A dissertation based on what data has been presented.
Stated “facts”: Man was seriously injured and lost an eye. It was stated that this happened 10 years ago The issue of headspace has been raised The load state was 85 grains of H-1000 (but I didn’t see a bullet listed) There is a photo of a rifle with a broken stock, action closed and intact.
Regarding guns and handloads: Understand that ALL firearms are designed to protect the shooter in case of a catastrophic failure. Even if reloads aren’t used, the gun designer has to engineer the firearm to account for ammunition failures because ammunition failures of even factory ammunition are within the realm of reality. Soft cases, bad primers, overloaded, or a combination; we’ve all seen ammunition lot recalls. So if you don’t design your firearm to account for some sort of ammunition failure, then you’re not taking steps to protect the shooter against a very foreseeable incidence. So just because someone uses handloads does not absolve the manufacturer of any and all liability for the design of their gun. It can void the warranty though.
Regarding headspace: Someone made a comment alluding to the fact that headspace can’t change on a belted case (or something like that). Headspace is a measurement from two points. The breech face, and some point on the case(shoulder, rim, belt, case mouth, etc). Where the cartridge headspaces really doesn’t matter, what matters is the amount of headspace. If headspace is excessive, then the case can stretch beyond the ductility limits of the brass case, and thus the case can fail. So the fact that the gun heaspaces on a belt means nothing. And just because headspace is excessive is not a guarantee that the gun will blow up, there are many more factors such as the load in question.
The load: Well clearly the load is beyond the stated maximum from Hodgdon today. But it may not be beyond maximum of 10 years ago (you’d have to look at the book to verify that). Powders have subtle changes over the years, and manufacturers have been changing over from LUP/CUP to PSI slowly over the past 20 years. So these are things that can change the recommended maximum over time. However, the physical size of the powder rarely ever changes size, so if 79.4 grains is a compressed load (as listed on the Hodgdon web site), then 85 would be a VERY compressed load; if you could even get it into the case and seat a bullet. The only way to know would be to try. Since I don’t have a .300 mag or reloading components, I can’t say. I can surmise that the bullet would have to be seated out pretty far, and there’s a chance the compressed powder could have nudged the bullet out (not uncommon with compressed loads, even factory compressed loads…remember what happened with early .458 Winchester factory ammunition?).
Is the load in question enough to “blow up” a gun…maybe. There are a lot of issues to factor in like throat length, and if the headspace really was excessive.
The gun: The Encore is a break action rifle where the locking mechanism is held in place by spring pressure. The releasing of the lock is done by pulling back on the trigger guard, something that could be done with the off hand while firing if you held it just right. All break actions “spring” upon firing, meaning the top of the barrel at the breech pulls away from the standing breech. Depending on the cartridge even under springing, often it’s really no stress on the lock itself. Double shotguns have been tested that showed proof of springing, yet had no lock in place…yeah, weird; but true. When you get to rifles though, you’re in a whole different world because the pressure is several orders of magnitude higher.
Speculations
If you had a gun with an over-load, combined with a chamber that is well out of headspace, you could setup a situation where vibration could cause the action to spring open. If that springing happened when chamber pressures were high, the brass could give way and become a projectile and take out someone’s eye. That COULD happen...shouldn't, but could.
Another scenario would be just a very stout load, a faulty stock, and a guy taking a scope to the eye. The eye is not considered a “fragile” organism, but impact can detach a retina. Or if someone were wearing non-impact resistant glasses (can you even buy such a thing anymore?) a scope whack to the glasses could send pieces into the eye.
I’m not sure who the “experts” were in the case in question, but I’m betting there was a whole lot of opinion, and little to no science. If the rifle action was intact after the incident, then it wouldn’t be too much to just take it into a lab setting and reproduce the incident in question.
If the gun were not available, then you could take the opinions of experts and engineers and try to reproduce the incident in a lab setting. Experimenting with load, and slowly opening up headspace until you get enough of each to re-create the incident, or prove otherwise.
If the action came open at any time during the firing cycle, even with the use of an over-load, then the manufacturer could be at fault from a design standpoint. Remember, the overload could have come from factory ammunition also, as such, it should have been a forseeable incidence. Most any gun design, lever, break, bolt, semi-auto, etc, you will NOT be able to spring an action open even after blowing the gun to pieces. So if the action came open at any time, that could be either a design or manufacturing fault/flaw.
If it came open, and an overloaded round was used, then that could be seen as a contributing factor.
Therefore, I can certainly see a scenario where someone was found 40% at fault for a questionable load, and the manufacturer 60% based on the fact that pretty much any other gun would not have had the action sprung open. Again, this is going on an assumption that the action did indeed spring open, and I don’t know if that happened; just speculation on my part. But the whole thing has been speculation as far as I can see.
