|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800 |
You're just as wrong as I would be if I tried to tell you how you set up a lathe.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 |
I'm capable of being wrong, but I'm not wrong about this.
Firearm manufacturers shouldn't be held liable for the use of handloaded ammo.
It's something that's totally beyond their control.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
https://www.tcarms.com/pdfs/uploads/manuals/Encore_RifleShotgun_Manual_03-30-15.pdfPlease take a look at the second page, top 1/3 of the page, in bright red and bold. Same warning on page 3, and page 6, and throughout the manual. Top of page six reads: "ALWAYS USE THE CORRECT AMMUNITION FOR YOUR PARTICULAR FIREARM as indicated by the marking on the firearm. Never use non-standard, reloaded, or "handloaded" ammunition which has not been subjected to internal ballistic pressure testing." The top of page ten is a huge, bold, red disclaimer and warning on the use of handloads. Big old warnings all throughout that improper use or use of improper ammunition could cause serious injury or death. I'm not seeing how T/C didn't properly advise customers of any potential dangers and how they produced a faulty manual (one of the jury findings). It's in bold, red, and plain English on damned near every page. And take a look at the link: June 2015 Issue of Handloader Magazine There it is in plain view that not only does Thompson Center endorse handloading as a practice, they feel it is safe in their products and they profit from the advertising specifically aimed at selling their products to those who handload. So, does that cover auto manufacturers for any fools who want to go all "Fast & Furious" because car companies places adds in high-performance car magazines? How about motorcycle makers that buy ads and have articles written about their wares; does that mean that they are liable when someone hotrods their bike and acts a damned fool? They feel it's safe to have their products so tested and publicized and they profit from the advertizing specifically aimed at selling their products to those that exceed safety and legal limits.
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: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
Oddly, Joe, you're arguing the jury award and such, and no one cares.
The jury went 40% OP at fault, which, given that everyone here could likely be in his shoes at one time or another, we would like to know what went on.
Not so we could happily collect our 60%, but moreso to avoid the 40% issue altogether.
But keep pulling taffy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800 |
I'm capable of being wrong, but I'm not wrong about this.
Firearm manufacturers shouldn't be held liable for the use of handloaded ammo.
It's something that's totally beyond their control. Ammunition manufacturing BY ANYONE from ANY SOURCE is something that is beyond the control of a firearms manufacturer unless they manufacture the ammunition right there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
You're just as wrong as I would be if I tried to tell you how you set up a lathe. If you were telling him to set up a wood lathe to use for steel and run it beyond the manufacturers specs, then yeah, you'd be about as wrong. As it stands, what we know now is that the guy was seriously injured when the stock broke on his rifle (why is the question) and that he was handloading at better than 8% above the book maximum using a highly compressed load that some mystery "gun expert" told him was safe.
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: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Oddly, Joe, you're arguing the jury award and such, and no one cares.
The jury went 40% OP at fault, which, given that everyone here could likely be in his shoes at one time or another, we would like to know what went on.
Not so we could happily collect our 60%, but moreso to avoid the 40% issue altogether.
But keep pulling taffy.
This is the point that people keep trying to get to, but Joe has a hard on and a soap box issue to "stand up for the injured and defend them against corporate greed and wrongdoing" or some such schit. Knowing where the problem actually lies is what can help people avoid this from happening; again, the Mossberg 4x4 situation from a few years back comes to mind.
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: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
Well, maybe Joe can help me sue the Serbs for the 16 gauge SxS action I blew the wrist out on because I didn't bush the strikers.
After all, those Serbs should have known - and they didn't even stamp a warning on the barrel.
mf'ers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800 |
https://www.tcarms.com/pdfs/uploads/manuals/Encore_RifleShotgun_Manual_03-30-15.pdfPlease take a look at the second page, top 1/3 of the page, in bright red and bold. Same warning on page 3, and page 6, and throughout the manual. Top of page six reads: "ALWAYS USE THE CORRECT AMMUNITION FOR YOUR PARTICULAR FIREARM as indicated by the marking on the firearm. Never use non-standard, reloaded, or "handloaded" ammunition which has not been subjected to internal ballistic pressure testing." The top of page ten is a huge, bold, red disclaimer and warning on the use of handloads. Big old warnings all throughout that improper use or use of improper ammunition could cause serious injury or death. I'm not seeing how T/C didn't properly advise customers of any potential dangers and how they produced a faulty manual (one of the jury findings). It's in bold, red, and plain English on damned near every page. And take a look at the link: June 2015 Issue of Handloader Magazine There it is in plain view that not only does Thompson Center endorse handloading as a practice, they feel it is safe in their products and they profit from the advertising specifically aimed at selling their products to those who handload. So, does that cover auto manufacturers for any fools who want to go all "Fast & Furious" because car companies places adds in high-performance car magazines? How about motorcycle makers that buy ads and have articles written about their wares; does that mean that they are liable when someone hotrods their bike and acts a damned fool? They feel it's safe to have their products so tested and publicized and they profit from the advertizing specifically aimed at selling their products to those that exceed safety and legal limits. I don't know, it depends. Some dangers are open and obvious, others are not. With the case of cars and motorcycles, the question is not the modification itself, but how the car is driven after the change is made. And the dangers of excessive speed easily fall into the "open and obvious" category. And besides, it really analogous to what is done by TC. Take a look at that cover. It advertises a TC Encore in a .375/44 Bain and something or another. TC made a barrel in a Wildcat cartridge that can ONLY have ammunition in it through the process of handloading. Thus the issue is not whether that firearm is safe with handloaded ammunition as that there is ONLY handloaded ammunition, the issue is whether that firearm is safe with ammunition loaded to the pressures in the cartridge for which it is designed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,741
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,741 |
I'm capable of being wrong, but I'm not wrong about this.
