Thompson / Center Arms Found at Fault in Catastrophic Gun Failure
On September 1, 2005, I was severely injured by a catastrophic gun failure. My face was permanently disfigured and sight in my right eye was lost forever. I was shooting with the Thompson/Center Encore Rifle. It blew apart because of a defect in its design. That horrendous day propelled me down a path I never planned on or wanted in my life. I’m not speaking out for personal gain or to be vindictive toward Smith & Wesson or Thompson/Center Arms (Thompson/Center Arms has apparently been sold to Smith & Wesson). I merely want the truth about this rifle to be known. I don’t want anyone to go through the pain and suffering I’ve endured. In my opinion, this rifle defect is something that was known about and has been covered up for years.
After almost 10 years of battling over the Encore, I received the final judgment order from the 46th Circuit Court for the County of Otsego, Michigan. I sued Thompson Center Arms (TCA), and the jury found TCA at fault. The jury found TCA to have a defect in its design and found their manual to be defective.
Throughout this entire process, from the day that my rifle had failed, until being given the green light to speak freely about this rifle, I have felt as though I’m involved in a David and Goliath scenario. In the end, no matter how much money they threw at this problem, with their team of lawyers and paid experts, the truth could not be veiled from the jury. At many points over the nearly 10 years since my injury, I have experienced hopelessness about the outcome of the case. One of these moments occurred during the trial. My attorney had in his possession letters, obtained from Thompson/Center through discovery, from other individuals who had incurred similar injuries from the same type of failure. Although the letters were discussed in open court, they were not allowed to be shown to the jury as evidence, based on a technicality concerning Thompson / Center’s claims as to when they had actually received the letters in relation to the date of my injury. A representative of the company did admit that he saw failures of this kind during testing. He also admitted that TCA destroys customer complaints every six months.
Because of the pending suit, I have not been able to share these details until recently. I cannot adequately express what a tremendous relief it is to be able to finally share the truth about the dangers of this rifle.
Most gun owners I know - including myself - thought suing a gun company was practically blasphemy. My suit was never about anything more than seeking truth. I believe wholeheartedly in the Constitution and stand for our Second Amendment rights. I love freedom. I was an NRA member when my injury occurred and I’m an NRA member now.
This is the first lawsuit brought against TCA regarding this rifle that has been successfully litigated. In my opinion, TCA is fighting me so hard because the Encore Rifle has been wildly popular. A recall would cost potentially a lot of money. Still, I am now finally allowed to spread the truth about this gun. Please notify anyone you know who owns this rifle that it could catastrophically fail!
The judgment is attached. I have blacked out the award amounts because the money is not important in this regard. No amount of money can compensate me for the loss of my sight and the years spent in recovery. Additionally, I truly believe this company will continue to fight this judgment, and as a result I will never see any monetary compensation. The court documents are now a matter of public record, and if you wish to seek out more details they can be obtained.
Thank you for your time, and if you would like any additional information please let me know.
I wonder how many 'catastrophic' failures have occured? Just this one? 30? 150? My guess is very few indeed. Sometimes, bad things happen to good people. Just like the current air bag issue. 50 or 60 million produced. A handful of problems. Lawyers get rich. No product ever made, is going to be 100% defect free. No design in history has every been flawless. Chit happens. Sorry.
Most likely the gun from the letter above .Look what happens when one take over the other .Don't know what was done to build rifles in the past or men an woman get piss because of a job lose not thinking what could happen when you screw up .Look at the car industry now cut parts plant give the work to over seas lets go with Clinton deal on sending work over seas Right Bill Clinton.
Brain sorry to hear about your deal with these group from Thompson. tis is the way it is Give money to lawyers then taking care of the problem they have
This is the first lawsuit brought against TCA regarding this rifle that has been successfully litigated. In my opinion, TCA is fighting me so hard because the Encore Rifle has been wildly popular.
I had an Encore pistol and have seen one other person shoot one. I have never seen anyone with an Encore rifle, hunting or at a range. Cant agree with the wildly popular statement.
Would like to know the particulars of this "catastrophic failure" as well.
