|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
One more thing to consider when hammering someone over his memory of events. Look at the judgment posted earlier in this thread. The jury came back with its verdict IN 2013. They been arguing over getting a judgment entered since then. It is really pretty damned amazing when you consider that in its most basic form a judgment in a case like this is supposed to be nothing more than a recitation of the decision of the jury and its findings. So, for two years, TWO YEARS, they've been arguing, not over the case, but simply how to write down the decision the jury has already made.
I've never seen a court around here that would have put up with that sort of wrangling for so long. But it does provide an insight into what you deal with when you have a team of highly paid attorneys, paid by the hour, and the court doesn't rein them in. AND, it makes me even more impressed that this guy was able to get a 60% verdict. This litigation had to be an absolutely exceptional nightmare in a type of litigation that is known for being nightmarishly difficult to litigate.
And further, although the damages were blacked out, I'll bet they were in the tens or hundreds of thousands and not millions. The damages don't seem that high to me. I'm willing to bet that TC spent a lot more on attorneys' fees than it will on paying out a judgment. The judgment is easily seen through the blacked out portion. Your bias against corporate defendants is showing again. Well, then tell me what it is because your eyes are better than mine. As for bias against corporate defendants, TWO FRICKING YEARS AND FOUR HEARINGS about simply entering a judgment?!!! Yeah, I know it is just done to keep it in the plenary power of the court and to preserve and lengthen the time for an appeal, BUT TWO FRICKING YEARS?!! As you've said many times, we don't have the facts about those proceedings. As to the judgment amount, it's there if you look and are interested. That bias is showing again.
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: 14,812 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,812 Likes: 5 |
One more thing to consider when hammering someone over his memory of events. Look at the judgment posted earlier in this thread. The jury came back with its verdict IN 2013. They been arguing over getting a judgment entered since then. It is really pretty damned amazing when you consider that in its most basic form a judgment in a case like this is supposed to be nothing more than a recitation of the decision of the jury and its findings. So, for two years, TWO YEARS, they've been arguing, not over the case, but simply how to write down the decision the jury has already made.
I've never seen a court around here that would have put up with that sort of wrangling for so long. But it does provide an insight into what you deal with when you have a team of highly paid attorneys, paid by the hour, and the court doesn't rein them in. AND, it makes me even more impressed that this guy was able to get a 60% verdict. This litigation had to be an absolutely exceptional nightmare in a type of litigation that is known for being nightmarishly difficult to litigate.
And further, although the damages were blacked out, I'll bet they were in the tens or hundreds of thousands and not millions. The damages don't seem that high to me. I'm willing to bet that TC spent a lot more on attorneys' fees than it will on paying out a judgment. The judgment is easily seen through the blacked out portion. Your bias against corporate defendants is showing again. Well, then tell me what it is because your eyes are better than mine. As for bias against corporate defendants, TWO FRICKING YEARS AND FOUR HEARINGS about simply entering a judgment?!!! Yeah, I know it is just done to keep it in the plenary power of the court and to preserve and lengthen the time for an appeal, BUT TWO FRICKING YEARS?!! As you've said many times, we don't have the facts about those proceedings. As to the judgment amount, it's there if you look and are interested. That bias is showing again. No, I want you to tell me how much it is. It is blacked out and you maintain that you can see through it. I confess that my eyes aren't that good. So, tell me how much it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076 |
Brain,
Thanks for clearing that up, at least I know what to take away from this abortion of a thread.
It really is too bad that a pressure test was not conducted on your remaining loads, that would pretty much settle the issue IMO.
Problem is TC's lawyers didn't want to have the test done because a below SAAMI pressure would put them 100% in the wrong, and your lawyer didn't want to do it because an over pressure result would likely loose your case for you. I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that we will never really know what happened because of those decisions.
Best of luck in the future, I suggest that you drop this crusade and let it die a quite death. You don't have proof you have a judgement, move on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Brain,
Thanks for clearing that up, at least I know what to take away from this abortion of a thread.
It really is too bad that a pressure test was not conducted on your remaining loads, that would pretty much settle the issue IMO.
Problem is TC's lawyers didn't want to have the test done because a below SAAMI pressure would put them 100% in the wrong, and your lawyer didn't want to do it because an over pressure result would likely loose your case for you. I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that we will never really know what happened because of those decisions.
Best of luck in the future, I suggest that you drop this crusade and let it die a quite death. You don't have proof you have a judgement, move on. Well said.
