|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,785
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,785 |
I doubt that headspace would cause a catastrophic boom with A PROPERLY DESIGNED FIREARM. That is kind of the point. I've seen cases that completely separated in bolt actions that the shooter didn't even know had separated until he pulled out half a case.
So, if there was no evidence put forth that the shooter had packed a case full of pistol powder, I suspect that IT IS something wrong with the design or metallurgy of the firearm.
It happens to all makers. Remember Sako had that run a few years ago of bad steel where barrels were banana peeling. Could well be. But thats not lawsuit material IMHO. If it was would we sue ourselves for every mistake we ever made, intentional or not? Lawsuit material is decided by damages. If you get an eye put out through no fault of your own, you might be a little less likely to let bygones be bygones. You after all, will be the ones dealing with the results of said negligence for the rest of your life. Further, litigation serves the market by providing incentive for manufacturers to take all reasonable precautions to make sure something is designed and built right. It appears that this wasn't "no fault of his own". The jury determined that handloading was an issue and assigned 40% of the fault to him. As stated, the retrial/appeal will be interesting. There won't be a retrial, it will be denied. There will be an appeal most likely.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
There won't be a retrial, it will be denied. There will be an appeal most likely.
We'll see. As I said, it will be interesting. Last time I checked, reloading voided the warranty on most all firearms. That's a huge issue, and one that will be in play far more than a handful of supposedly out-of-spec Encores.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,785
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,785 |
There won't be a retrial, it will be denied. There will be an appeal most likely.
We'll see. As I said, it will be interesting. Last time I checked, reloading voided the warranty on most all firearms. That's a huge issue, and one that will be in play far more than a handful of supposedly out-of-spec Encores. Not really. If firearms manufacturers were concerned about reloading, they would design firearms to fire cartridges that couldn't be reloaded. But they don't, so they sell firearms knowing full well that they will be shot with cartridges that are reloaded. And in any case, as WE ALL KNOW the mere fact that a cartridge has been reloaded does not make it more dangerous than a factory made cartridge.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
There won't be a retrial, it will be denied. There will be an appeal most likely.
We'll see. As I said, it will be interesting. Last time I checked, reloading voided the warranty on most all firearms. That's a huge issue, and one that will be in play far more than a handful of supposedly out-of-spec Encores. Not really. If firearms manufacturers were concerned about reloading, they would design firearms to fire cartridges that couldn't be reloaded. But they don't, so they sell firearms knowing full well that they will be shot with cartridges that are reloaded. And in any case, as WE ALL KNOW the mere fact that a cartridge has been reloaded does not make it more dangerous than a factory made cartridge. Never said it was a fact that it made it more dangerous. I stated that as written the warranties are voided by reloading. You can try to twist what I said into something else, but it's not going to work.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 18,215
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 18,215 |
Not really. If firearms manufacturers were concerned about reloading, they would design firearms to fire cartridges that couldn't be reloaded. But they don't, so they sell firearms knowing full well that they will be shot with cartridges that are reloaded.
Wow,..not really too concerned about JoeBob after reading this statement..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,785
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,785 |
There won't be a retrial, it will be denied. There will be an appeal most likely.
We'll see. As I said, it will be interesting. Last time I checked, reloading voided the warranty on most all firearms. That's a huge issue, and one that will be in play far more than a handful of supposedly out-of-spec Encores. Not really. If firearms manufacturers were concerned about reloading, they would design firearms to fire cartridges that couldn't be reloaded. But they don't, so they sell firearms knowing full well that they will be shot with cartridges that are reloaded. And in any case, as WE ALL KNOW the mere fact that a cartridge has been reloaded does not make it more dangerous than a factory made cartridge. Never said it was a fact that it made it more dangerous. I stated that as written the warranties are voided by reloading. You can try to twist what I said into something else, but it's not going to work. And what does a warranty have to do with safety? And do manufacturers design firearms knowing full well that hand loaded ammunition will be used in them?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,785
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,785 |
Not really. If firearms manufacturers were concerned about reloading, they would design firearms to fire cartridges that couldn't be reloaded. But they don't, so they sell firearms knowing full well that they will be shot with cartridges that are reloaded.
Wow,..not really too concerned about JoeBob after reading this statement.. You obviously, don't get the point. Firearms manufacturers know that firearms will be used with hand loaded cartridges. If they ACTUALLY believed that hand loaded cartridges were unreasonably dangerous, they could with a few rather simple design changes, manufacture firearms that could not shoot reloaded ammunition. Since they don't it can only be assumed that they do not consider the mere act of reloading to be unreasonably dangerous in and of itself, and/or they like to sell firearms and know that the market favors those that shoot cartridges that can be reloaded. Either way, they don't get to claim, "Tough [bleep]. You shot a reloaded cartridge and we can't be responsible for what happens to you."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,667
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,667 |
Can't open PDF unless one is a member of that forum. Just post it here, please. I am a member of THR, but I stay away from it. Strange bunch there.
Sam......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
well if we have someone that can grab it, save it (virus check it) and get it to me, I can run an OCR and post it for all to see.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
And what does a warranty have to do with safety? And do manufacturers design firearms knowing full well that hand loaded ammunition will be used in them?
