Unregistered
Moderator
Does the FA 83 have a half cock notch like the SAA? I have heard that it does not, and that is one of the things the lawyers took issue with.
Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit
- Thread starter guntime22
- Start date
- Status
Does the FA 83 have a half cock notch like the SAA? I have heard that it does not, and that is one of the things the lawyers took issue with.
Musketeer,
Since these are your demands then don't buy a FA gun. If you can't adhere to the owners manual then don't buy the gun. If you want a 5 shot revolver that is safe to hold 5 shots don't buy a FA. The choice is yours as is the responsibility to use the weapon in accordance with factory recommendations.
I can shoot lead bullets from my Glock but the manuals says not to so I don't. If I don't listen to the manual and shoot lead should I be rewarded for the damage caused. It is insane to hold anyone other than the victim responsible for this accident. Just like the old lady who spilled hot coffee on her crotch this suit was garbage. The jurors felt sorry for the victim instead of using there brains.
Since these are your demands then don't buy a FA gun. If you can't adhere to the owners manual then don't buy the gun. If you want a 5 shot revolver that is safe to hold 5 shots don't buy a FA. The choice is yours as is the responsibility to use the weapon in accordance with factory recommendations.
I can shoot lead bullets from my Glock but the manuals says not to so I don't. If I don't listen to the manual and shoot lead should I be rewarded for the damage caused. It is insane to hold anyone other than the victim responsible for this accident. Just like the old lady who spilled hot coffee on her crotch this suit was garbage. The jurors felt sorry for the victim instead of using there brains.
We don't know that he wasn't carrying the weapon with five rounds. The pulling of the hammer back would also have rotated the cylinder if it went back far enough.
Besides, who's to say if he hadn't already cocked the weapon, put it back in the holster, and something entirely different didn't happen. It wouldn't be the first time that someone's concocted story to hide a serious error didn't pay off.
Besides, who's to say if he hadn't already cocked the weapon, put it back in the holster, and something entirely different didn't happen. It wouldn't be the first time that someone's concocted story to hide a serious error didn't pay off.
I think it is universally accepted that the old SAA trigger design is inherently unsafe.
That is a fact that has been known since at least 1873
Not having the tried and true transfer bar , which they would have had to discard because the FA is based on the Ruger BlackHawk design, makes the FA an inherently unsafe firearm
The fact that FA specifically states what precautions should be taken to mitigate the primitive design flaws shows that they knew that the gun was inherently unsafe
Putting these precautions in the owners manual relived them of 50% of the blame
All in all not a bad jury decision
That is a fact that has been known since at least 1873
Not having the tried and true transfer bar , which they would have had to discard because the FA is based on the Ruger BlackHawk design, makes the FA an inherently unsafe firearm
The fact that FA specifically states what precautions should be taken to mitigate the primitive design flaws shows that they knew that the gun was inherently unsafe
Putting these precautions in the owners manual relived them of 50% of the blame
All in all not a bad jury decision
targetshootr
New member
My only issue with FA is that they don't make a frame size in between the 83 and the 97. A gun that size would make a great six shooter. And it would be great if they could make then in something other than stainless. And it would be great if they make them shoot where I want the boolit to go and not necessarily where the gun is pointing. Ok, several issues. 
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
My take:
1. Their insurance probably will cover it.
2. They probably are better paying up if you think about the outcomes.
3. In a similar case with an early Ruger (before the fix), Ruger actually won in court but gave the plantiff a chunk of change not to appeal.
4. About the usage and manual. The usual response is that a person is an idiot if they don't follow the manual. That's true.
However, a counter argument can be made that it is well known in the accident prevention literature that folks don't read the manual. Thus a manufacturer has to take that into account and plan for it.
Thus, not having an adequate safety system can't be solely defended against by evoking the read-the-manual argument. Some systems have what is known as an affordance - the design leads to an action.
A five chamber cylinder has an affordance to load all five, despite what the manual says. Systems exist to make this safe and FA didn't do that - thus they have some blame (as well as that from the user).
All this is laid out in many human factor domains other than guns.
If I made revolvers, I would NOT trust the user to read the manual.
