Embrace The Truth - Catastrophic Gun Failure

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is all beyond my comprehension. I'm not a legal expert (my wife is the lawyer in the family) nor am I an engineer or firearms expert.

If the rifle pictured is the actual gun involved I am perplexed by a couple of things. With all the talk of excessive headspace, catastrophic failure and eye damage (that's a horrible injury and my heart goes out on that) I assumed the action or barrel let go allowing gas to escape or creating metal fragments that did the eye damage. But the only obvious damage I see to the rifle is the broken stock and apparently the injury was caused by the scope contacting the shooter's eye? If the complaint had been a defective stock that broke upon firing this would make sense to me. But I confess I am with those failing to see the connection to a defective action and the broken stock. Maybe it's due to my ignorance on gun engineering.

I am troubled by the fact that Brian says the case was missing after firing. What? Where did it go? Could have been ejected somehow in the incident? In the photo the action is closed, but did it open during firing? Did someone remove the case from the gun? Seems like the case would be a critical piece of evidence in diagnosing the problem and it's missing.

This is a terrible situation. I sympathize with Brian for the awful injury he sustained. I sure don't know what happened. The gun may have been defective but I can't figure anything out from what has been posted.
 
I would add one thing. I shoot break-open, breach loading rifles and I know they are not as strong as actions with locking bolts. They simply aren't. So I reduce my loading specs with this in mind. Brian was shooting a very powerful cartridge and admitted he was right at the max with his loads. I would stay well below a max load with a break-open gun.
 
... or in simpler terms... perhaps the gun should not have been chambered in some of those cartridges, if it was "that" close to the limits of the design...

however the Contender is the same when talking about 375 Winchester, & 45-70... ( pushing the limits of the design )
 
Brian- There is a problem with the gun and I stated what it is. Break-action rifles are notorious for opening a miniscule amount when fired. Even if the gun is new, and in perfect condition, a break-action is simply not as strong as a bolt gun. Perhaps chambering such guns in big Magnum calibers is questionable. In any event I keep my loads below max for safety. If I want to wring every last drop of power from a cartridge I use it in a bolt rifle.
 
I've owned an Encore for nearly 3 years and owned a Contender for a few years several years ago. The Encore has/had 300wm, 209x50, and 35 Whelen barrels. The Contender had a 30-30 and 7mmTCU barrel.

That a break-open action isn't as strong as a bolt gun and shouldn't be pushed as hard as a bolt gun is not a defect, it's a reality of the platform. It's like comparing a 45-70 Trapdoor to a modern lever rifle. You wouldn't use modern lever rifle loads in a trapdoor either. I'm not sure why this is debated or criticized. If you want more power, get the right tool for the job.

Heavy recoiling Encores do break stocks, though typically the walnut stocks. Regardless, when I bought a new stock for mine, I went with a laminate thumbhole to maximize strength. I also don't run my loads at max.

Headspace issues on the Encore are not a new issue, but are generally thought of as an accuracy problem, not safety (at least at the level I've seen discussed). It is easy to correct and doesn't require a gunsmith. Mike Bellm has an easy to follow write-up on the issue and sells the tools to measure the headspace so it can be corrected (shims behind the firing pin bushing). That said, I don't see headspace as an issue here. The stock broke under recoil. Also, the locking mechanism is separate from the headspace facility. One could have a rifle that locks up tight, but still has improper headspace due to chamber issues. This is usually resolved by shimming the firing pin bushing.

I found the recoil of the 300wm obnoxious enough that I sold my barrel. The 35whelen is much more comfortable and will be just as deadly at the ranges I hunt (<100yds).

Chris
 
Brian- There is a problem with the gun and I stated what it is. Break-action rifles are notorious for opening a miniscule amount when fired. Even if the gun is new, and in perfect condition, a break-action is simply not as strong as a bolt gun. Perhaps chambering such guns in big Magnum calibers is questionable. In any event I keep my loads below max for safety. If I want to wring every last drop of power from a cartridge I use it in a bolt rifle.
Click to expand...

You can just look at the action design and see that a break action rifle is not as rigid as a forward locking bolt action rifle. Nor as strong as a good dropping block, like the Ruger #1.

There should be enough design margin in any action to withstand a 20% over pressure round, because that is a standard proof pressure, 20% over.

What Brian and his lawyer should have done is paid someone to do a structural analysis of the Encore to determine if the action is strong enough for the cartridge he was using. As Brian has found, shooting reloads puts a lot of uncertainty into any claim that the loads were within spec. Factory rounds are not all perfect, but, at least factories have pressure gages.
 
Josh,
Different forums, people are saying they had or know of problems with the gun.
Click to expand...
All they threads I've read have been pretty much like this one, with vague answers and not much fact.

Show us the links to these "problems"
 
Slamfire said:
What Brian and his lawyer should have done is paid someone to do a structural analysis of the Encore to determine if the action is strong enough for the cartridge he was using. As Brian has found, shooting reloads puts a lot of uncertainty into any claim that the loads were within spec. Factory rounds are not all perfect, but, at least factories have pressure gages.
Click to expand...

Except the action didn't fail per the picture. The stock broke under the stress of a possibly over-book-level handload.