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: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,104 Likes: 6
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,104 Likes: 6 |
It really is too bad that a pressure test was not conducted on your remaining loads, that would pretty much settle the issue IMO. How does testing the remaining rounds prove that a mistake wasn't made with the round that made the gun blow up? Most people who've been reloading for any length of time have made mistakes.
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 22,690
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 22,690 |
The other significant problem was that the barrel locking bolt would retract under recoil allowing the barrel to open. TC modified the bolt by splitting it in half so that neither half would generate sufficient inertia during recoil to retract. The unlocking pin was modified to allow it to float within the bolt. While that solved the problem, we never knew if the two-piece bolt was remaining solidly in contact with the frame or bouncing without unlocking.
Overall, the TC was a design that evolved over time with actual field use revealing the flaws and shortcomings.
Headspace in bottle necked cartridges, both Herrett chamberings, the TCU chamberings, .30-30, 7mm IHMSA Rimmed and others wasn't much of a problem as headspace was set to the individual chamber and barrel to frame fit during forming, by setting the neck/shoulder back until the barrel would just snap closed. This headspaced the cartridge on the shoulder, rather than the rim. However, the frames still stretched and over time would need to be replaced. Apparently, from reader comments, this condition still exists to some degree.
My opinion is that the TC platform, while robust to a degree, is less than satisfactory for high pressure cartridges, whether loaded to SAAMI specs or not. If one is going to spend the amount necessary for a TC Encore they may as well invest in a Savage rifle with easily interchanged barrels, or a Remington 700 converted to use a Savage style barrel nut and barrel combination. If the hunter wants a single shot there are better choices such as the Ruger #1. I can not see the TC as offering any worthwhile advantages over more conventional rifles.
this post by WJ describes in more detail what happened to me with the .454 Encore II posted about earlier(even with the split lug). The split lug still has a common spring, which weakens quickly and allows the action to open on firing. (50-100 rds in my experience). When it happens, there it A LOT of torque on the grip and I'm willing to bet that the two things highlighted above caused the stock failure in this case. as to the blacked out damages, they average $6,000 to $8,000 per line or something like $266,000 in total on that page.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076 |
It really is too bad that a pressure test was not conducted on your remaining loads, that would pretty much settle the issue IMO. How does testing the remaining rounds prove that a mistake wasn't made with the round that made the gun blow up? Most people who've been reloading for any length of time have made mistakes. Well I said pretty much settle the issue because there is always a chance of a mistake but within a single lot of handloads probability is that the lot will be consistent. We are not talking pistol cartridges where he could have double charged one of them. Anyways nothing would be conclusive but it would be a far cry from where we are now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,812 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,812 Likes: 5 |
The other significant problem was that the barrel locking bolt would retract under recoil allowing the barrel to open. TC modified the bolt by splitting it in half so that neither half would generate sufficient inertia during recoil to retract. The unlocking pin was modified to allow it to float within the bolt. While that solved the problem, we never knew if the two-piece bolt was remaining solidly in contact with the frame or bouncing without unlocking.
Overall, the TC was a design that evolved over time with actual field use revealing the flaws and shortcomings.
Headspace in bottle necked cartridges, both Herrett chamberings, the TCU chamberings, .30-30, 7mm IHMSA Rimmed and others wasn't much of a problem as headspace was set to the individual chamber and barrel to frame fit during forming, by setting the neck/shoulder back until the barrel would just snap closed. This headspaced the cartridge on the shoulder, rather than the rim. However, the frames still stretched and over time would need to be replaced. Apparently, from reader comments, this condition still exists to some degree.
My opinion is that the TC platform, while robust to a degree, is less than satisfactory for high pressure cartridges, whether loaded to SAAMI specs or not. If one is going to spend the amount necessary for a TC Encore they may as well invest in a Savage rifle with easily interchanged barrels, or a Remington 700 converted to use a Savage style barrel nut and barrel combination. If the hunter wants a single shot there are better choices such as the Ruger #1. I can not see the TC as offering any worthwhile advantages over more conventional rifles.
this post by WJ describes in more detail what happened to me with the .454 Encore II posted about earlier(even with the split lug). The split lug still has a common spring, which weakens quickly and allows the action to open on firing. (50-100 rds in my experience). When it happens, there it A LOT of torque on the grip and I'm willing to bet that the two things highlighted above caused the stock failure in this case. as to the blacked out damages, they average $6,000 to $8,000 per line or something like $266,000 in total on that page. So, after ten years, the total is $266,000 reduced by 40%, or roughly $162,000. Now, that isn't strictly correct because some of those, like attorneys' fees aren't subject to a reduction, but it will still be well less than $200,000.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,812 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,812 Likes: 5 |
It really is too bad that a pressure test was not conducted on your remaining loads, that would pretty much settle the issue IMO. How does testing the remaining rounds prove that a mistake wasn't made with the round that made the gun blow up? Most people who've been reloading for any length of time have made mistakes. No one ever KNOWS anything in which they were not personally involved. But, the standard is not beyond a reasonable doubt it is merely a 51% to 49% more likely than not standard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 56,168 Likes: 14
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 56,168 Likes: 14 |
Only dont' try to shot that horse with the T/C and incompetently loaded reloads.... I eschew the Encore as an redeemable device. I use a used Contender. It is a handsome piece, but pigs think it a nightmare. Fug 'em.