I witnessed an Encore catastrophic failure at my local shooting range. The gun came apart like a grenade, the scope hit she shooter in the head and knocked him out cold landing about 10yds. behind the firing point. The barrel flew about the same distance downrange, when the guy got to his feet he had a large schrapnel wound in his bicep and his buddies loaded him up and rushed him to the nearest E.R.. No details as to what caliber or load, he was definately shooting handloads. I had never witnessed a Kaboom till then and it was really scary as the schrapnel that lodged in his bicep could have wound up in his chest.
To summarize and very very briefly in my opinion the big take away from my case was the TCA Encore can not keep tolerances and head space grows overtime, especially with larger calibers like I was shooting (300 win mag). In my trial we had 3 guns with excessive head space. My gun was out of spec. A gun with 5 shots was out of spec. A gun with no shots was out of spec.
To summarize and very very briefly in my opinion the big take away from my case was the TCA Encore can not keep tolerances and head space grows overtime, especially with larger calibers like I was shooting (300 win mag). In my trial we had 3 guns with excessive head space. My gun was out of spec. A gun with 5 shots was out of spec. A gun with no shots was out of spec.
Your summary leaves out that the jury found you 40% at fault. Why?
Your summary leaves out the award made. Why?
Your summary leaves out that T/C has requested a new trial. Why?
This is the first lawsuit brought against TCA regarding this rifle that has been successfully litigated. In my opinion, TCA is fighting me so hard because the Encore Rifle has been wildly popular.
I had an Encore pistol and have seen one other person shoot one. I have never seen anyone with an Encore rifle, hunting or at a range. Cant agree with the wildly popular statement.
Would like to know the particulars of this "catastrophic failure" as well.
Ditto. Not for judgement one way or the other in regard to your case but I would also appreciate it if you would greatly detail your experience.
Edit: and to explain why this headspace becomes an issue with some cartridges as you say. Is there a metallurgy problem, design problem or, maybe, both?
Headspace is a problem easily fixed on TC Rifles.Mike Bellm sells washers to take care of this problem.I have bought Remingtons and Winchesters with head space problems right from the factory.I have had Contenders for 30 years and Encores for about 10.I doubt that they have any more problems than any other rifle.It is the luck of the draw on what you get with anything you buy.Anything man made can fail.It is too bad the gentleman who wrote this thread has gone through pain and misery because of this.I have always considered if you own and fire a weapon you should at least know how it works and how to check for any problems it might have or come up.It is akin to owning and riding a motorcycle.You best know how to work on it because they all have problems.Huntz
I can't get a copy of the pdf without joining another forum, but what I have found is that you have this on at least 4 other sites, cut and paste, and almost everyone is asking about the 40% liability on your part, although I did find out it was for handloading, yet that was from someone else who apparently found the settlement amount as well.
Apparently the veracity of your load data was suspect?
Geez, dude.
Just spit out the details and suck it up.
Guys on the archery forum are already commenting how you look good in your most recent glory shots for archery kills for being permanently disfigured.
Out with it. I don't care if you were 90% at fault as long as you own it and be objective, and not come off like a whiney bitch.
You're street cred is already on the verge of crap.
In a vacuum, claims that the reloads were within SAAMI because the other ones you "allegedly" reloaded at the same time were tested and found to be OK, and that other Encores were evaluated to be out of spec are strong statements, but folks would like to evaluate the road to those findings for themselves to make a conclusion.
But the jury still found some negligence on your part, and that's what other reloaders want to know - what was done to get the failure.
If you want folks just to get a hard on for TC just because you grossed 600 large or so, sorry, not going to happen.
Yeah, I'm sure some law dog at TC won't point out that the plaintiff, out of aggravation for not receiving perceived satisfaction, posted the same thread on 5 sites attempting to damage the defendant's reputation.
Of course, a new trial was requested. That is preliminary to filing an appeal and extends the deadlines for filing of said appeal. It ALWAYS happens in EVERY civil case REGARDLESS of whether a judgment is appealed or not. To fail to do so WOULD BE MALPRACTICE. Therefore, nothing can be read into the fact that a new trial has been requested.
