That is why many of us would like to know what the pressure actually was?
Was it tested in a Lab, with a pressure barrel?
If it was and it fell within SAAMI spec then we can conclude that it may have been a design flaw that caused the failure. However all that Brian has provided is that they were at max but not over, with no backup info is suspect since by his own admission he was well over book max for the cartridge.
Just what exactly are we supposed to take away from this if we don't know the facts. Brian would like us all to not buy anything from TC, which is obvious. But the lesson could easily be don't be a dumbass when you reload and think you know about pressure when you really don't know about pressure.
heavywalker, I don’t think anyone will acusse you and a lot of other people on this forum of mincing words. HAHA!
I got the information from my gun expert, and load data software.
The T/C Arms team of experts and lawyers never took my (cartridges, components, etc. or similar) performed pressure testing and submitted Brian Ward’s load produces XX,XXX amount of PSI. In my opinion it would have definitely proven all the ranting and raving about over pressure rounds false.
In turn and unknown to me until trial, my team matched that action (stupidly in my opinion) and did not get a lab test for my rounds and relied on load programs as far as I know. Later the defense was able to get that evidence from my expert and load programs thrown out and the PSI of my cartridge’s was not allowed to be presented to the jury.
Kind of frustrating to say the least. In my opinion the jury does not hear even close to the whole truth in a case.
Originally Posted by bobhanson1
Originally Posted by tex_n_cal
I haven't read the whole thread, but after seeing the recent pictures I am more favorably disposed toward the owner. Originally I was inclined to think him a whiner trying to make a profit.
Apparently, the stock failed, causing the rest of the gun to strike him in the face and do serious injury. A failure of the stock is caused by the effects of recoil, not chamber pressure.
It's meaningless that his handloads were a bit above book. It was straight line force that did the damage, and his "8% over book load" probably made about 2-3% more recoil above a factory load.
The Encore is sold in calibers larger than the .300 win mag, like the .35 Whelan, .45-70, and 12 gauge, which presumably kick as hard or harder than even a warm loaded .300 mag. And T/c should have made a stock strong enough to handle anything they chamber.
I have no dog in this hunt, and I'm not gonna spend hours researching the case and technical details. If someone finds different details that blows up my theory, more power to them. But if some product fails and badly injures me during reasonable, normal use, I'd sue the manufacturer, too.
The other issue is he keeps saying the action failed due to design flaws all while failing to mention the pistol grip broke in half. We have no idea if what he says is actually true regarding the action but if the same thing happened to me I'd be suing over the design of said pistol grip and not the action as ge claimed as which is more believable, a grip busting under recoil or his version of events?
