Embrace The Truth - Catastrophic Gun Failure

Status
Not open for further replies.
“Leaving the reservation”: this statement was posted in response to my thread; basically stating my position against T/C Arms is and was indefensible. Simply because of my reloading choices. It’s a free country; any one can have that opinion if they so desire. There are certain people who will never accept that T/C Arms or another gun company is at fault in any gun case, if the plaintiff reloads. I think that’s sad some peoples are so closed-minded. To me it sounds like “flat earthers” from 500 years ago.

But in my opinion, one must completely disregard the following to support that argument:

In open court, a T/C Arms representative said he saw failures that caused the T/C Encore to blow open like mine.

T/C Arms destroys customer complaints every 6 months.

Calibers like the 300 Short Mag were not put into production because the T/C Arms Encore could not handle the round. Please note: the 300 win mag has a standard SAAMI psi of 64K and the 300 short mag is 65K…. kind of similar.

They changed the Encore stock design after my accident in 2005.

The gun didn’t blow up like a bomb, like many people bashing me thought it did.

Multiple other people posting on my threads on multiple forums have stated:
-The Encore is a weak design.
-The Encore has can pop open after firing.
-The Encore has headspace issues develop.
- The Encore frames warp.

I’ve tried to convey that I took due diligence in the development of my loads, and I stand by the statement. (My loads were within SAAMI service maximum avg. pressure limits.) I gave T/C Arms all my records, physical evidence, reloads, old brass… everything! For days in court, in front of the jury, they tried to make same arguments some people here are trying to make. But in the end, those arguments didn’t stick and the jury determined that T/C Arms was more at fault.

I think most posters picking at my reloads are doing so because it’s low hanging fruit; it’s what they can get their minds around. But at the end of the day, that argument fell flat with the jury and it’s been beaten to death here. People can keep beating the same old drum, but I suggest you take an analytical look at my side of things.

Thanks,

Brian
 
Calibers like the 300 Short Mag were not put into production because the T/C Arms Encore could not handle the round. Please note: the 300 win mag has a standard SAAMI psi of 64K and the 300 short mag is 65K…. kind of similar.
Click to expand...

It was NOT the amount of SAAMI pressure that kept T/C from producing the 300 WSM. It was the fact that removing enough meat from the chamber to squeeze in that fat round left too little meat in the metal surrounding the chamber. They would have had to create a totally different (thicker) barrel design in in order to chamber the short mags.
 
I'm a little confused by the stock breakage.

If it were a factor of recoil, even caused by a failure of the gun, I would expect the recoil to go directly backwards and break the stock at the rear tang. I'm not too familiar with the Encore, but I assume the action is attached to the stock here by some sort of tang screw and that there's possibly a recoil lug behind it.

In any regard, I would expect the stock to break up high and close to the action. Where it broke at the grip suggests to me that it might have broken as a result of impacting something - whether the shooter or the ground.

I understand a jury sided with the victim, but I don't see how we're expected to reach the same conclusion without the same evidence.
 
From someone who ran this through Quickload, same thread, different forum:

Re: Embrace The Truth - Catastrophic Gun Failure

Quickload tells me that in .300 Win Mag, a 180gr Nosler Accubond charged with 85gr of H-1000 gives you over 75,000 psi-- SAAMI max is 64,000 psi.
Unless you have a pressure gun, Brian, you simply cannot claim the handloads were within SAAMI spec.
Click to expand...
75kpsi is a lot of pressure. I'm actually sort of surprised the rifle action did hold.

Josh
 
Brian,

In your own words, tell us exactly what happened, including what was damaged and what was not damaged on the gun.
 
The gun didn’t blow up like a bomb, like many people bashing me thought it did.
Click to expand...
You're the one who implied it did by saying "catastrophic failure" and by giving misleading answers instead of just simple facts

I suspect you overloaded the case (since you said you did), and the scope hit your eye so hard you dropped the gun and broke the stock on the rocks.

You got really lucky with the jury
 
really sorry for anybody that gets injured but IMHO "embracing truth" would involve some more honesty on your part, you admit you were 2 gr over the highest max listed anywhere in a gun that any research at all shows little margin for being overloaded.
I agree with the poster before me and you got lucky with the jury saying you were only 40% responsible.
 
I will still give the OP the benefit of doubt, provided he posts the facts, as he believes them. No hyperbole, but just the actuals of what happened.

Here is why I am asking this: MarkCo has presented an interesting point of view, and if we think this through, what happened to the OP may very well have been independent of going beyond max on his loads, with the TC prone to having a similar failure, such as the OP's, and with loads under the max.
 
Doyle said:
Brian Ward said:
Calibers like the 300 Short Mag were not put into production because the T/C Arms Encore could not handle the round. Please note: the 300 win mag has a standard SAAMI psi of 64K and the 300 short mag is 65K…. kind of similar.
Click to expand...

It was NOT the amount of SAAMI pressure that kept T/C from producing the 300 WSM. It was the fact that removing enough meat from the chamber to squeeze in that fat round left too little meat in the metal surrounding the chamber. They would have had to create a totally different (thicker) barrel design in in order to chamber the short mags.
Click to expand...