Secondly, I don't place all that much weight in the 40% negligence thing either. Since I can't read the judgment, nor do I have access to the trial transcript, I can't exactly tell the jury's reasoning. However, I suspect it had something to do with hand loading.
Now, given that most of the American public is not savvy on shooting and even many of those who are, aren't savvy on hand loading, I'm not too surprised. Give a litigation team of four or five lawyers at $500 an hour five or six years of expert opinions, depositions, and forensic recreations and they'll make hand loading look like something that best belongs in the medieval laboratory of Dr. Faustus, with loads conjured by the Devil, that only a righteous and pure firearm designed by God himself could withstand. So, actually, finding Thompson Center 60% at fault is pretty damned impressive.
From what I can read, Sam covers it very well. Sometimes stuff happens. If its a big trend, fine, if not, well I have other thoughts. Much like Rem 700 triggers, I"ve seen a few go bang, every last one was monkeyed with... I"d take all the triggers they are replacing happily. I can deal with the supposed safety issue.
Personally I have a hard time with headspace causing a boom. Especially since ever reloader knows what the headspace is before tehy ever start loading, and they load and size accordingly.
Yeah, I'm sure some law dog at TC won't point out that the plaintiff, out of aggravation for not receiving perceived satisfaction, posted the same thread on 5 sites attempting to damage the defendant's reputation.
I think errant manual was also cited.
Maybe the old ones don't have that warning???
Nope, actually that is what happens. TC rolled the dice. They could have settled and the details of said settlement would have been confidential. Most likely, you would never have heard of this. They rolled the dice and lost. Now, the Plaintiff gets to scream it to the heavens if he wishes.
Like Jeff, I hate to see that someone was injured, and worse that there was suffering and perhaps loss of a faculty that cannot be restored. I imagine if it were me and I knew it was not my fault that I would be forever pizzed.
What I have a problem with is when someone (new) comes onto a site with the express intent to bash and vent. I know, that's the way of social media, but it's not for me. If you're that hell-bent on spreading the word, go rent a billboard.
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.
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?
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 one 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.
I do know that the encore is not a particularly strong action and is not suited to heavy magnum chamberings. I owned one and will do so again but it's not going to be anything running high pressure like a WSM or 300 win mag even. They stretch and the headspace gets long. Keep it to muzzle loading or 06 or 08 case cartridges and you'll never get near the limits of the action. I also kept track of the headspace and had to shim mine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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?
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."
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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...
Originally Posted by JoeBob
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.
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....
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....
That is just the way jury instructions are written.
right, its the reason we have litigation for people frying their dick pissing on electrified rails, "keep hands and feet inside the bus" placards, and "don't feed the f'n bears" signs as well.
right, its the reason we have litigation for people frying their dick pissing on electrified rails, "keep hands and feet inside the bus" placards, and "don't feed the f'n bears" signs as well.
Not really, but keep on fighting the good fight.
Far be it for some guy to load a cartridge within SAAMI specs and actually expect a firearm to remain intact. I mean the manufacturer told him not to use hand loads and all.
I can't wait for Remington to issue a warning that its firearms are only to be shot with Remington ammunition and then tell anyone who blows one up with Winchester Super X to piss up a rope and say, "We warned you."
You assume that cartridge was to SAAMI specs. Without anything more than the OPs word (and he's already omitting a ton), none of us know that to be the case. A double charge, or the wrong powder, could lead to catastrophic events in most any firearm.
JoeBob, you continue to make this a mini-crusade, but we don't have much of anything to go on at this point. And, it's certainly not like jury instructions are even written wrong, or juries make a serious mistake on a verdict...
You assume that cartridge was to SAAMI specs. Without anything more than the OPs word (and he's already omitting a ton), none of us know that to be the case. A double charge, or the wrong powder, could lead to catastrophic events in most any firearm.
JoeBob, you continue to make this a mini-crusade, but we don't have much of anything to go on at this point. And, it's certainly not like jury instructions are even written wrong, or juries make a serious mistake on a verdict...
I don't assume anything. I'm merely making the point that the mere fact that a cartridge is hand loaded does not make it unsafe and that therefore, THAT one fact in and of itself is not enough to absolve a company of liability.