I am..........disturbed.
Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,620 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,620 Likes: 1 |
I think I'll try and use my double gun on hogs this year...
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 42
Campfire Greenhorn
|
|
OP
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 42 |
Brain,
Thanks for clearing that up, at least I know what to take away from this abortion of a thread.
It really is too bad that a pressure test was not conducted on your remaining loads, that would pretty much settle the issue IMO.
Problem is TC's lawyers didn't want to have the test done because a below SAAMI pressure would put them 100% in the wrong, and your lawyer didn't want to do it because an over pressure result would likely loose your case for you. I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that we will never really know what happened because of those decisions.
Best of luck in the future, I suggest that you drop this crusade and let it die a quite death. You don't have proof you have a judgement, move on. You can focus on my loads all you want, It’s the easy thing to do, and you can beat that dead horse. But I’m suggesting you think analytically and consider your lack of focus on the gun.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303 |
Problem is TC's lawyers didn't want to have the test done because a below SAAMI pressure would put them 100% in the wrong, and your lawyer didn't want to do it because an over pressure result would likely loose your case for you. I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that we will never really know what happened because of those decisions. yup,.....a 10 X
Member, Clan of the Border Rats
-- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076 |
+1 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076 |
Brain,
Thanks for clearing that up, at least I know what to take away from this abortion of a thread.
It really is too bad that a pressure test was not conducted on your remaining loads, that would pretty much settle the issue IMO.
Problem is TC's lawyers didn't want to have the test done because a below SAAMI pressure would put them 100% in the wrong, and your lawyer didn't want to do it because an over pressure result would likely loose your case for you. I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that we will never really know what happened because of those decisions.
Best of luck in the future, I suggest that you drop this crusade and let it die a quite death. You don't have proof you have a judgement, move on. You can focus on my loads all you want, It’s the easy thing to do, and you can beat that dead horse. But I’m suggesting you think analytically and consider your lack of focus on the gun. Why don't you focus on my load and blow me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,812 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,812 Likes: 5 |
I can see how this case might not really have been about pressure too much at all though and not argued too hard by either side.
The allegation was that the firearm opened up upon firing. I imagine, TC argued that it didn't open at all. Without an obviously grenaded gun, both sides probably wanted to steer clear of the pressure issue, considering it not entirely germane to what happened and with the potential of opening paths that neither one wanted to go down.
In fact, that is probably how TC got the expert testimony on the pressure of the loads excluded. They probably argued that it wasn't an issue as that they hadn't alleged that they loads were over pressure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076 |
I'm not looking at this from an attorneys prospective I am looking at this from shooters prospective. First thing I want to know is what the pressure in the loads were.
From what I can see there are lots of serviceable encore rifles out there getting shot every day, all have the same design, why are the not all failing? Did this one fail because of excessive pressure in conjunction with a design flaw? Is the flaw only exposed at excessive pressure? etc...
I don't care who won the case or what the attorneys argued. They did that for their own reasons. I would be interested in the truth and facts, something that is unobtainable apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
I think "focus on my load" is sig line material.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
I'm not looking at this from an attorneys prospective I am looking at this from shooters prospective. First thing I want to know is what the pressure in the loads were.
From what I can see there are lots of serviceable encore rifles out there getting shot every day, all have the same design, why are the not all failing? Did this one fail because of excessive pressure in conjunction with a design flaw? Is the flaw only exposed at excessive pressure? etc...
I don't care who won the case or what the attorneys argued. They did that for their own reasons. I would be interested in the truth and facts, something that is unobtainable apparently. Well said. BTW - from an attorney's perspective, getting the "expert" and the tenuous pressure data from software disqualified would be simple and it apparently was. No lab tests; no data; no tickey, no service.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
269 members (257 mag, 12344mag, 2500HD, 10ring1, 1lessdog, 160user, 29 invisible),
1,728
guests, and
1,084
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,630
Posts18,492,987
Members73,977
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