You are both partially right, it has to do with what is called case head thrust. Someone with a physics/math degree can get more technical. The larger diameter case head with high pressures will create more thrust backwards than a smaller diameter case operating at the same pressures.

For a short time T/C was chambers the .416 Rigby in an Encore. It has been discontinued though I don't know if it was for safety reasons or because of lack of sales. However the Rigby has the same diameter case as the WSM family of cartridges, it just operates at a much lower pressure.
 
Six pages. Still haven't had answers to many, many questions. If they're not forthcoming tonight, I'm closing this tomorrow morning.
 
That's because I don't think the OP can answer many with any certainty. The accident was 10 years ago, in which he suffered severe trauma resulting in the loss of an eye. I don't think many of us would remember much correctly if it happened to us. I'm sure Brian doesn't remember everything correctly nor would he ever be able to.

Since the OP has stated some things that makes all of us think "Hmmm", I'll give him some benefit of doubt be cause of the trauma he experienced that day. I do believe that he was as much at fault as to what happened to cause his injury as any that the courts found T/C liable for. I have a T/C Encore that I can currently configure in .204 Ruger, .300 BLK, and .50 Cal Muzzle Loader, and in the past has been a 7-08 Rem, .280 GNR, & .375 JDJ. As a rifle or hand gun it's a pretty light set up, I sure don't enjoy recoil enough to push any cartridge hard in it especially when you start launching bullets over 200 grains.

Here is what I've figured out about the whole thing Brian Ward was passionate enough about what happened to him to fight a long legal battle, without settling out of court and probably having to sign a non disclosure agreement. In a legal battle lasting that long I'm sure somewhere along the way a settlement was offered. I still think there are some things that we should pay attention to being said on both sides of the argument.
 
If the OP could not answer any questions, or present facts, why did he start the thread in the first place? If he can't remember details, how are we to know the burden of the issue was not his? Where did the facts come from? His attorney?
 
All I want is for people to be aware of the situation and check their T/C Arms Encore for problems. I’ve done my best to try forget all this junk and just live my life for the past nearly 10 years. Stewing and obsessing on the case would drive a person crazy.

I don’t have the case files my attorney does and the Encore rifle and components hasn’t been in my possession in almost 10 years so I’m not able to break out the calipers and give you guys measurements. I’m speaking in just general terms from memory. I’m not trying to re-litigate this case over the internet. Also I think that would be foolish on my part since T/C Arms has already filed for a re-trial. If people are really that concerned with getting all the details and determining what happened the court documents are public record and can be obtained.
 
Tony Z,
Broken Pieces…. In my opinion, There is no mangled deformed parts you can point to other than the stock. The plunger and table face is someone chipped on the edges…. but that’s about it.
 
It seems to me that the "bottom line" is that the Encore can have problems with a cartridge of the length and diameter of the .300 Win Mag, particularly if there is any over-pressure from a handload.

I've not seen any reason for the "why" of the breakage to speak otherwise for any warning about the Encore. No "what's wrong" in the adjudicated defective design.
 
A general warning on a firearm is worthless. If the actual alleged failure (or "situation") can not be identified, then no warning can be made.

Warning, a knife has a sharp edge.

Seems to me the topic is dead and little if any benefit has come from the OP, however some of the posts on ancillary topics have been interesting and informative.
 
In post #134, Brian stated T/C is "re-litigating" the case. I'm not sure of the legalese, though my lawyer SIL could explain it (probably will charge me!), but I'm thinking T/C may be appealing the matter.

By the OP's admission, this case goes back ten years and he is hazy on the details, excepting that he went beyond the maximums on loading data. Many here have suggested a number of reasons for the failure, but we're all left wondering what happened and why drag it into a public forum.

Without hard facts, in my opinion, the OP should keep his thoughts to himself until the litigation is completed. I'm somewhat wondering if his "sour grapes" may be more from the frustration of the case continuing than anything. I'm also wondering where the failed firearm is, what tests were performed on it and by whom. I'm wondering what the plaintiff's attorney alleged and also how T/C responded. I really care not a whole lot for what the jury said, as their opinion is just that, an opinion. I would rather see the facts and come to my own conclusion as to whether T/C or the plaintiff (Brian) is at fault.

Being an owner of a T/C firearm, I remain interested in the facts and I do have a take away from these six pages: stay below maximums and pay attention to the tolerance range of your loading equipment, so as to not accidentally get into a danger zone.
 
"In what way is the design defective?"

I was told I didn't answer this question.

The experts made case in court….. I can give my opinion on it.

To summarize and very very briefly in my opinion the big take away from my case was the T/C Arms 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 well out of spec., A gun with 5 shots was out of spec., A gun with no shots was out of spec.

The excessive headspace allows gasses to act on the plunger thus allowing the gun to open. (We are not talking about a bolt gun here….the plunger is held in place with a spring That supposedly needs to be replaced after so many shots that they never tell you about.)

The stock breaks in bending when the gun blows open…very violent. Also Note..... The Encore stock design changed after my accident in 2005…out of complete coincidence. Haha right!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top