Like Jeff, I hate to see that someone was injured, and worse that there was suffering and perhaps loss of a faculty that cannot be restored. I imagine if it were me and I knew it was not my fault that I would be forever pizzed.
What I have a problem with is when someone (new) comes onto a site with the express intent to bash and vent. I know, that's the way of social media, but it's not for me. If you're that hell-bent on spreading the word, go rent a billboard.
Maybe he was trying to inform and edumacate.
Perish the thought but maybe he wants you to realize anything can fail, expecially if these failures with handloads have happened before but since the cases were not won the injured cant spread the news without risk?
I had a .300 WM Encore rifle that was brand new from the factory that had 2/3 of the first Federal Classic factory loads separate just above the case head when fired, and the third had a nice line around the brass in the same spot. The gun didn't detonate like a grenade, or even open up for that matter, but gas did escape the sides of the action. I sent the barrel back to TC and they replaced it. Didn't have any issues with the replacement.
TC also had a recall for unhardened lugs that made it out of the factory that did lead to catastrophic failures regardless of the loads being used so that would be another possibility.
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.
Every time a maker tries to make something more idiot proof, mother nature makes better idiots.
How the [bleep] can you design to cover every idiot?
All YOU have to do is read the material that comes with any firearm these days.
It is in black and white.
Just a question:
Do you reload your own ammo?
Not trying to do anything but find out.
Yes, you did. You said that if you shoot hand loaded ammunition, you're up schit creek, unless, you could prove that it would have failed with factory ammunition as well.
Well, which is it? You say hand loads, schit creek. Then you qualify that statement.
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.
Every time a maker tries to make something more idiot proof, mother nature makes better idiots.
How the [bleep] can you design to cover every idiot?
You can't. That is why the legal standard revolves around a concept called "foreseeability".
I'm guessing that's why they say 'Don't use reloads, because we don't know what kind of idiot you are'
That seems to be foreseeability. Because the one thing I know is you can't cover something for every type of idiot/scenario that will come down the pike.
I'm guessing that's why they say 'Don't use reloads, because we don't know what kind of idiot you are'
That seems to be foreseeability. Because the one thing I know is you can't cover something for every type of idiot/scenario that will come down the pike.
You can't. How many successful verdicts have you ever heard about where a gun blew up with reloads? I can think of very very few, if any, other than this one. Why is that? Because the burden will be on the hand loader to prove that his reload was safe. Unless he was videoing it, how does he do that? Even then, he can't necessarily rule out a double charge or something like that. Almost impossible to make a good enough case out of that. And even then, maybe his prior reloads stressed the steel. So tough as to be nearly impossible.
But, still the point is, the company sells a product in which it KNOWS people are going to use reloads. And further, it does nothing to mitigate that. So, it doesn't get to get blanket protection by saying, "We told you not to use reloads."
Most of us reload and shoot ammunition that we load and, with prudent loads, it is safe! All the firearms owner's manuals I've read contain the admonition to only use factory loads or the warranty is voided.
Like Jeff, I hate to see that someone was injured, and worse that there was suffering and perhaps loss of a faculty that cannot be restored. I imagine if it were me and I knew it was not my fault that I would be forever pizzed.
What I have a problem with is when someone (new) comes onto a site with the express intent to bash and vent. I know, that's the way of social media, but it's not for me. If you're that hell-bent on spreading the word, go rent a billboard.
Maybe he was trying to inform and edumacate.
Perish the thought but maybe he wants you to realize anything can fail, expecially if these failures with handloads have happened before but since the cases were not won the injured cant spread the news without risk?
You very well could be correct. I have no way of knowing his exact intent. I've just seen several instances of this as first few posts. Personally, and IMHO, it would carry much more weight if coming from a more established member.
Not having enough information to comment on the original case, but commenting on the feedback:
Those who are quick to absolve manufacturers of all blame based on the use of any handloaded ammunition are not doing our community any favors.
Certainly one can manage to blow up just about anything with a case full of Bullseye, but that is not the issue. I suspect there are many cases where experts could determine there was a high probability (which is all we truly have in most cases) that the ammo was within acceptable pressure specs.
To quickly let manufacturers off the hook effectively discourages hand loading and plays right into the hands of those who would love to disarm us completely.