Did I say it had anything to do with safety? That would be a no. Do manufacturers design firearms knowing full well that hand loaded ammunition will be used in them? I don't know (and neither do you); why don't you ask them? You haven't all the facts, or even most of them, and neither do any of the rest of us. None of us know what the basis for a motion for retrial is or will be, and so it's ridiculous to guess. You're trying to banty this into some kind of personal soap box issue. Good luck with that.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 18,215
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 18,215 |
You obviously, don't get the point. Firearms manufacturers know that firearms will be used with hand loaded cartridges. If they ACTUALLY believed that hand loaded cartridges were unreasonably dangerous, they could with a few rather simple design changes, manufacture firearms that could not shoot reloaded ammunition.
Since they don't it can only be assumed that they do not consider the mere act of reloading to be unreasonably dangerous in and of itself, and/or they like to sell firearms and know that the market favors those that shoot cartridges that can be reloaded. Either way, they don't get to claim, "Tough [bleep]. You shot a reloaded cartridge and we can't be responsible for what happens to you."
I get the point just fine. YOU put a reload into a firearm and blew yourself up. YOU voided the warranty after the firearm manufacturer EXPRESSLY told you not to, did you not.? They have no way to stop somebody from sticking a half stick of dynamite into a chamber and pulling the trigger. Nobody forced you to reload. You could have stayed with factory. All of this falls on YOU.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,785
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,785 |
You obviously, don't get the point. Firearms manufacturers know that firearms will be used with hand loaded cartridges. If they ACTUALLY believed that hand loaded cartridges were unreasonably dangerous, they could with a few rather simple design changes, manufacture firearms that could not shoot reloaded ammunition.
Since they don't it can only be assumed that they do not consider the mere act of reloading to be unreasonably dangerous in and of itself, and/or they like to sell firearms and know that the market favors those that shoot cartridges that can be reloaded. Either way, they don't get to claim, "Tough [bleep]. You shot a reloaded cartridge and we can't be responsible for what happens to you."
I get the point just fine. YOU put a reload into a firearm and blew yourself up. YOU voided the warranty after the firearm manufacturer EXPRESSLY told you not to, did you not.? They have no way to stop somebody from sticking a half stick of dynamite into a chamber and pulling the trigger. Nobody forced you to reload. You could have stayed with factory. All of this falls on YOU. First of all, none of it falls on me as that I did not do anything. Secondly, do you seriously contend that if someone put a reload at a less than starting load with pressures WELL BELOW SAAMI specs and the firearm suffers a catastrophic failure, then said person is at fault for his injury merely because he used a reload and the manufacturer said no to do so?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,910
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,910 |
Easy to follow.
If they say NO reloads or no warranty,it means no reloads.
Not that hard to follow.
If i load something and i blow up the rifle it is on me not them,unless one can prove that it would happen with established factory loads.
That is why i like the Mauser action.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 18,215
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 18,215 |
First of all, none of it falls on me as that I did not do anything.
Secondly, do you seriously contend that if someone put a reload at a less than starting load with pressures WELL BELOW SAAMI specs and the firearm suffers a catastrophic failure, then said person is at fault for his injury merely because he used a reload and the manufacturer said no to do so?
Unbelievable..!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
That is why i like the Mauser action.
and here we go... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,785
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,785 |
First of all, none of it falls on me as that I did not do anything.
Secondly, do you seriously contend that if someone put a reload at a less than starting load with pressures WELL BELOW SAAMI specs and the firearm suffers a catastrophic failure, then said person is at fault for his injury merely because he used a reload and the manufacturer said no to do so?
Unbelievable..! You should probably go back and read a little bit, Mr. Excessively Offended Drama Bunny. We're not talking about me. I haven't suffered damage from a catastrophic blow up of a rifle.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,785
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,785 |
Easy to follow.
If they say NO reloads or no warranty,it means no reloads.
Not that hard to follow.
If i load something and i blow up the rifle it is on me not them,unless one can prove that it would happen with established factory loads.
That is why i like the Mauser action. You see that sentence is contradictory don't you? So, is the issue the reloads, or is it how the reloads were loaded?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 18,215
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 18,215 |
You should probably go back and read a little bit, Mr. Excessively Offended Drama Bunny. We're not talking about me. I haven't suffered damage from a catastrophic blow up of a rifle.
Yep, got my JoeBobs mixed up, my mistake. You can't really believe what you wrote below, you can't be that big of a Tool...
Not really. If firearms manufacturers were concerned about reloading, they would design firearms to fire cartridges that couldn't be reloaded. But they don't, so they sell firearms knowing full well that they will be shot with cartridges that are reloaded.
And in any case, as WE ALL KNOW the mere fact that a cartridge has been reloaded does not make it more dangerous than a factory made cartridge.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,910
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,910 |
Not that hard to follow just quit trying to argue something like Alan Combs. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
Well, I got to see the pdf, its really just the verdict and award.
Basically the Jury found TCA failed to design the rifle in such a way to take into account all foreseeable use and/or misuse and provide warning of same.
Did not find TCA grossly negligent, just didn't idiot proof their stuff.
And a 60/40 split on comparative negligence.
Would love to see the transcripts and expert data, but hey, embrace the truth....
|
|
|
|
|
573 members (12344mag, 1eyedmule, 1beaver_shooter, 222ND, 257 mag, 2003and2013, 66 invisible),
2,503
guests, and
1,272
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,675
Posts18,456,200
Members73,909
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
