Embrace The Truth - Catastrophic Gun Failure

Status
Not open for further replies.
Josh,

FYI - 26th edition of the Hodgdon Data Manual - 180 grain bullet - 83.0 grains of H1000 - 50,900 cup.


I posted this previously.
“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, and the trial was over 2 years ago. They have been just bickering over attorney fees.” (since 2013)



I went back at looked at my notes, my final loads for my hunt were 85 grains of H-1000.

It is over the published data of 83 from Hodgdon Data Manual. I worked up from 10% below max and worked up the final load in half grain increments looking for accuracy (also potency) since I was hunting for moose in Alaska with Griz running around. There were no pressure signs in the cases compared to the 83 gr load (no blown primers, splits, cracks etc.). I even had two other experienced reloaders look at the cases. Also, since this was a single shot, I was not seating the bullet as deep, allowing for more case capacity…but I was not engaging the rifling. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over.


Another questions regarding brass…. it was one fired brass I was using for my reloads. I was not crimping my cases.
 
I went back at looked at my notes, my final loads for my hunt were 85 grains of H-1000.
Click to expand...
BULLET WEIGHT180 GR. NOS E-TIP
ManufacturerHodgdon
PowderH1000
Bullet Diameter.308"
C.O.L.3.340"
Starting Load
Grains74.6
Velocity (ft/s)2,821
Pressure53,300 PSI
Maximum Load
Grains79.4C
Velocity (ft/s)2,984
Pressure62,400 PSI
Click to expand...

Of course 5.6 additional grains would be safe!:eek:
 
Looking at the parts diagram and the picture of the alleged gun, it appears that the stock is broken below the head of the stock bolt where there is nothing but plastic. The bolt is just to hold the buttstock on, it is not a reinforcing throughbolt like Ballard figured out in 1875.

Still trying to make the connection between excess headspace and a broken stock.
 
again... I'm neither an engineer, lawyer, or have a collection of Encores... but I do know from my expirience with Contenders that cartridge case head thrust can reach crittical levels, depending on the pressure & the size of the case head chambered... again not familiar with the Encore's limit, but perhaps the cartridge in question pushes the maximimum safe limit, & the couple grains over max is all it took to stretch the action to pop open... I know I was looking at one in 416 Rigby but I'm guessing that is lower pressure & maybe a bigger case head diameter...

as far as the stock breaking, perhaps that was from non liniar force... if the frame stretched enough to pop open under full recoil, the stock would likely start a downward arcing motion, causing the recoil forces to go sideways rather than liniarly along the length of the stock... it would be much easier to break, in that situation
 
Last edited:
If I have learned anything from this thread/lawsuit, is to not exceed max published data. I thought I had learned that before, but it always needs reinforcing I guess.
 
The word maximum is used for a reason. I'm more confused with this thread at this point than I was at the beginning and the only fact I can come away with is that the plaintiff had the better lawyer.
 
Josh,
SAAMI does not regulate loads for Hodgen grains of whatever, I was speaking of its parameters for PSI or CUP.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. It's 64kpsi and 54k CUP (no direct conversion here, fyi). The .300 H&H has no SAAMI spec, but that's not the same cartridge.

How do you know you didn't exceed max pressure? I've always wanted a pressure gun of my own but they're pretty expensive. Did you have a lab test it, or..?

You exceeded the design it appears. I do not know what those rifles are proofed at, but if you'd been shooting that hot for a while, you'd naturally accelerate wear.

Josh
 
Imo....just my .02..

If I was on that jury and as soon as I heard the word "reloads" in this type of catastrophic failure case against the manufacturer for a rifle that was built within SAAMI specs......pffffft...screw that.

You reload...you are on your own...I pretty much figured this was a universal understanding.

Something goes haywire..chalk it up to a learning experience.

There is no way in hell I would give the nod to the plaintiff. There is ZERO way of proving that his RELOADS were within SAAMI spec. ZERO.

Factory ammo....game on. You at least have someone to go after. IE a lot number off of an ammunition manufacturer's box.

So looking through back this thread....I see the OP used 85 grains of H1000.

This is from Hodgdon's site about 10 min ago regarding an 180 grain bullet and H1000 for a 300 Win Mag...

HODGDON%20300%20WIN%20MAG_zpsyswwolld.jpg


OP, I have much simpler words....but you lucked out and got paid.
 
Last edited:
benp, you would not have been seated on the jury.

FWIW, I have professionally worked on cases with reloads and a gun failure, it is not "always" the reloads.

There ARE ways of examining the materials and figuring out the stresses involved, and if it was one time or multiple lessor over-pressures...or a material defect, or a design flaw. I perform this type of work on almost a daily basis.

