Ruger Hawkeye catastrophic failure......

Status
Not open for further replies.
Glad you are going to get you another rifle and things worked out pretty well. Your ordeal almost has me concerned about the powder I have. That little round thin seal on the powder containers is not a good tamper proof method. Like others said it is harder to get into food containers than powder containers. I am afraid that more tampering will take place in some locations.
 
Cornbush, I used to own a 03 that was chambered in 308 Norma mag. It shot great. I once had a case seperation just ahead of the extractor groove. No gas in the face. It extracted the rear portion of the case. If I remember correctly I had to use a cleaning rod to remove the rest of the case.

I would like a 30:06 Ackley improved, but now days I don't think that I would use one of those old actions. You can shoot regular 30:06 or the AI round. It comes close to 300 Win. ballistics. But pressures can reach 60,000 PSI. It would be simple, just have the chamber cut. You would have to fire form the brass, and buy the dies. I appoligize for getting off subject. Eagle
 
FrankenMauser said:
What surprised us, was that Hodgdon was able to separate the powder enough to determine a lot number for the contaminant, and definitively say it was W296. I found that mildly interesting, since H110 and W296 are the same powder.
Click to expand...

I must have missed that. I though all Hodgdon said was the powder had been mixed with W296 or H-110. Was the lot number determined?

I suppose cornbush was lucky the culprit didn't mix W231 instead.

Cornbush,

Is there any way the powder could have been mixed on your bench? We get threads every now and again where someone has mixed powders when they emptied the measure into the wrong container. When the mistake is realized it almost always winds up with the powder being dumped in the garden or ceremoniously burned.
 
This may or may not be off the original topic, but there has to be a solution to a better packaging to protect the consumer AND the manufacturer. I think vacuum sealing would be a viable option, as it doesn't involve heat or chemicals. Tooling up for it may be a big cost factor for the manufacturer, but I'm sure it would be left up to their bean counters to figure out cost versus money saved elsewhere. Wouldn't it be nice to hear an audible POP! when opening a new jug?
 
This may or may not be off the original topic, but there has to be a solution to a better packaging to protect the consumer AND the manufacturer. I think vacuum sealing would be a viable option, as it doesn't involve heat or chemicals. Tooling up for it may be a big cost factor for the manufacturer, but I'm sure it would be left up to their bean counters to figure out cost versus money saved elsewhere. Wouldn't it be nice to hear an audible POP! when opening a new jug?
 
I'm an industrial engineer- methinks even the plastic seal like on a milk jug would be sufficient and add about .000001 cents to each can sold, then advertise that your powder is much more tamper-resistant than everyone else. :rolleyes:
 
Powder used to be sealed better. When I opened my 8# can of IMR-4320 (circa 1982) there was a tear out plastic plug in the pull-out spout.

But, like Magnumwill mentioned above, a tear off strip like you see on milk jugs or seals like those used on coke or water bottles should work fine.

I say that, but I really wouldn't mind if it was kept behind the counter and dispensed into paper bags or your own container. Some of the best rifle powder I've used came in a bleach jug with the pertinent information magic marker’d on the side. Too bad you just can't trust others any more.
 
I personally believe that Hodgdon is doing the right thing because it really IS their fault. A proper seal on the powder can would have prevented such a scenario.
Click to expand...
This is the equivalent of saying it's a woman's fault if she's raped because she could have taken more effective steps to prevent being a target. Or that it's a person's fault that their house was burglarized because their security system wasn't good enough.

It's not kosher to blame an innocent party for the criminal acts of someone else. Just because they may not have done everything they could have to prevent someone else from doing wrong doesn't make it their fault.
 
This is the equivalent of saying it's a woman's fault if she's raped because she could have taken more effective steps to prevent being a target. Or that it's a person's fault that their house was burglarized because their security system wasn't good enough.

It's not kosher to blame an innocent party for the criminal acts of someone else. Just because they may not have done everything they could have to prevent someone else from doing wrong doesn't make it their fault.
Click to expand...

Your analogy is flawed. Hodgdon puts its products on the market in an unsafe manner. If a woman purposefully walked around naked in a room full of sex offenders it would still be illegal for someone to rape her but she is the only one to blame for her pain if she is raped because she put herself in that situation. Now, if a woman dresses modestly and aviods sketchy situations as best she possibly can then you can't say she contributed to the act. Hodgdon's container is the equivalent of a naked woman purposefully walking into a room full of sex offenders. Is it wrong for one or more of them to rape her? Yes! Would you expect it to happen? Yes!

