Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Injury from Mossberg 100 ATR--3 men hurt thus far

That sticker on your dad's bumper is my generation. Evidently, you did'nt learn much from it.

im sure your outlook would be different if your 11 year old daughter had a firing pin blown thru her right eye and suffered extensive facial burning from the blast.

Nah, you'd probably want to "stand up for the company", huh?

Holt,
The differences between the Savage and the Mossberg and the Winchester and the Mossberg are significant and obvious. As I mentioned in my PM though, I won't offer an education to an attorney for free just as an attorney would be unlikely to offer me free legal opinion (I once had one call me and ask me a question then try and bill me for a phone consult!). GD

I know that I'm jumping in on this late. I have been having trouble with a 100 ATR in .270 Win that I bought at WalMart last month and searched the web to see who else was in a similer situation when I found this. My problem started when I didn't find a warranty or registration card in the box. Also, the manual stated a 1-year warranty and the sticker on the stock stated 2 years. I emailed Mossberg customer service but did not hear back. I took two boxes of 130 gr. factory loads (1 from Rem., 1 from Win.) to the range after mounting a 3x9 Bushnell Banner. If I loaded 3 rounds or 1 round the last round would not feed (it would pop up and turn sideways). I thought I didn't put it together correctly when I took it a part for cleaning. Back home I re-assembled everything per the "exploded diagram" in the owners manual and tried some dummy loads. Still had the feeding problems. Emailed Mossberg again. Still no response. Called Mossberg told them of the problems and was told they would send a new follower/spring assembly to me. Was told that my sales receipt was my proof of purchase - no warranty/registration card provided. Still wainting on it to show up.

Did a close examination of the bolt. The bolt head/face, bolt body, and bolt handle are 3 separate pieces. All have to turn in unison for the locking lugs to engage. The firing pin passes through the pin that retains the bolt head and locking lugs. If the pin shears on one side there would probably sufficient friction/force on the firing pin that it would not move forward and hit the primer. This pin would have to shear on both sides, keep the firing pin aligned with the hole in the bolt face, and allow the bolt face to reamain stationary while the bolt handle was moved. More likely the bolt handle became dissengaged from the bolt body. During my military carrer I was trained to be the maintenance rep. for aircraft crashes (we called them "misshaps"). I am not an engineer, but for a great part of my adult life it was my job to find out what went wrong with aircaft and get them fixed. I would be very interested to see how this turns out for Mossberg. Also, I would think they would put registration cards in with new firearms to help "lawyer proof" themselves. -AimHigh

Remember that the Mossberg ATR-100 is a 3rd generation Raptor, probably not the greatest foundation upon which to build a rifle or a reputation. Raptor failed and the design went to Charter Arms. Charter Arms couldn't make a go of it, as their Model 2000, so the design went to Mossberg. IIRC, there was an article in American Rifleman or American Hunter in 2004/2005 about how Mossberg had reengineered the basic Raptor design to make it a much better rifle. It appears that their redesign didn't make it good enough. At least when Mossberg decided to build their 464 lever action 30-30, they built it around a proven/tested design, the Winchester 94.

PaulBarnard and I have a bet that the ATR-100 won't be in production on 08/16/2010. If it isn't, I win, if it is, he wins.

Regardless of whether Mossberg has success with the ATR-100 or not, it is too bad that folks have been hurt using them in the way that they were intended and it is too bad that attorneys are involved, as they seldom add value or seek the "truth".

Jeff

That would seem to be the problem. If you study the pictures on this link of an ATR bolt that came apart, you don't have to be a rocket scientist or an engineer to see why it's a problem. If I were you I wouldn't be firing that ATR of yours until there is some kind of fix on the way the bolt handle is attached.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/2630486/page/0/fpart/1

Great pictures of the bolt in your previous post. The NOV 2005 edition of the "American Rifleman" says on pg 112. "The handle is an investment casting, swaged, press fit, and then brazed to the rear of the bolt body.....". If the handle was splined to fit the teeth of the body and brazed it probably would last forever. Can't tell from the pics if there was any brazing. Also wonder if a machine shop could run these two pieces through a collet and crimp them. Kind of like a giant Lee "factory crimp die". In all seriousness, Mossberg should do a recall of all ATR (and 4x4?) bolts to check them out for defects. -AimHigh

I would say that there was no brazing on that particular bolt joint.

Obviously there was no brazing. Plainly this is a quality control issue and perhaps, a manufacturing process issue. The same sort of thing occasionally happens on Winchester M 70's.
Now, what aspect of the Mossberg design as opposed to that of the Winchester turns this from a maddening inconvenience to a catastrophic accident? Anyone? What old Mauser 98 feature could be easily incorporated in a multi-piece bolt to absolutely prevent an unlocked bolt from firing? GD

My son (11) has and shoots his atr-100 super bantam .243 with about 90 rounds fired through it. He shot a 7 point and a doe this year!!! No problems at all with this gun. You guys got me wondering if he could get hurt firing this gun? Well I'll tell you guys one thing his ATR is retired untill I can find out more on this problem....

