Embrace The Truth - Catastrophic Gun Failure

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't understand how a broken stock constitutes an "out of speck gun blow up"
Click to expand...
Me either, since it appears the only thing that broke was the stock.
I've seen this same thread on at least 3 other sites too, so it seems it's being spammed around a lot
 
But again, the OP has not given us all of the facts. Regardless, if anything, this reinforces to me, the need to stay below max for my handloads. Additionally, it was alluded in one of the posts that the injury was to the OP's eyes, again showing the need for safety eyewear.
Click to expand...

Slightly off-topic but along the same lines:

Am I the only one to try to back off to find low pressure signs and work up from there to the first accuracy node?

This hasn't only been to save powder. I find that, at least in 7.62x54r (where I've done the most work) that load data differs greatly between publishers.

For example, one publisher's STARTING load is above another's MAX load.

I don't do this with slow powders due to flashover possibilities (though I'm still up in the air about whether these occur, I don't chance it.) Rather, I go with medium powers like Varget when I do this.

Regards,

Josh
 
Josh,

I think most of us posting in this thread do the same as you! For one thing, most of the max loads are not the most accurate loads (at least for me), and as soon as I see a pressure hint, I try to find out why.

Even with all we have posting, a commonality with the thread that we are all asking for more details. I would like to know the OP's experience level (though sometimes that doesn't mean much). I would also like to know equipment (and familiarity) powder user, primers, where the load recipe came from how many of the handloads went through the TC before the failure, did the OP examine the cases for signs of pressure, and so forth. Basically, I would like to know if there is something I (and others) need to watch for in my/their TC's.

Question for the legal minds here: in a civil case, how does jury selection occur? Is it a jury of peers or what is the selection criteria?
 
I have a friend that shoots a 338 Win Mag Encore.If there was any useful information given,I'd share it with him.Unfortunately,there is not.

I'm not sure what this post was intended to accomplish.

I have undeniably been given,at best,a partial truth.Significant information is left out.

It was written to generate sympathy for the victim,it seems to me.

Am I then supposed to focus outrage on the evil corporate firearms manufacturer ? HMMM.

What I would find interesting is the other side of the story.Does anyone know a T/C or S+W rep who could post a rebuttal?
Hmmm.I may know of a S+W rep I can contact.
 
Embrace The Truth - Catastrophic Gun Failure
Click to expand...
Not exactly the best title for a thread that isn't about a gun blowing up. Like as in the frame, and barrel are separated, the frame is in pieces, and the barrel is split open.
Embrace The Truth - The Stock Broke!
Somebody was able to cherry pick a jury of anti-gun people who knew very little about firearms!
 
I will repeat what I have posted and what several others have posted: I would like to see the facts (load data, equipment type and so forth) that led to the failure. I can't ignore the OP stating he was loading at maximums, for without absolute care, it is not that difficult to go beyond the maximums WITHOUT knowing. Also, did the OP have any of his loads remaining that were examined for content and technique? If so, what were the findings?

Without facts, I am ignoring any "truth" whatsoever in what Mr. Ward posted. With facts, what he encountered may be very helpful to many of us.
 
I care little about the load data, or if he was near max or not. Rifle powder in a rifle case, even compressed, is extremely hard to get a load that will cause a failure in an Encore. Having blown up over a dozen guns for testing and legal cases on purpose, it takes a lot!

The only thing relevant is proof that the weapon fired unlocked, or that the stock was loose and broke upon firing. Based on my limited research of the specific case, those appear to be the two theories of failure, either of which any expert worth their salt should have been able to prove.
 
I am not sure the following load data will help in determining what happened, but this was posted on the now locked thread on THR.


"The gun was a few years old.-CENSORED-
Number of rounds 100-300 mostly factory rounds.
The load on my hunt when the gun failed was- Remington brass - 215 primers - 180g Nosler accubond – H-1000 83g if memory serves…… I would need to confirm with my gunsmith /expert. I loaded those cases over 10 years ago"

(Not sure why the CENSORED appeared. It was a copy/paste from THR and there wasn't a word after 'old - ")
 
My takeaway -

Yet one more of the many reasons I don't reload. If one of my guns has a catastrophic failure and I'm injured (or someone else) I don't want any question about who is partially liable.

In this case I'm betting that 40% contributory liability amounted to a significant amount of money (far more than reloading saved Mr. Ward).

Factoring in the consequences of a mistake in reloading, the time reloading takes, the space reloading takes, and the zero value reloads have to others on a resale purpose, I don't reload.

I have a few boxes of other people's reloads that I need to dispose of - probably give them off to a reloader to pull and start over.
 
I think that is a poor takeaway leadcounsel.

I have loaded over 500K rounds of ammo. I have shot close to 100K rounds of factory ammo. I have had 3 squibs, one hangfire and one box of over-pressure ammo...all of it factory and NO problems ever due to handloaded ammo.
 
Factoring in the consequences of a mistake in reloading, the time reloading takes, the space reloading takes, and the zero value reloads have to others on a resale purpose
Click to expand...
All the wrong factors indeed.
Mistakes can be made, but diligence in reloading procedures lessen them to some miniscule percentage of being injured in an accident on your way to buy factory ammo
The "time" is time well spent as part of the hobby of shooting.
The space my loading bench occupies a couple feet across the width of my gun room. That includes both loading bench, and boolet casting table.
The "value" to others is meaningless. The value to me in relaxation, interest, more economical shooting, and ammo custom tailored to optimise the accuracy of my guns is priceless.
 
