Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Embrace The Truth - Catastrophic Gun Failure

Well, there goes that. Selmer's explanation has still made far more sense than anything the OP has said to date.

Selmer's explanation is perfectly legitimate, just for the opposite problem which he illustrated quite well. OP says he had excessive headspace which caused escaping (?) pressure to somehow unlock the gun. More likely scenario is his overloaded round flexed the action enough to unlock it... Selmer's wasn't ever in battery to begin with because the lugs didn't fully engage...

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.

Even on a break action gun, you cannot evaluate headspace with a feeler gauge. That will only tell you if a gun is on face, it tells you nothing about the condition of the chamber. You could have a barrel that is perfectly on face wit a chamber cut WAY too deep, and thus headpace is excessive.

Even then max loads were less than 80 Grs

I believe you, but I didn't know for sure. Regardless, that action shouldn't have come open for ANY reason. You should have a completely blown barrel, with the action still closed. You won't see any other gun coming open, even with an overload.

Years ago i was working up some turkey loads with hard number 5 shot.
I was using 700x and after loading up several to test went to mu friends house.
I shot the first loads with mu 870 rem.and it almost shucked the empty out of the gun.
They did kick more than some we fired that day.
My friend had a Marlin goose gun and said his would handle them just fine.

Well after the first shot the empty would not eject,seems that the chamber had swelled some what.
We dug it out with a knife and did some measuring and it was swelled a lot.

Here is the thing,he got ahold of the maker and asked for a return number and told them what the problem was.

Guess what they did not charge him for fixing it but he did try to pay for the repairs.
Just who's fault was it that the shotgun ceased to function the makers or us.
It's not that hard for folks to take responsibility for their actions but it seems much easier to get the other guy to pay up.

It seems that we are all doomed.

I answered as fast as I could... And I'm pretty certain that I know I'm right. And TCA probably found errors not inherent in the design, but in the critical welding of the lug and placement of the hinge pin hole which create headspace variables in relation to the breechface. Absolutely NOTHING wrong with the Encore frame design, but the tolerances have to be tight on the barrel manufacture.

I answered as fast as I could... And I'm pretty certain that I know I'm right. And TCA probably found errors not inherent in the design, but in the critical welding of the lug and placement of the hinge pin hole which create headspace variables in relation to the breechface. Absolutely NOTHING wrong with the Encore frame design, but the tolerances have to be tight on the barrel manufacture.

Dang Selmer, it looks like you answered so fast, it repeated itself!!!

Yup, and I was criticized somewhere around page 1-2 because I questioned a "new member's" motive.....

You can fix excessive headspace in an Encore by loading the bullet long to touch the lands, which blows the shoulder forward (and minimizes case head stretching.) In your example that would only exacerbate the problem of the frame not closing because you have insufficient headspace. To fix your issue you would need to run the reamer deeper so the that rim of the case (which sets headspace on a .357 Max) seats flush to the back of the barrel. You could also still have the issue of too large of a frame/barrel gap due to improper lug placement which would affect the headspace as well, but if the lugs never fully engage because the round won't drop into the chamber all the way you have a minimum headspace (or less than) condition, not excessive headspace. Check out Mike Bellm's site as he does a much better job of explaining it than I am, but I assure you that your headspace wasn't excessive if your case never fully entered the chamber...

“Leaving the reservation”: this statement was posted in response to my thread; basically stating my position against T/C Arms is and was indefensible. Simply because of my reloading choices. It’s a free country; any one can have that opinion if they so desire. There are certain people who will never accept that T/C Arms or another gun company is at fault in any gun case, if the plaintiff reloads. I think that’s sad some peoples are so closed-minded. To me it sounds like “flat earthers” from 500 years ago.

But in my opinion, one must completely disregard the following to support that argument:

In open court, a T/C Arms representative said he saw failures that caused the T/C Encore to blow open like mine.

T/C Arms destroys customer complaints every 6 months.

