Search the internets... you can find a lot of videos where rifles come apart during firing. You have 2 different failures that can happen. Out of battery and in battery. In battery is always way worse, as the pressure is contained. Maybe we can get 12 of those explosive slap rounds and blow up every 50bmg on the market. I'm guessing most guns would provide an outcome that would be less than perfect. I had a case separation in my 1919 and luckily my face wasn't near the top cover plate. You never know what you could get with old military ammo or unknown reloads. That round was way overpressure and made the pressure too quickly. It would have been a bomb in any gun and the shooter was very lucky. Seems like a decent guy who won't push a law suit and the last thing we need is attention drawn to the 50bmg round.
First, an out-of-battery failure in a properly-designed bolt action is worse. In-battery, a properly-designed bolt-action directs the gases away from the user, with little or no harm. Out-of-battery events (caused by "hang fires") have been known to severely injure shooters when the bolt is ejected rearward. So, please, if I'm shooting a firearm not designed by a muppet, please have the round fire in-battery.
You keep on making two assumptions in the process of writing off this event:
1) That the round was overpressure
2) That any other gun would have failed just as catastrophically
I don't believe that #1 is correct because of the ease with which the remains of the suspect round was removed from the chamber in Serbu's latest video. That doesn't match my experience in removing stuck brass from chambers when exceeding the limits of good judgement.
We know that #2 isn't right because case head separations (or "sneezes", as Chad Dixon amusingly refers to them) don't routinely cause rifles to spontaneously disassemble. In fact, some rifles will withstand blocked-muzzle and even blocked-breech events without any structural failures.
We can indeed find plenty of videos on the internet of Kabooms. It's
extremely uncommon to find ones that result in serious injuries. And it's even less often that we get a "manufacturer" (quotes because I'm using that term in the loosest possible sense) who confesses to performing only the most rudimentary analysis after the kaboom occurred, and then expresses surprise as to the nature of the failure upon physical inspection of the article in question.
The bottom line is that this design never took into account the possibility of a case head separation, and that actual test-to-failure never occurred because Serbu would have known how this would come apart.
Maybe he even would have fixed it before putting it on the market.
In a properly-functioning free market, good ideas are rewarded and bad ideas are punished. This idea deserves to be punished. For the sake of your own reputation, please stop trying to defend this thing.
