Another opinion on the T/C Arms Encore Gun Failure
Guys, I said my final piece on this thread. But I was contacted by Jack Belk (Author of UnSafe by Design: Forensic Gunsmithing and Firearms Investigations) and I put him in contact with my Gun Expert. I thought his assessment was pertinent and want to share it.
Thanks,
Brian Ward
Link to the original post:
http://www.shootersforum.com/general-discussion/98824-embrace-truth-catastrophic-gun-failure.htmlText:
“I have discussed this case with the plaintiff's expert witness that did the analysis of Brian's accident. As is normal in these type cases, there's a lot that can't be released to the public (and the gun companies fight to keep it that way).
Here's the physical facts that were demonstrated to the jury to 'prove' one or more defects in design or defects in material that was 'more likely than not' the causation of Brian's injuries. To do that, the firearms expert has to testify to the facts and opinions concerning the gun. Medical experts and monetary loss experts and all sorts of supporting testimony covers the areas outside the firearm.
In this case, the medical testimony did not or could not point to one specific thing or item that caused the loss of the eye but "impact" was named as causation. There was no one piece of debris named even though the fired case was not recovered from the eye or anywhere else.
That raises the first flag---Where is the fired case? If nobody removed it, it had to have left on its own. How?
The firearms expert and engineer in this case found that the weight of the locking block is sufficient to UN LOCK the TC Encore with the recoil of a .300Win Mag. This is inertia as described by Sir Isaac Newton and recognized by the Courts as mechanical fact. It was also found that the material and design of the (severely angled) grip section of the plastic stock was not proper for the amount of recoil applied by that caliber/weight combination of rifle. Proper stock design and materials are well-known and fully accepted by the courts.
Once it was shown through testimony the locking assembly on the rifle was not proper for the cartridge and could cause the gun to unlock itself and eject the case, then reclose when it fell, AND the cheap plastic stock was likely to break from recoil from normal use, the further facts of sloppy headspacing and the tested stretching of the headspace dimension in as few as five rounds just showed more exacerbating circumstances due to faulty designs in more than one place. The jury saw the gun was defective in design and materials and awarded the majority of the verdict to the plaintiffs. They retained part of the award because the handload was an unknown that the company contended could have been causation. (Common in civil courts in states where 'proportional liability' is the law.)
MY OPINION concurs with the plaintiff's expert: He believes as do I the TC Encore is not designed correctly for the calibers they call on it to hold. The weird stock was just stupid. Economy was chosen over shooter's safety......by design. Ignorance of basic firearms design history played a major roll, unless they knowingly gambled and lost.
All it takes to accept that opinion is to look at similar rifles (and shotguns) and how they were made: Locking blocks are to the rear of the locking notch(es). Recoil makes them lock up tighter, not loosens that most important connection. It has been that way since Manton invented the double underlock in about 1873. Purdey's made it famous and just about everybody on the planet has copied it since then. The greater back-thrust pressure of rifle cartridges usually made a 'third fastener' of some kind above the pivot point very common but not universal. (Browning Superposed, rifles)
Examine a heavy recoiling double rifle and see the metal tang extension all the way to the top of the stock comb and the trigger guard goes to the steel grip cap and is firmly attached there as re-inforcement to a (fine Circassian) walnut butt stock that has a shear strength higher than the plastics used on the TC rifle.
Pictured is such a tang done on a .404 bolt gun by Steve Heilmann.
The inertia of the shooter means the gun recoils before the stock unless they're well connected and in a straight line. That means the same plastic used for AR platform stocks is likely to be too weak in shear strength to be used in 'crooked' stocks. AR stocks are strong in compression which doesn't count in the TC 'drop stocks'.
Consider also the safety factors that should be brought in because TC knows how shooters are. (Don't we all.) Just because the TC-E "will hold" a .300 Mag does not mean it will still hold one with excess resizing lube left on it, or an oversized flashhole, or a weld-crimped bullet or a round grabbed off the dashboard with hot and degraded powder. (don't ask me how I know THAT one!)
Hopefully this enlightens this group to the 'behind the scenes' take on what was a 'grenade of good intentions' without enough technical information to support it.”