Owner's manuals and warranties are written by lawyers to protect the manufacturer. I purchased a new Colt Double Eagle 25 or so years ago and read the manual - remember this was designed to be a defensive handgun that had police sales in mind as customers.
The manual advised the owner to keep the firearm unloaded until the need arises, THEN load it. No wonder so few actually read owner's manuals.
I'm guessing that's why they say 'Don't use reloads, because we don't know what kind of idiot you are'
That seems to be foreseeability. Because the one thing I know is you can't cover something for every type of idiot/scenario that will come down the pike.
That's why you carry insurance. You can't protect idiots from themselves, so you protect yourself from idiots.
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..!
Lest anyone get overly invested in the "Brian used handloads" line of reasoning, remember that TC manufactured, and for all I know still does manufacture, barrels and thus firearms that could not be used with anything but handloaded ammunition. I happen to own two of those barrels - a .30 Herrett and a 7mmTCU. There are many others besides those two examples.
So, despite what the manual is saying about not using reloads or handloads, the reality is that TC is/was well aware of, and significantly responsible for, the use of handloads/reloads in their products.
P.S. No SAAMI specs on those cartridges at the time of barrel manufacture either - so there goes that line of reasoning as well.
If you want to talk about hand loading and the foreseeability that it will be done, go look at the Handloader Magazine Facebook site.
I schit you not, it is a Handloader Magazine cover with a TC Encore on it.
Kind of hard to argue that hand loading is bad when you let your product get pimped out in Handloader Magazine.
Last statement is a hell of a good point. I haven't heard of any manufacturers taking Handloader to task for using their products on the cover or writing articles suggesting handloads for those products. Seems the manufacturers want it both ways, does it not?
Scott Thornley makes perhaps an even better point immediately above!
If you want to talk about hand loading and the foreseeability that it will be done, go look at the Handloader Magazine Facebook site.
I schit you not, it is a Handloader Magazine cover with a TC Encore on it.
Kind of hard to argue that hand loading is bad when you let your product get pimped out in Handloader Magazine.
Last statement is a hell of a good point. I haven't heard of any manufacturers taking Handloader to task for using their products on the cover or writing articles suggesting handloads for those products. Seems the manufacturers want it both ways, does it not?
I seem to recall lots of gun manufacturer adds in them as well.
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.
Its amazing so many evidently feel there should be an unwritten law that all arms mfgs should be immune from liability of their products if handloads are used. That should really help.
Steelie Your comment about mother nature!! My reply isn't that the truth. You can never idiot proof it for all idiots, there will always one who can get around the safe guards no matter what. Thanks for the comment. Cheers NC
Quoting Joe Bob: "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."
Just exactly WHAT "rather simple design changes" are you talking about sir?
And as to Brian, I'm sorry he blew up his rifle and got injured. That was simple human error, and is regretable, always.
However, he admits he DID use a realoaded round. Now I have the dubious distinction of having blown up a Super Blackhawk. I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that my loads were not only AOK, but absolutely, positively reliable and safe. A STACK of Bibles, mine you! But the gun blew up. Thank God that neither I nor my son sitting on a friend's shoulders, nor my friend were injured in the process.
It took me a week to trace down HOW it happened, but I found I'd poured powder from the hopper of my measure into the WRONG CAN after reloading very late one night. I've probably reloaded and shot nearly or over half a million rounds in my time. Only one was bad. But that was enough.
In short, it was MY fault, and NOT the fault of the firearm or its manufacturer. In fact, if I'd been shooting anything but a Ruger, I'd likely have died or at least been injurred. Therefore, I never even THOUGHT about suing. Ruger found that out through my friend and Ackley/Pachmyr trained gunsmith and friend. They still offered me a replacement at jobber's cost, which I humbly accepted most graciously and thankfully - NOT with a lawsuit just to pay the medical bills, etc.
I know from personal experience what kind of temptations one faces when they blow up a gun. Many will encourage you to sue to get money, and there'll be no shortage of shyster lawyers who'll be glad to help. Product liability is BIG MONEY, and BIG MONEY is the new "God" of our New Millenium. I resisted, and got quite angry at those who suggested I do something I damnably well KNEW wasn't right in ANY way.
