such to contain pressure.
"Early" opening is NOT a simple failure of the base material, but a compound failure related to a non-locking action that CAN-and the manufacturer KNOWs it can, open more rapidly than normal if the end user is firing ammunition that exhibits a different pressure curve.
In 40 years of "reloading" ammo I've blown up a few guns, and I've "assumed" the fault was mine. This, while and honorable notion, may not in fact be valid and firearms makers absolutely KNOW the end-user is likely to insert a "non-spec" cartridge, and of course they ATTEMPT to limit liability with a print warning. Thankfully most of the shooting world is composed of people who are highly responsible, and devoid of the victim mentality, however it only take ONE....
I live in Kalifornia...I would EXPECT if ANY gun - including the FiveSeven were to "blow up" a lawsuit would be filed, and despite any and all warnings about handloaded ammo, the FACT that the end user CAN use handloaded ammo creates a potentially massive liability. If a JURY sees a guy sitting there minus a HAND, any and all protestations about how the plaintiff should have "known better" or "the print warranty was clear..." will do little to sway a jury. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act provides the consumer with a clear directive.
The DESIGN of a firearm should NEVER be so narrowly tuned that it cannot tolerate ammunition "reasonably" out of spec.

I guess that car manufacturers should be held liable for someone driving off a cliff because they should have "forseen" this as a potential problem. You cook and spill grease on your stove and a fire burns down your house, you are responsible not the stove manufacturer (or electric or gas company) because they should have "forseen" this as a potential problem. You play with fire, you should understand the potential for getting burned. It's not the matchstick manufacturers problem if you screw up.

There is no such thing as "reasonably out of spec" with cartridges. You roll your own, you are responsible for the end result. NOT the manufacturer of the firearm. I have been reloading on and off for more than 40 years and I have NEVER blown up a gun.

Christ, whatever happened to "you take responsibility for your own actions".

Lying is lying, cheating is cheating and stealing is stealing. It is not "Oh, I mis-spoke", "I didn't know that I could not copy from my neighbors paper" or "you really wanted me to have that anyways so I just took it thus saving you the time and trouble of giving it to me".

Please provide the proof to support your statement of "Many firearms marketed today come with sub-standard engineering that puts the user at risk."