So if you know that behavior doesn't act in the ideal fashion (as gun list posters would demand), should you plan for that?
1. Their insurance probably will cover it.
2. They probably are better paying up if you think about the outcomes.
3. In a similar case with an early Ruger (before the fix), Ruger actually won in court but gave the plantiff a chunk of change not to appeal.
4. About the usage and manual. The usual response is that a person is an idiot if they don't follow the manual. That's true.
However, a counter argument can be made that it is well known in the accident prevention literature that folks don't read the manual. Thus a manufacturer has to take that into account and plan for it.
Thus, not having an adequate safety system can't be solely defended against by evoking the read-the-manual argument. Some systems have what is known as an affordance - the design leads to an action.
A five chamber cylinder has an affordance to load all five, despite what the manual says. Systems exist to make this safe and FA didn't do that - thus they have some blame (as well as that from the user).
All this is laid out in many human factor domains other than guns.
If I made revolvers, I would NOT trust the user to read the manual.
So if you know that behavior doesn't act in the ideal fashion (as gun list posters would demand), should you plan for that?
theinvisibleheart
New member
in my experiences
I'm extremely careful holstering or unholstering any firearms, esp. since I'm fond of 1911A1 w/o Series 80 firing pin block.
I've heard of police officers who have had their duty weapons go on AD when their holster or the gun got caught on something unintended.
But then, I'm extremely careful when I drive my car too.
They should have selected a bunch of shooters for the jury.
--John
I'm extremely careful holstering or unholstering any firearms, esp. since I'm fond of 1911A1 w/o Series 80 firing pin block.
I've heard of police officers who have had their duty weapons go on AD when their holster or the gun got caught on something unintended.
But then, I'm extremely careful when I drive my car too.
They should have selected a bunch of shooters for the jury.
--John
theinvisibleheart
New member
this is why
we have dumb warnings like not to put cleaners into our eyes, our hands into sharp objects, etc.
This is so stupid. With a gun like this, I always carry it on an empty chamber.
Ultimately, I'm responsible for my understanding and use of any tools. Not the manufacturer. Not the state. Me.
-1. Thumbs down.
--John
PS
I've had two knee surgeries and very long physical therapy...I didn't sue the shoe manufacturers, but instead, learned from experiences and changed my behavior. Some people completely give up on self-responsibility and treat the jury system as a lottery.
we have dumb warnings like not to put cleaners into our eyes, our hands into sharp objects, etc.
This is so stupid. With a gun like this, I always carry it on an empty chamber.
Ultimately, I'm responsible for my understanding and use of any tools. Not the manufacturer. Not the state. Me.
-1. Thumbs down.
--John
PS
I've had two knee surgeries and very long physical therapy...I didn't sue the shoe manufacturers, but instead, learned from experiences and changed my behavior. Some people completely give up on self-responsibility and treat the jury system as a lottery.
theinvisibleheart
New member
hidden cost
btw, all those unneeded and stupid warning labels and product liability lawsuits doesn't come for free, whether paid by the insurance company or by the firm. In the end, it's the consumers who pay for it. Insurance doesn't come for free...the company has to pay regular premiums just like your auto or home owner's insurance policy.
In the end, all these stupid product liability lawsuits makes us pay higher prices for everything, making us as a nation poorer so that lawyers get richer.
Nothing comes for free. There is no cure for stupidity.
--John
btw, all those unneeded and stupid warning labels and product liability lawsuits doesn't come for free, whether paid by the insurance company or by the firm. In the end, it's the consumers who pay for it. Insurance doesn't come for free...the company has to pay regular premiums just like your auto or home owner's insurance policy.
In the end, all these stupid product liability lawsuits makes us pay higher prices for everything, making us as a nation poorer so that lawyers get richer.
Nothing comes for free. There is no cure for stupidity.
--John
theinvisibleheart
New member
one of these days
someone is going to sue firearm manufacturers because a gun went off when someone pulled the trigger...you could always claim that the gun didn't read your intention, that you didn't actually want to have the gun go off but the gun fired anyway.
Pretty soon, someone could claim that for absolute safety, voice activated system is mandatory for all guns.