I agree



No I would not. But then I will not buy my daughter a Remington, Savage, Winchester, or any other factory made rifle either. She's getting a custom made 308 made by a close personal, friend of mine.

I have not fired a 100 ATR but I had a 500 for years and it was a great shotgun. I never had a problem with it and I sold it for more than I paid for it.

I believe the M70 has the cocking cam in the handle AND body, not just the handle. The cocking piece would force an unlocked bolt to rotate closed, then probably not fire due to loss of energy. At the head end, the Mossberg bolt head is pinned to the body. Most others are one piece, silver soldered, or brazed to the bolt body.

The Mauser has a ridge on the firing pin the fits into a valley at the rear of the bolt head when fired with bolt locked. If not locked, the ridge missing the valley prevents the firing pin from going fully forward and hitting the primer.

Bruce

Mauser firing pin

Good job Bruce!
The Mauser feature is one which illustrates the Mauser penchant for short curcuiting any potential failure. In the firing pin design they are preventing an accidental firing in the event of a firing pin breakage. Whether Mauser saw such a failure or was just using his imagination matters not. He prevented the problem before it occured. Mossberg created the problem with a flawed design and lacked the imagination to correct it or prevent the consequences. The Mossberg engineers didn't even need imagination; they only needed some knowledge of bolt action design and the willingness to apply it.
The pinned on bolt head is a non-issue for the most part. Many other actions utilize this design with no problems. The pins are sufficiently large as to make breakage very unlikely. With the safety feature of the Mauser bolt, even this type of failure would be covered.
If attorney Holt asks you for further info, be sure and tell him/her to "show me the money" first! GD

With all of the safety features built into the M 98, like the flanged cocking piece to deflect gas, the gas excape holes, and the way the bolt face encloses the cartridge head, Mr. Mauser must have been aware of many of the shortcomings of ammunition of that period.

There have been many improvements in the way brass is drawn and annealed. In the period the Mauser 98 was designed, cartridge case failure must have been a common problem in all rifles for Mauser to incorporate all of these safety designs in his design.

I know General Hatcher documents many case head failures in Hatcher's Notebook. I think the designers of the Springfield 03 and the Mauser 98 had in mind weak and defective brass when the strength and safety features were designed into their rifles.

Mossburg needs to start over. We now have improvments in the way brass is manufactured and hardened, with the breeching systems of most rifles designed to handle the escaping gas in the rare event of a case failure, or more likely, and over loaded cartridge.

Now, Mossburg needs to figure out a way to prevent their rifles from blowing up with loads that are normal and safe in other rifles.

lol Somebody who can't even hit the right reply button giving out advice. Hurry up before you miss the short bus son.

You can, if you are inept and very unlucky both, get a similar failure in an ar-15 by failing to replace the cam pin in the bolt carrier after cleaning. Without the cam pin, it is possible for the bolt to slip into the barrel extension but of course it won't rotate and lock without the cam pin installed. You can imagine what nifty results you get after you've converted your AR from direct gas impingement to direct blowback. At least the flying bolt carrier has to fight its way out of the closed receiver before direct impact to the shooter.
Was it American Riflemen that did an article on the old Ross Canadian straight pull battle rifle? The article said an improperly assembled bolt in that one could fire without locking up as well. It was rightly regarded as a serious design defect then when smokeless powder was still newfangled cutting edge technology.

I'm not your son, and I havent posted on this thread in over 2 1/2 weeks. You got a problem, get on a plane to CA, and we will just settle it, dude.......

New to the forum here guys but have been reading for a while to get reviews on guns and ammo. Usually a great forum but I had to chime in, join and ask...... Found this particular thread during research on the 100 ATR 30 06. I have seen very, very few bad reviews of this gun not to mention have not see any mention of this law suit ANYWHERE. I have searched and searched. Can anyone tell me if this is a real suit of just some nitwit decided to stir the pot on this forum?

I don't know if the lawsuit is real but the failures are. For the lawsuit we have only the word of a lawyer which isn't great. For the failure, I've seen only a picture but that was from a trusted source FWIW. Since I've not worked on a Mossberg, and likely won't, I am perhaps not a great source either! GD

Thanks, I would really like to know. I am in the market now for a 30 06. Was looking at a new Mossberg, new Rem 770, used Howa stainless, cz 550 premium (although just out of price range) or maybe one of the other staples like Smith I-bolt. Also saw a new Browning A-bolt walnut for $499 (same as the CZ). Liked the Mossy as I have a couple mossy shotguns and love them and have seen nothing but good reviews......

where did you see the pics of blowups and what is the cause? Any help on which model would help also.