Most people today see things quite differently, and it's gonna' be a real experience to see them get what finally MUST come of this kind of idiotic self-destruction.
I don't know ALL the facts about Brian's case, but from what he himself has offered us here to judge by, it looks to me like he was just hurt, and wanted and needed help, and sought it in a lawsuit. Whether that lawsuit was factually, morally, ethically proper or not is quite another matter, and is rightfully subject to the age old measures of what constitutes "right" and "wrong."
He states his suit was based on and due to a "defect" as he calls it in the arm, but fails to elaborate just what that defect actually was. He doesn't give what "specs" were out of line. All we've gotten is a mass of glittering generalities and essentially gobbledygook, and few real facts on which to base a solid or informed opinion.
I'm sorry you're blinded, Brian, but you're not making much of a case for yourself, and just to let you know what you HAVE done here, I should probably tell you that you appear, to me at least, to have just simply sued because you COULD, and were just lucky enough to draw a jury that really didn't know how to weigh the technical matters in the case - a not uncommon situation these days when knowledgeable people are generally at work and don't want and aren't willing to serve on juries.
Again, that's just my take and opinion based on what you've given us to work with. Maybe you're not so good at stating your case? I don't know, but thought you might benefit from at least knowing how it's coming across right now, so you might make amends somehow, if you wish. My opinion is just an opinion, and all I have to base it on is what you've given us to work with, and at least now you know how you're being perceived.
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....
Always been my contention, just when you think you built something that you believe is idiot proof... God creates a better idiot!
Personally, I find a sample of 1 very difficult to draw conclusions from.
If there are more cases, the details of them need to be found and talked about. Especially on examples of catastrophic failure on Encores that had never fired anything but factory ammunition.
Doc the reason they put disclaimers in the boxes is because they have no way of knowing if the person doing the reloading is following the charges in the books or if they think that 9.0 grains of unique does ok then 12.0 would be so much better.
I take responsibility for all of the cartridges i load.
They are not supposed to blow up what they are shot in,but there are those that will use the fact that they screwed up to sue and not take responsibility for their actions.
As for just shooting factory in guns,for a long time i did just that. ,knowing that the factory loads more that not would not blow me up.
As far as leaving them blameless for making a time bomb,one needs to have some evidence of that,ether by metal flaw or design flaw. Not in any of the posts about this has it been shown just what was supposed to have been the fault.
I do like 9.0 grains of unique with 200 swc in the 45 colt as shot in a colt lighting rifle. But would never use 12.0. Common sense seems to have fallen by the wayside a long time ago. Get what you can while you can no matter who is to blame or is no one to blame?
Actually, JoeBob didn't do it, it was the OP, but he still thinks TC is at fault...
Jeez, you still don't get it. I have no way of knowing if they were at fault or not. They might be. They might not be. I am simply saying that they don't get a free pass JUST because handloads were used.
This thread is Exhibit "A" as to why juries are often incapable of understanding the simplest legal issues.
Quoting Joe Bob: "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."
Just exactly WHAT "rather simple design changes" are you talking about sir?
And as to Brian, I'm sorry he blew up his rifle and got injured. That was simple human error, and is regretable, always.
However, he admits he DID use a realoaded round. Now I have the dubious distinction of having blown up a Super Blackhawk. I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that my loads were not only AOK, but absolutely, positively reliable and safe. A STACK of Bibles, mine you! But the gun blew up. Thank God that neither I nor my son sitting on a friend's shoulders, nor my friend were injured in the process.
It took me a week to trace down HOW it happened, but I found I'd poured powder from the hopper of my measure into the WRONG CAN after reloading very late one night. I've probably reloaded and shot nearly or over half a million rounds in my time. Only one was bad. But that was enough.
In short, it was MY fault, and NOT the fault of the firearm or its manufacturer. In fact, if I'd been shooting anything but a Ruger, I'd likely have died or at least been injurred. Therefore, I never even THOUGHT about suing. Ruger found that out through my friend and Ackley/Pachmyr trained gunsmith and friend. They still offered me a replacement at jobber's cost, which I humbly accepted most graciously and thankfully - NOT with a lawsuit just to pay the medical bills, etc.