All the wrong factors indeed.
Mistakes can be made, but diligence in reloading procedures lessen them to some miniscule percentage of being injured in an accident on your way to buy factory ammo
The "time" is time well spent as part of the hobby of shooting.
The space my loading bench occupies a couple feet across the width of my gun room. That includes both loading bench, and boolet casting table.
The "value" to others is meaningless. The value to me in relaxation, interest, more economical shooting, and ammo custom tailored to optimise the accuracy of my guns is priceless.
Click to expand...

You've entirely missed the point. According to the OP the reloaded ammo was within specs. But the gun still exploded, causing injury.

However, the Jury confused the issues and only awarded him 60% recovery and found him 40% liable for using reloaded ammo (in spite of, even if we assume, the ammo was exactly the same as factory ammo).

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the recover was $1,000,000 for pain, suffering, medical, and punitive damages. That means that he would forfeit 40% (or $400,000) for his own apparent contributory negligence. So in this case, reloading cost him $400,000.

The other point I was making was that if he had used factory ammo, he could have also sued, and possibly recovered, from the ammo maker if the ammo was the cause.

If I reload and use reloaded ammo in my gun and it explodes, I have nobody to blame but myself. Using reloads now may sever gun liability (or greatly diminish it) and there's no ammo company to pursue; conversely, if federal sends me a defective batch and I lose my eye, my hand, and my gun, I have someone to hold liable.
 
I don't think we are going to get an engineering analysis from Brian Ward, and any opinions I am going to offer will be at best, half assed.

However, I looked at an exploded diagram of the Thompson Center encore frame here:

https://grabcad.com/library/thompson-center-encore-frame
http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/thomps...ed-by-ed's-tcs/contender-exploded-parts-view/

You can look and see that the load path goes from the breech face to that hinge pin. That is a long load path and you would expect a lot of stretching with a concentrated load on that hinge pin. That is not all bad if the sidewalls are thick and the metal of good quality. Since I don't know sidewall thickness, nor material, I can't calculate just how much load the frame can take. But it is my opinion this is the crux of the matter. Whether the structure is sufficiently strong to prevent the frame from stretching. If this frame was designed for pistol rounds, or small rifle rounds, such as the 30-30, and then 300 Win Mag level cartridges are used in this mechanism, the load on the frame could be excessive. The manufacturer could do things such as use a better grade of steel, play with heat treatments, or thicken the structure. I have no idea if any of these were done. Basically, someone needs to reverse engineer the action with a CAD program and find out what the designs margins are and whether big rifle rounds exceed the material allowances.

But lets say head space grew. Cartridge case protrusion is extremely critical in all designs. If the distance between hinge pin and breech face grew, because the frame was stretching, then cartridge case protrusion would also be growing. Excessive cartridge case protrusion will blow the sidewalls of the case, and that would blow the gun all to heck.

This analysis is worth exactly what you paid for it. It is just my opinion.
 
Unless I missed it, we don't know that the case ruptured. I have a feeling it didn't. Putting together pieces from several forums (this is posted on at least 3 major firearms forums) i gathered that the OP's theory was that excessive headspace caused excessive force on the latching mechanism allowing the action to open violently breaking the stock and causing the injuries to the face and eye. Although the OP mentions that there is a plunger spring that must be maintained there hasn't been an explanation as to how the excessive headspace caused the action to open. I have not seen where the OP has ever contended that the case ruptured. It is important to know the state of the case after the accident.
 
As an owner of an Encore and having experienced heavy recoil with hot 35 Whelen factory loads, I will say this. The inherent design of the receiver/stock mating point and of the factory stocks themselves does create an awkward recoil signature that most people who haven't shot one wouldn't understand. I could definitely see how a failure in the locking mechanism under heavy recoil could cause a violent collapse of the rifle's structural integrity. I sold the 35 barrel after finding the muzzle rise to be abnormally memorable. Even in a Caldwell leadsled with weight, the recoil would lift the whole thing inches off the shooting surface. It was nasty. I've shot the same loads in a Rem 7600 and the recoil was stout but in a much more predictable straight back into your shoulder way. And for me at least, the design of the gripping point on the factory stocks mearly acts as a pivot point where everything foreward of your hand goes up, and everything behind it goes down. There is no straight to the rear pressure on your trigger hand due to the grip being too far below the receiver and too close to it I'm not saying I think it's a design flaw or has anything to do with this. I still own the gun (in a 209x50 configuration) But I do not like this gun/stock design for anything heavier than a 30-06. Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
You've entirely missed the point. According to the OP the reloaded ammo was within specs. But the gun still exploded, causing injury.
Click to expand...
The damage to the gun was a broken stock.
It did NOT "explode", and for all we know it broke when he dropped it

There's no way to know if that round was "within specs" since it no longer exists
 
Quote:
You've entirely missed the point. According to the OP the reloaded ammo was within specs. But the gun still exploded, causing injury.
Click to expand...
The damage to the gun was a broken stock.
It did NOT "explode", and for all we know it broke when he dropped it

There's no way to know if that round was "within specs" since it no longer exists
Click to expand...

Yup, talk about missing the point!
However, the Jury confused the issues and only awarded him 60% recovery and found him 40% liable for using reloaded ammo
Click to expand...
It would be a sad world to live in if we worried about the monetary settlement in case of a lawsuit in every enjoyable thing we did.:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top