Guns w/o transfer bar or firing pin safety have existed way back. People back then were smart enough (or more responsible enough) not to carry it with a round in the chamber. If they did shoot themselves due to their own stupidity, at least they owned up to it unlike the people today.
Times have changed.
--John
PS
I think it is asking for trouble to depend on half-notch safety.
someone is going to sue firearm manufacturers because a gun went off when someone pulled the trigger...you could always claim that the gun didn't read your intention, that you didn't actually want to have the gun go off but the gun fired anyway.
Pretty soon, someone could claim that for absolute safety, voice activated system is mandatory for all guns.
Guns w/o transfer bar or firing pin safety have existed way back. People back then were smart enough (or more responsible enough) not to carry it with a round in the chamber. If they did shoot themselves due to their own stupidity, at least they owned up to it unlike the people today.
Times have changed.
--John
PS
I think it is asking for trouble to depend on half-notch safety.
Last edited:
theinvisibleheart
New member
car owners' manual
should come with a warning that it is unsafe to drive with your eyes closed. In fact, it should come with an open or closed eyes sensor/indicator...yes, it is technologically possible but expensive.
If the degree of injury I incur is grounds for whether manufacturer is at fault or not, then every auto manufacturer should be sued because they don't have a system for preventing driving with eyes closed (sleep driving). Large number of fatal car accidents have being due to people falling asleep on the wheel.
--John
should come with a warning that it is unsafe to drive with your eyes closed. In fact, it should come with an open or closed eyes sensor/indicator...yes, it is technologically possible but expensive.
If the degree of injury I incur is grounds for whether manufacturer is at fault or not, then every auto manufacturer should be sued because they don't have a system for preventing driving with eyes closed (sleep driving). Large number of fatal car accidents have being due to people falling asleep on the wheel.
--John
Anyone who owns or has fired a Colt peacemaker has handled an unsafe firearm. The manufacturer stated that it is unsafe to carry with all chambers loaded. All cowboy action shooters load 5 rounds in their revolvers because of the notoriously unsafe Colt. There is nothing new under the sun. Since everyone knows the danger, is the Company liable if some idiot shoots a 5"X8" hole in his leg because he can't safety his weapon before taking off his coat? To paraphrase, "Stupidity should hurt".
I guess because not having a seat belt in the Ford Model T was good enough for our forefathers then we shouldn't need one today! After all you only need it if you mess up and hit something so it would be your fault anyway.
We should also do away with that expensive safety glass that car windsheilds are made of. Our grandparents were fine with the old class that would decapitate you in an accident, after all the crash was your fault. The manual said do not crash.
Today if a car maker ignored including the most basic of safety features in a car they would be sued out of existence and with good reason. Gun manufacuters are no different.
Moderns SAAs should have a transfer bar safety but many do not because "Wyatt Earp didn't need one!" Nostalgia is the only reason and it is not a very good one. Ruger Vaqueros have them. I beleive even SAA imports need something added to prevent the type of accident that can be had with a true Colt SAA (coorect me if I am wrong on that).
We should also do away with that expensive safety glass that car windsheilds are made of. Our grandparents were fine with the old class that would decapitate you in an accident, after all the crash was your fault. The manual said do not crash.
Today if a car maker ignored including the most basic of safety features in a car they would be sued out of existence and with good reason. Gun manufacuters are no different.
Moderns SAAs should have a transfer bar safety but many do not because "Wyatt Earp didn't need one!" Nostalgia is the only reason and it is not a very good one. Ruger Vaqueros have them. I beleive even SAA imports need something added to prevent the type of accident that can be had with a true Colt SAA (coorect me if I am wrong on that).
I hate to ruin a perfectly good rant, but ALL revolvers without a transfer-bar safety are hereby grouped as unsafe, if you read the opinion. Do you feel that your S&W is unsafe? Maybe your Python?
Exactly what does safety-glass, seat-belts, and the rest of this tripe have to do with a gun? They are inherently unsafe in today's lexicon of safety. They are also dangerous. They have to be. There is no safe way to propel leaded projectiles, at high velocities, into other humans. SOMEBODY is going to get hurt.
