BrokenArrow
New member
From an old 1991 case. Could say the same about Glock 40/45s? I know I've seen more Glocks blow up than Berettas. Maybe Glock is just better (more generous?) at settling out of court and gagging everybody (I know that has happened)?
Don't freak out guys! The Beretta and the Glock are both excellent pistols. I do not hesitate to use either.
>"That the chamber of the Beretta pistol is not fully supported and the cartridge burst took place at the approximately 6 o'clock position where the chamber gives very little support as it is cut away to provide a feed ramp for the rounds entering the chamber from the magazine located in the grip of
the gun;
"XII.
"That the round that ruptured was overloaded with powder, but overloads are a common occurrence and well known in the industry as is the use of reloaded or remanufactured ammunition, and that cartridge casings become thinned and weakened when reloaded or remanufactured.
"XIII.
"That it was demonstrated to the Court's satisfaction that the overload,
and/or the condition of the cartridge casing, was not the sole cause of
Plaintiff's injury;
"XIV.
"That the design of the Beretta pistol was such that it permitted an overloaded cartridge to more easily rupture since there is insufficient support at the chamber's entrance;
"XV.
"That the evidence supports the finding that in this case the gas from the burst cartridge filled the trigger well and then blew out the hole beneath the trigger bar and up against the trigger bar. The metal pieces which struck Plaintiff's face and eye may have been deflected backward off the
inside surface of the trigger bar, but very likely could have also come from
the top of the open chamber.
"XVI.
"That it is found that other 9mm pistols do have better supported chambers and provide a route for escaping gases which pose less danger to the shooter. Alternative designs rendering the gun less dangerous were
available;
* * * * *
"XVIII.
"That the subject pistol was unreasonabl[y] defective and dangerous because of an inadequately supported chamber and that the injury would not have occurred in an adequately supported chamber. Likewise the design of the trigger bar and venting system was such as to render the gun defective and
unreasonably dangerous when used with overloaded ammunition;
* * * * *
"XXI.
"That the Plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by the combination of an
overloaded cartridge and a defectively designed gun in equal proportion."(1)
------------------
>>>>---->
Don't freak out guys! The Beretta and the Glock are both excellent pistols. I do not hesitate to use either.
>"That the chamber of the Beretta pistol is not fully supported and the cartridge burst took place at the approximately 6 o'clock position where the chamber gives very little support as it is cut away to provide a feed ramp for the rounds entering the chamber from the magazine located in the grip of
the gun;
"XII.
"That the round that ruptured was overloaded with powder, but overloads are a common occurrence and well known in the industry as is the use of reloaded or remanufactured ammunition, and that cartridge casings become thinned and weakened when reloaded or remanufactured.
"XIII.
"That it was demonstrated to the Court's satisfaction that the overload,
and/or the condition of the cartridge casing, was not the sole cause of
Plaintiff's injury;
"XIV.
"That the design of the Beretta pistol was such that it permitted an overloaded cartridge to more easily rupture since there is insufficient support at the chamber's entrance;
"XV.
"That the evidence supports the finding that in this case the gas from the burst cartridge filled the trigger well and then blew out the hole beneath the trigger bar and up against the trigger bar. The metal pieces which struck Plaintiff's face and eye may have been deflected backward off the
inside surface of the trigger bar, but very likely could have also come from
the top of the open chamber.
"XVI.
"That it is found that other 9mm pistols do have better supported chambers and provide a route for escaping gases which pose less danger to the shooter. Alternative designs rendering the gun less dangerous were
available;
* * * * *
"XVIII.
"That the subject pistol was unreasonabl[y] defective and dangerous because of an inadequately supported chamber and that the injury would not have occurred in an adequately supported chamber. Likewise the design of the trigger bar and venting system was such as to render the gun defective and
unreasonably dangerous when used with overloaded ammunition;
* * * * *
"XXI.
"That the Plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by the combination of an
overloaded cartridge and a defectively designed gun in equal proportion."(1)
------------------
>>>>---->