Pic here: http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=210668&d=1432308906
and here: http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=2231438&d=1432307586

Now, I've never heard of a plastic Encore stock breaking (typically the walnut stocks are the fragile ones), but the stock is still thin in the grip area, which is where the OP's stock broke. Also, there is some leveraging force against the stock in that area due to the shape and angle of the stock. IMO, a pistol grip stock is not the best design, which is why I have a thumbhole stock on my Encore. I did have a plastic stock before buying my laminate thumbhole (and fired many 300wm rounds with it), but never had the least bit of trouble.

Chris
 
Snyper said:
All they threads I've read have been pretty much like this one, with vague answers and not much fact.

Show us the links to these "problems"
Click to expand...

The "problems" tend to be accuracy related. Encores can be finicky about ammo and TC's quality control was lax (chambers not concentric with bores, overly long throats, headspace not right from the factory, etc), none of which caused stocks to break.

Chris
 
While a break action, especially one like a TC with no radial lugs, is not as strong as a bolt action or heavy falling block, it is strong enough for standard loads in the calibers built for. Or their legal staff would not allow those chamberings.
 
There seems to be a design or q.c. problem with the Encore. The debate seems to be more centered around what the problem is. It is seems that the stock is weak. Assume for sake of discussion that O.P. loaded the round that caused failure of the stock to an over pressure spec. ( I personally do not believe he did, but just assume so.) Load is not high enough pressure to cause a failure of the action, but it is high enough pressure to cause the stock to break? Seriously? I have seen stocks crack on .458 Lott, but never catastrophically break. T.C. really cranking out stocks that weak?

I do not have an Encore and probably never will have one. I have four Contenders and pile of barrels. Most I do not shoot anymore. About all I shoot is .35 Remington Pistol, .45-70 Pistol, 7-30 Waters Pistol, and 7-30 Waters Carbine. Over half my barrels made by Thompson will not group unless you shoot off a fire formed shoulder. Obviously headspacing is out of spec. My 7-30 Waters Carbine will not even reliably fire unless you are shooting fire formed brass. Just being honest, you have to work pretty hard to screw up headspacing on a rimmed cartridge.:(:confused::(
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm always amazed at how people read into a post what they suppose happened and draw a conclusion.

All the OP did was state he had an Encore that blew up with a description of his injuries and related the process he went through in court.

He then encouraged anyone who owned a like make/model to take it to a gunsmith to be checked so that they do not suffer the same problem as it has a potential to cause severe injuries.

I think you read into his post the rest of what you've stated.

If you own such a gun, then it's up to you to believe the original post and have the gun checked; or, choose to continue shooting it without checking for problems.

He's attempted to provide a public notification that people can choose to heed or not - and in the process, has been made out to be some type of troll whose only mission is to denigrate a manufacturer.

I find that odd...

Or their legal staff would not allow those chamberings.
Click to expand...

Because lawyers are great engineers? Please...all you have to do is look at a variety of products that had faults (airplanes and cars come to mind) where the manufacturer paid out huge settlements. If lawyers are that smart, how come they didn't foresee those failures.

That doesn't even pass junior high logic...
 
Last edited:
While I agree with you to some degree buckhorn_cortez, "Embrace the Truth - Catastrophic Gun Failure" as a title is a bit more than just encouraging people to get their Encores checked. From a failure analysis perspective, the OP has not been able to provide the "truth" as to what actually failed nor is the term "catastrophic" an accurate descriptor based on the photograph and limited information provided.

While it is sad he was injured, the actual "why" is still unknown, yet a jury reached a decision. There are potential theories as to why the OP was injured, but for whatever reason, the connection of his claim of the failure mode has not been connected to his injuries nor the physical evidence. In order for a jury to render a verdict, that would have had to been at least proffered in court.
 
Again MarkCo you have ably put into words what some of us have been trying to say for, what?, 5 pages now?

The OP needs to state facts, though as you alluded to in one of your posts, he may be subject to some sort of gag order covering all or parts of the case. Regardless, even if he is not, he needs to proceed cautiously with the allegations he is spewing across the net. Maybe he would be better just asking his attorney to write his next post, though I would think the attorney would probably spank him for posting in the first place.
 
To summarize and very very briefly in my opinion the big take away from my case was the TCA Encore can not keep tolerances and head space grows overtime, especially with larger calibers like I was shooting (300 win mag).

In my trial we had 3 guns with excessive head space.

My gun was out of spec.
A gun with 5 shots was out of spec.
A gun with no shots was out of spec.
Click to expand...

I am the fan of knowing the length of the chamber from the shoulder to the bolt/breach face before firing. The length of the chamber can be tracked from the beginning to the end.

I had barrels that were shot out, Like "THE GIVING TREE" the barrels keep on giving, I cut the stub off and turn them into chamber gages. I have barrels that are new, I have take off barrels and just barrels, there is no reason for me not to know the difference in length between the chamber and case from the shoulders to the bolt face and case shoulder to the case head.

I have single shot shotguns that open up for loading and removing fired cases.

F. Guffey
 
I can see where the partial responsibility came from. I doubt there is a load book printed that does not warn the reader to drop their loads about 10% when dealing with European break open guns. Why would a U.S. manufactured gun be any different? The OP seems to think this caution in reloading is meaningless.
 
Brian Ward-my sympathy for your injury.

I think you should step back and just post what your firearms expert presented during your court case.

Let us argue with the 'firearms expert opinion' and you won't have to take any abuse here.

If you could, since the trial is over, maybe you could present what the opposing firearms expert had to say too.

P.S. Perhaps you cannot publish their opinions because of legal reasons. If that's the case then disregard this post. I still hope you recover completely from your injury.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top