Since Hodgdon charges us to use their powder, they have a duty to make sure that we get what we think we are buying and what is labelled on the container. If the container is flawed in such a way that we may not get what we think is in the container, regardless of who puts the wrong powder in the container, Hodgdon is just as responsible.
 
...she is the only one to blame for her pain if she is raped...
Click to expand...
Poor choices can have unpleasant consequences, but that's entirely different from assigning blame.

Saying she's to blame for her pain is all kinds of messed up. The person who committed the crime and caused her pain is to blame, not she.

If I forget to lock my door when I leave for work in the morning and someone walks in and takes my TV, I will bear the unpleasant consequences of my inattention. But I'm not to blame for the fact that a thief decided to perpetrate a crime against me. The burglar is to blame for committing the crime.

If I sell a gun to an apparently qualified person who uses the gun in a crime, I am not to blame for his criminal behavior or the results of it as long as I complied with the laws that govern the sale of firearms between non-dealers. The person who purchased the gun from me and chose to use it in a crime is to blame.
Would you expect it to happen?
Click to expand...
Expectaction is not a reasonable criteria for assigning the blame for criminal acts. We can always expect criminals to commit crimes, but the fact that we don't take every possible precaution to prevent crime doesn't mean we're to blame when we fall victim to crime.

Criminals are to blame for criminal behavior and the results of it. It's fashionable in our society to try to shift blame for various reasons but that doesn't mean it makes sense or that it's the right thing to do.
Hodgdon puts its products on the market in an unsafe manner.
Click to expand...
No, that's an overstatement. Hogdon may not have taken every possible step to prevent someone from tampering with their product, but that doesn't mean their product is "on the market in an unsafe manner". We are not required to take every possible step to prevent crime or to avoid being targeted by crime before we can escape being blamed for crime. We simply have to avoid committing crime to avoid being blamed for crime.

And that's a very fortunate thing. If that weren't the way things are, who would be given the power to "create crimes" that aren't on the books by deciding when someone is not doing enough to prevent people from committing crimes and is therefore to blame for the crimes? We have enough laws and rules to assign blame; we don't need to make up new ways to blame people for crime. Especially people who haven't done anything worthy of being blamed for crime.

Part of the problem with our society is that people aren't satisfied unless they can find someone to blame even when the real culprit isn't available. The person to blame for this situation is whoever mixed the powders and resealed the container. The fact that he can't be located doesn't make it right/reasonable/acceptable to try to blame Hogdon for what he did by trying to make it look like they're culpable for not making it impossible to tamper with their product.

Hogdon is as much a victim as cornbush. Moreso, in fact. He's out only the cost of a few rounds of ammunition and a canister of powder. They are out the cost of a new rifle and in addition to that, they are now being blamed because someone tampered with one of their products and resealed the container.
 
Johnska,I ADAMANTLY agree with you,and as adamantly disagree with our lawyer friend.
Yes,it would be a good thing if Hogdon chose to improve the seal,but they are FREE not to.
I used to take my own bleach bottle to get Hogdon powder,and if I forgot,Louis put it in a paper bag.It worked fine.I hunt on foot,but one year I had a Yamaha tt 500 in camp.I had filled my tag,and walking in,I left a coffee cup on a fencepost.I was paying more attention to not leaving any tracks in the rancher's grass than I was to driving,and I tore up a knee.The lawyer/insurance team called me and started asking questions because the wanted to sue the rancher.I refused to co-operate,and claimed I made my mistakes on my own.What this asinine attitude will do is hurt all of us.The rancher,of course,will jusy ban hunting on his property.
Nothing closes doors to privelidge faster than litigation.Sorry,Longdayjake,I do not want you or your kind "protecting" me.I am a grownup.
Why am I thinking of Frank Azar commercials?"Been in a wreck?Call Franky,he will make da bums bleed for you...)
 
I have mixed feelings about Hodgdon buying the rifle.

On one hand, I'm glad they're doing it because it wasn't cornbush's fault the rifle was destroyed.

On the other hand, I don't believe it was Hodgdon's fault either. Their liability ended when the powder was delivered to the retailer.

By replacing the rifle (and others, I'd have to assume), Hodgdon has increased their operating cost. This cost is passed to consumers (me) in the form of higher product prices. Just think what powder would cost if anyone could blow up a gun and get it replaced by just dumping a couple of powders together and shipping the whole mess to Hodgdon, Alliant, Western, etc.

Product seals are good for everyone. The manufacturer is protected from consumers mixing their products and the consumer is protected from tampering after the bottling process. I just hate that it comes to this.

As for the "Get a new rifle and another at 20% off" business, I think Hodgdon should get the discount when buying the gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top