Calibers like the 300 Short Mag were not put into production because the T/C Arms Encore could not handle the round. Please note: the 300 win mag has a standard SAAMI psi of 64K and the 300 short mag is 65K…. kind of similar.

They changed the Encore stock design after my accident in 2005.

The gun didn’t blow up like a bomb, like many people bashing me thought it did.

Multiple other people posting on my threads on multiple forums have stated:
-The Encore is a weak design.
-The Encore has can pop open after firing.
-The Encore has headspace issues develop.
- The Encore frames warp.

I’ve tried to convey that I took due diligence in the development of my loads, and I stand by the statement. (My loads were within SAAMI service maximum avg. pressure limits.) I gave T/C Arms all my records, physical evidence, reloads, old brass… everything! For days in court, in front of the jury, they tried to make same arguments some people here are trying to make. But in the end, those arguments didn’t stick and the jury determined that T/C Arms was more at fault.

I think most posters picking at my reloads are doing so because it’s low hanging fruit; it’s what they can get their minds around. But at the end of the day, that argument fell flat with the jury and it’s been beaten to death here. People can keep beating the same old drum, but I suggest you take an analytical look at my side of things.

Thanks,

Brian

Brian, where did I miss the data from what company that tested your loads for pressure?

I can't keep reading this thread every day, but had a few minutes here and just saw your last post that indicated the testing of your pressure.

Juries don't always make the correct decisions.

Last thought, I hope you get your head out of your azz enough to realize a few extra PSI in a rifle isn't going to make a difference at all on bears, grizz included. Its keeping your head out of your azz that will make the most difference.
Especially when carrying a single shot in grizz country. And I do the same, carry a single shot MZ at times....

When reloading I hope you grow up and realize, especially with dangerous game around, that you need to understand headspace, keep your rounds sized so they easily chamber, keep the pressure down to limits that keep the brass super easy to eject, keep track of the age of the brass and if the chamber of any gun has enough extra headspace are your cases starting to head to ICS.

I loaded a lot of ammo for folks on safari, I check all the above, including loading with gloves on so the brass won't tarnish from my oils.... thats anal I know, but it never failed anyone.

That being said, there are a whole lot of folks out there that have never had an issue with an Encore, me being one of those, although I know better than to hot rod it due to it, and many other designed like it. Not just single shots.

The part I think is somewhat funny in their design is that you are inside the opening mechanism, while pulling the trigger, such that under recoil you can activate it yourself if you are not paying attention.

Never mind the fact the lever digs into your back at times depending on how you sling it up.

Still love to see the technical stuff on pressure though.

Brians lawyer used the Encore issue to embellish Brian's lawsuit against TC and try to mitigate the damage caused by his negligence. His load caused excessive recoil energy magnifying the problem with the frame lock up. Brian had to blame someone else for his incopetence, the jury didn't fully buy into the lawyer's spin.

You didn't miss the pressure data as none exists despite Brian continuing to maintain his loads weren't over SAAMI max. He bases his "pressure" only on quickload and wild ass guesses based on not blowing the gun up before and visual signs that may not actually show up until far over max...

Well then Brian is still as stupid or ignorant or both, as I thought early on.

My suggestions is that Brian should learn what and where to buy factory ammo and quit reloading before he really hurts himself.

And I'm ashamed a jury found for him then. Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes fits here just fine.

Adios.

I never lied about anything, nor did I claim to have a third party testing agency.

I trust the work that my gun expert did.

I promise you the world is round.

BS-you've stated repeatedly your loads weren't over max based on zero physical evidence which is deceitful if not outright lying. Hypothetical pressure based on a computer program means nothing as it is only a guide and can never equal actual pressure testing.

The only part of your story that needs to be shared and is based on actual evidence is that the stock broke and it shouldn't have which by itself could have caused your injury. That by itself is noteworthy especially if they did further stupid - proof the stock. The jury's decision would indicate something you did helped contribute to the problem which would likely be your handloads. And I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in a jury verdict as confirmation of your various truths as they did let OJ off after all...