Some imported revolvers are equipped with safeties. The American public has always regarded that as useless. The loading of five rounds in an SAA style pistol has been a tradition for more than a century. It's a matter of common sense, much like not driving down the road with your door open.
When supposedly intelligent people ignore safety rules, and get hurt, we today scream loudly that the manufacturers should have done something about it. The only thing not demanded is responsibility for one's actions. Can anyone imagine a revolver incorporating automotive safety standards in it? I'd rather not.
FYI, safety glass wasn't a mandated development. It was done just after WWII, about the same time that technology could provide curved, one-piece windshields. Seat belts were offered as options on cars as far back as the early 1950s. They weren't mandated until 1965, even though they became standard on many models in 1963-64. Automobiles aren't used in the same manner as firearms, so the safety standards applicable to them, no matter how snazzily they're offered, are the usual apples-vs.-oranges comparisons offered by the uninformed.
Exactly what does safety-glass, seat-belts, and the rest of this tripe have to do with a gun? They are inherently unsafe in today's lexicon of safety. They are also dangerous. They have to be. There is no safe way to propel leaded projectiles, at high velocities, into other humans. SOMEBODY is going to get hurt.
Some imported revolvers are equipped with safeties. The American public has always regarded that as useless. The loading of five rounds in an SAA style pistol has been a tradition for more than a century. It's a matter of common sense, much like not driving down the road with your door open.
When supposedly intelligent people ignore safety rules, and get hurt, we today scream loudly that the manufacturers should have done something about it. The only thing not demanded is responsibility for one's actions. Can anyone imagine a revolver incorporating automotive safety standards in it? I'd rather not.
FYI, safety glass wasn't a mandated development. It was done just after WWII, about the same time that technology could provide curved, one-piece windshields. Seat belts were offered as options on cars as far back as the early 1950s. They weren't mandated until 1965, even though they became standard on many models in 1963-64. Automobiles aren't used in the same manner as firearms, so the safety standards applicable to them, no matter how snazzily they're offered, are the usual apples-vs.-oranges comparisons offered by the uninformed.
Maybe the manufacturer figured that at that price point they would only sell to collectors, experts and gun writers? They probably envisioned these guns being shot a few times a year but mostly kept in nice clean humidity controlled cases and shown off to the owners buddies.
Who has the money to be riding around in the rain with a $2000 reproduction? Someone with more money than sense obviously.
Still, I agree that if a product can be made safer without harming it's function and without being outrageously expensive then it should be done. A transfer bar(or whatever system they deem best) seems a no brainer to me. Doesn't add significant cost, actually increases functionality(can carry more bullets yeah), what's the down side? Other than the obvious, you know, in the absence of large predators we need some inherently dangerous devices around just to filter the gene pool a bit.
Who has the money to be riding around in the rain with a $2000 reproduction? Someone with more money than sense obviously.
Still, I agree that if a product can be made safer without harming it's function and without being outrageously expensive then it should be done. A transfer bar(or whatever system they deem best) seems a no brainer to me. Doesn't add significant cost, actually increases functionality(can carry more bullets yeah), what's the down side? Other than the obvious, you know, in the absence of large predators we need some inherently dangerous devices around just to filter the gene pool a bit.
Let it Bleed
New member
The reference to the McDonald's coffee lawsuit as frivolous seems to bear witness to the fact that some people are willing to accept news accounts when they agree with those accounts, but decry the media bias when they disagree.
Very few cases actually go to trial, and when they do it is because there are valid arguments on both sides. Without knowing the jury instructions given in this particular case nor of the evidence presented, it is somewhat questionable to cast aspersions on the jurors in this case.
As for the lawyer bashing, I suppose some yearn for the good ole days of flammable children’s sleepwear and other such wonderful products. I know I miss riding in the Ford Pinto and the hours of fun playing lawn darts.
Very few cases actually go to trial, and when they do it is because there are valid arguments on both sides. Without knowing the jury instructions given in this particular case nor of the evidence presented, it is somewhat questionable to cast aspersions on the jurors in this case.
As for the lawyer bashing, I suppose some yearn for the good ole days of flammable children’s sleepwear and other such wonderful products. I know I miss riding in the Ford Pinto and the hours of fun playing lawn darts.
- Status