I know from personal experience what kind of temptations one faces when they blow up a gun. Many will encourage you to sue to get money, and there'll be no shortage of shyster lawyers who'll be glad to help. Product liability is BIG MONEY, and BIG MONEY is the new "God" of our New Millenium. I resisted, and got quite angry at those who suggested I do something I damnably well KNEW wasn't right in ANY way.
Most people today see things quite differently, and it's gonna' be a real experience to see them get what finally MUST come of this kind of idiotic self-destruction.
I don't know ALL the facts about Brian's case, but from what he himself has offered us here to judge by, it looks to me like he was just hurt, and wanted and needed help, and sought it in a lawsuit. Whether that lawsuit was factually, morally, ethically proper or not is quite another matter, and is rightfully subject to the age old measures of what constitutes "right" and "wrong."
He states his suit was based on and due to a "defect" as he calls it in the arm, but fails to elaborate just what that defect actually was. He doesn't give what "specs" were out of line. All we've gotten is a mass of glittering generalities and essentially gobbledygook, and few real facts on which to base a solid or informed opinion.
I'm sorry you're blinded, Brian, but you're not making much of a case for yourself, and just to let you know what you HAVE done here, I should probably tell you that you appear, to me at least, to have just simply sued because you COULD, and were just lucky enough to draw a jury that really didn't know how to weigh the technical matters in the case - a not uncommon situation these days when knowledgeable people are generally at work and don't want and aren't willing to serve on juries.
Again, that's just my take and opinion based on what you've given us to work with. Maybe you're not so good at stating your case? I don't know, but thought you might benefit from at least knowing how it's coming across right now, so you might make amends somehow, if you wish. My opinion is just an opinion, and all I have to base it on is what you've given us to work with, and at least now you know how you're being perceived.
There 10 years’ worth and 1000s of pages of documents and testimony being held with the 46th Circuit Court for the County of Otsego, Michigan if you want all the facts of the case. Public Record
The simple answer is what I have time for right now and it’s what I posted above” You can disregard everything I say but PLEASE if anyone has this gun or knows someone with one out of morbid curiosity check the headspace or have a gun smith check the headspace.” Then see what a qualified gun smith tell you to do.
There are plenty of examples of guns being made or designed improperly, ammo being made improperly by handloaders, and by factories, and people using ammo in guns that were never designed for the loads being used in them. Sad to see someone getting a permanent disability out of one combination of circumstances, but, it has happened before, and will happen again. Every time a person pulls a trigger, they take that chance, but, we choose to do so. No different than waking up in the morning, it either happens, or it doesn't.
Brian, what reloading mistake did you make (according to the jury) that caused them to rule that you were 40% at fault?
Why won't you tell us this?
If you think we are going to wade through "1000s of pages" of documents from the court in some one-hourse town to find out, you're just a whining petulant …
You've wasted enough of our time. Put up or shut up.
There 10 years’ worth and 1000s of pages of documents and testimony being held with the 46th Circuit Court for the County of Otsego, Michigan if you want all the facts of the case. Public Record
The simple answer is what I have time for right now and it’s what I posted above” You can disregard everything I say but PLEASE if anyone has this gun or knows someone with one out of morbid curiosity check the headspace or have a gun smith check the headspace.” Then see what a qualified gun smith tell you to do.
So how do you think (or did your lawyer argue) excessive headspace made the gun blow up unless the load was severely overpressure or the frame/bolt gave out? Excessive headspace would make the case stretch, crack, and even possibly burst (detached case head) which I have had happen as noted above with my own encore .300 WM, but it most definitely didn't detonate and throw shrapnel.
The more Brian avoids answering all the questions about his culpability, and the more places he drags this schit show to, the more T/C's lawyers are going to love him.
Think "malicious misrepresentation of the facts", and go from there.
Brian, what reloading mistake did you make (according to the jury) that caused them to rule that you were 40% at fault?
Why won't you tell us this?
If you think we are going to wade through "1000s of pages" of documents from the court in some one-hourse town to find out, you're just a whining petulant …
You've wasted enough of our time. Put up or shut up.
