one less amt v ser 1916

have to agree with George i wont be shooting one either....he was lucky

I guess this CIP standard is something, but in all honesty I would have more questions about it than faith it is a true qualitative assessment.

How is this testing done, in what volume, by whom, ETC, Etc, etc. 

The reality of our world is that poor or limited testing (with best intentions) can too often amount to nothing.  Usage, production variances, quality inconsistency per batch and over time, wear and tear, metal stress, human and machine error, all add up to disaster if the testing is poor, limited, done by minimally trained staff or uninvested staff, or tired staff and all under what conditions, in a lab under perfect temp/humidity/at sea level/etc. 

Not saying don't test at all, I'm saying meaningful testing is expensive, done several times by different people, under varying conditions, and MANY times!

Think of the Pasadena sales picture of the gun on a pile of brass.  There was a similar picture of the Beretta 92 when they were trying to get the US govt to adopt it.  Sure there are cases where limited testing is sufficient, but thats usually when something fails quickly/easily. 

I dont have any answers about this, hence my saying I wont be shooting one not even just to try it, its just not worth it to me. 

And this CIP testing is certainly better than nothing, but just how extensive it is, well I'm doubting they are running any significant number of rounds of varied ammo through any single gun.  And running a few rounds or even a box through of a single brand and type of ammo will only produce a limited finding. 

So we are back to, what testing did AMT do?  That would be very helpful to know.

Regardless of all the above, this gun blew up!  Its suffered a catastrophic failure, of a critical part and the shooter was at risk for injury.  Everyone should look very closely at that picture and then carefully inspect their guns before shooting them again.  Then going forward these guns should be shot with carefully selected ammo and very closely inspected on a pretty regular bases or risk similar failure and possible injury.

You can argue these cautions, karma often protects those who walk blindly into the puddle, my karma is such if in knowingly walk blindly into the puddle it will be up to my ankles!  So as I said, I will not be shooting one. 

For those who do continue to use them, I hope with all sincerity you never suffer that kind of failure.

GH

Hi George,

About the CIP standard and testing, you can find more info at the link:

http://www.bancdepreuves.be/homologation-controle-des-munitions.asp if you can read French or Flemish. Sorry they have no English website. This is the Belgian proofhouse, and they are the only independed authority to prooftesting guns and ammo for our country.

They have special equipment for ammotesting (pressure).

About testing firearms, EACH firearm sold in Belgium and other countries IS tested with a (30%) overloaded pressure cartridge.That's the reason you see the stamps (markings) on all guns in europe. No-one can sell an uproofed firearm overhere.

So, with this CIP testing, we know that the AMT V didn't blew up at a 30% higher pressure than standard CIP rounds. Thus George, stating that this pistol is a troubling situation makes no sence to me. That is what CIP aproval is all about, if the ammunition is within the CIP standard, the pistol should not be explode in normal conditions. Not talking about bore obstruction etc....

 

In case of the Original poster, he said the gun blew up at the first magsafe round. 

Sooo, how much pressure was the +P 50AE round then????

 

About testing costs, yes it's not cheap, but nobody selling firearms overhere can't get around this.

Maybe that's why people don't understand why things here cost twice the price as in the US 

 

I agree with you that testing every single bullet is impossible, but in the worst case we have some indication about batches of ammo. Ammo has batch numbers, data etc. so each lotnumber should have the same components and give the same result in testing. If you have more cartridges from the same lotnumber, you have something to prove or make a point. If they are not within CIP standards, you can start a lawsuit, but then again, good lawyers are expensive to

 

Like I said, to each his own, but if a pistol has passed the prooftest with +30% pressure, I would'n say it's unsafe to shoot one with good reliable ammo or safe reloads. (If you know what you're doing)

As far the ammo, that's the hardest part to proof what happend, all we see is that the gun blew up, what exactly was in the shell no one will ever know... 

 

One thing is for sure, it was more that enough,

and I'm not the one trying to find out should Danko has some ammo left over...