Firearm manufacturers shouldn't be held liable for the use of handloaded ammo.
It's something that's totally beyond their control. If the handloaded ammunition has no part to play in the gun failure, then the rifle manufacturer would be at fault. But considering his loads were intentionally and repeatedly over published maximums, I think he needs to tip his lawyer big time for getting a 60% settlement, though maybe it's a case of Thompson should be firing their lawyers. Can Quickload guess at an estimated pressure level for this?
“ The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800 |
Oddly, Joe, you're arguing the jury award and such, and no one cares.
The jury went 40% OP at fault, which, given that everyone here could likely be in his shoes at one time or another, we would like to know what went on.
Not so we could happily collect our 60%, but moreso to avoid the 40% issue altogether.
But keep pulling taffy.
This is the point that people keep trying to get to, but Joe has a hard on and a soap box issue to "stand up for the injured and defend them against corporate greed and wrongdoing" or some such schit. Knowing where the problem actually lies is what can help people avoid this from happening; again, the Mossberg 4x4 situation from a few years back comes to mind. I'm not standing up for anyone other than principle. YOU are the VERY FIRST one in this thread to make the blanket statement that a manufacturer should not be responsible for handloaded ammunition because the owner's manual said not to shoot it. I'm merely pointing out that you are wrong in that limited sense and why it is important to understand the point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
the issue is whether that firearm is safe with ammunition loaded to the pressures in the cartridge for which it is designed. Which brings us directly to the 8.3% over maximum, highly compressed load; i.e., a load beyond the pressures in the cartridge for which it was designed.
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: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
Thus the issue is not whether that firearm is safe with handloaded ammunition as that there is ONLY handloaded ammunition, the issue is whether that firearm is safe with ammunition loaded to the pressures in the cartridge for which it is designed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Oddly, Joe, you're arguing the jury award and such, and no one cares.
The jury went 40% OP at fault, which, given that everyone here could likely be in his shoes at one time or another, we would like to know what went on.
Not so we could happily collect our 60%, but moreso to avoid the 40% issue altogether.
But keep pulling taffy.
This is the point that people keep trying to get to, but Joe has a hard on and a soap box issue to "stand up for the injured and defend them against corporate greed and wrongdoing" or some such schit. Knowing where the problem actually lies is what can help people avoid this from happening; again, the Mossberg 4x4 situation from a few years back comes to mind. I'm not standing up for anyone other than principle. YOU are the VERY FIRST one in this thread to make the blanket statement that a manufacturer should not be responsible for handloaded ammunition because the owner's manual said not to shoot it. I'm merely pointing out that you are wrong in that limited sense and why it is important to understand the point. Given the reload in question; 8.3% over book maximum and highly compressed, I wasn't wrong then and I'm not wrong now. The action, which is what would have blown had the design of the action been flawed, is intact in the rifle the OP used. The stock broke, not the action.
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: 14,800
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800 |
the issue is whether that firearm is safe with ammunition loaded to the pressures in the cartridge for which it is designed. Which brings us directly to the 8.3% over maximum, highly compressed load; i.e., a load beyond the pressures in the cartridge for which it was designed. Fine, but that is far from your original blanket statement regarding handloaded ammunition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,741
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,741 |
the issue is whether that firearm is safe with ammunition loaded to the pressures in the cartridge for which it is designed. Which brings us directly to the 8.3% over maximum, highly compressed load; i.e., a load beyond the pressures in the cartridge for which it was designed. Is that 8.3% over the current published max, or the published max 8 years ago? I seem to remember hearing somebody say the published max then was higher than it is now.
“ The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
the issue is whether that firearm is safe with ammunition loaded to the pressures in the cartridge for which it is designed. Which brings us directly to the 8.3% over maximum, highly compressed load; i.e., a load beyond the pressures in the cartridge for which it was designed. Fine, but that is far from your original blanket statement regarding handloaded ammunition. You're mixing up issues, Joe. The case at hand has to do with the load in question and the rifle in question. A rifle that did not have the action fail, but the stock fail, and a load that is more than 8% over maximum and highly compressed at 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: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,917
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,917 |
He will not quit he likes to argue even when he makes no sense.
If you load up bombs then it's on you not them.
Easy to see but he has blinkers on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800 |
the issue is whether that firearm is safe with ammunition loaded to the pressures in the cartridge for which it is designed. Which brings us directly to the 8.3% over maximum, highly compressed load; i.e., a load beyond the pressures in the cartridge for which it was designed. Is that 8.3% over the current published max, or the published max 8 years ago? I seem to remember hearing somebody say the published max then was higher than it is now. I've thought of that too. I've got some loading manuals from 20 years ago with maximum loads that are three or four grains more than the updated manuals from the same source.
Last edited by JoeBob; 05/28/15.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076 |
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.
Last edited by heavywalker; 05/28/15.
|
|
|
|
|
618 members (007FJ, 163bc, 06hunter59, 1936M71, 10gaugeman, 69 invisible),
2,606
guests, and
1,333
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,716
Posts18,475,647
Members73,941
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