One would not have to prove the loads were "within" specs, just that the out of spec either did, or did not, contribute to the subject incident. If damage and or flexure to the hinge pin could be associated with excessive case head thrust allowing unlocking, that would be a scenario under which contributory negligence of both parties could occur.
 
Fair enough Mark.

Here is the data from Hodgdon's manual from the early 2000's. In my experience, the older manuals are a lot more liberal with their loads, imo. Where does one see 85 GRAINS of H1000 listed?????

OP went kinda well above listed maximum load and admitted it.

8403A6B6-3180-4F48-85B0-C913342C10A1_zps7rctpwki.jpg


I had to go to Hodgdon's for loading data regarding H1000 and 300 Win Mag. Not nosler or Hornady.

The op got rewarded for his F**ktardery. He suffered a price but got paid also.

ETA - The load Data I showed is from Hogdon's Number 27 Data manual.

There was seriously that much of a jump between #26 (where OP got his info from) and #27?
 
Last edited:
Basically MarkCo, you're saying that the legal case could have been decided on an inherent design flaw of the TC independent of any problem associated with an overly hot load, and that the two may have not been related at all?

Also, I'm wondering how typical it is for the plaintiff to be able to freely discuss the case after the fact. He has made serious allegations about the integrity of the TC firearm, and alluded to a cover-up of knowledge on their part of said flaw.
 
Tony, yes. IF an error or negligence had no contribution, then a good attorney and expert will be able to prove such. Not implying one way or the other in this case.

I worked on a case where a drunk hit an elk that had been struck by another vehicle just moments earlier. The drunk sued the other driver, whose attorney argued the drunk was impaired so that is why he hit the elk. Looking at the speeds, sight distance etc. it was obvious that no-one could have avoided the elk given the factors involved. The drunk was cited for drunk driving, but the damages (property and medical) had to be paid by the other party, and rightly so. I can't stand drunk drivers, but in this case, the drunken driving had no contribution to the second impact with the elk.

In many cases, there are protected documents and gag orders. I have about a dozen cases I can not talk about. I still have a grand jury testimony that is sealed that I can not talk about. If a case is on appeal, talking about it on the internet is not a big issue because no new information can be presented in the appeal.

I just had a firearms case. A young man was seriously injured and his attorney hired me to examine the firearm. The evidence was clear that all 4 products involved were satisfactory and warned of the specific failure if the warnings were not heeded. The failure mode was obvious (and was catastrophic) and was due to user error. Just was no physical evidence on which a case could be based.

Sometimes attorneys roll the dice. I have been on three cases, all fatalities, where I told the plaintiff attorney to settle the case and not go to court, but they wanted to go to trial. I was disclosed prior to court and was called to testify by the defense in all three of those cases. While my "clients" lost all three of those cases, as an expert I did my job and justice was served.

Hardest thing I had to do was objectively explain the case sitting in the witness box with (in 2 cases) crying widows (who essentially paid my fees to do my work) sitting 10 feet away staring at me. Not comfortable at all.
 
What this entire thread has brought to light is that tort law in this country is in desperate need of change. Someone can violate basic safety practices (reloading a cartridge in excess of any published maximum), get injured when something breaks that has barely a remote connection to what the plaintiff claims his over pressure rounds did to the gun, and a slick ambulance chaser can convince a jury, uneducated in the function of firearms, into blaming the "big business" gun manufacturer, and "making them pay".
 
Well, I have a Hodgdon's #26 coming to me.

I want to see this reloading data.

I'm currently dabbling with light load 44 mag rounds out of a Smith Model 69. If I wind up three fingers willie out of the deal...then so be it. It was my fault and no one else's. I learn to shoot with less fingers.

Issues like this irritate me to no end. You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

I wish more people would be capable of grasping this concept.
 
Last edited:
Cheapshooter and benp, you both make very valid points.

One of my friends who works in the same field is fond of this saying...

"Do not confuse the American legal system for a justice system."

That said, in the 80+ times I have testified in court, only once, in my opinion, did the wrong side prevail. But less than 1% of a lawsuits end up in court. I have seen millions spent on a few cases where one side knew they were wrong and settled on the courthouse steps. Who pays for all of that? Everyone who pays taxes, insurance bills or purchases anything. What I pay in insurance annually is more than my salary was my first year working as an engineer, and I have never had a claim against me.
 
Until impartial facts are presented, I will have to agree with MarkCo's premise that the TC failure was independent of the hot loads. In other words, this is akin to being on a drive with your engine two quarts low of oil (not good, as the hot loads were also not good) and the brakes fail on your vehicle and you hit a brick wall (brakes failed because the master cylinder had a defective flow valve that the manufacturer knew about).

BUT, I'm still left wondering why the OP still sees fit to cry and moan on public forums, trying to convince others that he was right as well as denigrating TC. Just seems odd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top