Since you asked so nicely...I made no reloading mistake. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over….I was hunting for moose with grizzly walking around.
Since you asked so nicely...I made no reloading mistake. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over….I was hunting for moose with grizzly walking around.
I'm guessing that's why they say 'Don't use reloads, because we don't know what kind of idiot you are'
That seems to be foreseeability. Because the one thing I know is you can't cover something for every type of idiot/scenario that will come down the pike.
I usually don't agree with Steelhead's approach or expression, but here, I cannot disagree at all with his point. And, it has a much broader application: life, often times violent and unpleasant, is not at all risk-free; nor can it ever be made to be so.
I'm always somewhat suspect of someone, who incurring injury, seeks recompense of others.
The more Brian avoids answering all the questions about his culpability, and the more places he drags this schit show to, the more T/C's lawyers are going to love him.
Think "malicious misrepresentation of the facts", and go from there.
And also, why are you, seemingly, so enthusiastic to be prosecutor, judge ,and executioner on so many threads?
Are you also this way in person, around a campfire?
The more Brian avoids answering all the questions about his culpability, and the more places he drags this schit show to, the more T/C's lawyers are going to love him.
Think "malicious misrepresentation of the facts", and go from there.
And also, why are you, seemingly, so enthusiastic to be prosecutor, judge ,and executioner on so many threads?
Are you also this way in person, around a campfire?
Share one with me sometime and find out.
Trying to be none of the above; just a simple statement as to what Brian may have to look forward to.
Brian, what reloading mistake did you make (according to the jury) that caused them to rule that you were 40% at fault?
Why won't you tell us this?
If you think we are going to wade through "1000s of pages" of documents from the court in some one-hourse town to find out, you're just a whining petulant …
You've wasted enough of our time. Put up or shut up.
Since you asked so nicely...I made no reloading mistake. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over….I was hunting for moose with grizzly walking around.
So, why did the jury assign 40% fault to you? That question has been asked several times on several forums and you've yet to answer.
Brian, what reloading mistake did you make (according to the jury) that caused them to rule that you were 40% at fault?
Why won't you tell us this?
If you think we are going to wade through "1000s of pages" of documents from the court in some one-hourse town to find out, you're just a whining petulant …
You've wasted enough of our time. Put up or shut up.
Since you asked so nicely...I made no reloading mistake. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over….I was hunting for moose with grizzly walking around.
How did you determine that your loads were at max but not over?
You have laws stating you have to hunt with a fugly rifle?
Jorge,
This is Iowa we're talking about. They don't allow real rifles. It would make better sense if you spend some time there, but that'd be meaner than hunting with a FUGLY gun.
re: The OP... A rifle that needs to be shimmed to maintain headspace after it's been shot some undetermined amount is a rifle that's defective by design. The shimming solution is not a solution, it's a means to avoid a recall which is a solution.
A lousy 2,300 hits on this thread......and a total of four (4) instances of catastrophic failures and malfunctions with this rifle???
With the naysayers mouthing off about something that they have no details about..............when the jury did???
The level of combative ignorance displayed by some on this forum never ceases to amaze me.
I wouldn't shoot one of these to save my life. But I'd sure like to see 4ager and RWE do it.
Originally Posted by gunswizard
I witnessed an Encore catastrophic failure at my local shooting range. The gun came apart like a grenade, the scope hit she shooter in the head and knocked him out cold landing about 10yds. behind the firing point. The barrel flew about the same distance downrange, when the guy got to his feet he had a large schrapnel wound in his bicep and his buddies loaded him up and rushed him to the nearest E.R.. No details as to what caliber or load, he was definately shooting handloads. I had never witnessed a Kaboom till then and it was really scary as the schrapnel that lodged in his bicep could have wound up in his chest.
Originally Posted by bobhanson1
I had a .300 WM Encore rifle that was brand new from the factory that had 2/3 of the first Federal Classic factory loads separate just above the case head when fired, and the third had a nice line around the brass in the same spot. The gun didn't detonate like a grenade, or even open up for that matter, but gas did escape the sides of the action. I sent the barrel back to TC and they replaced it. Didn't have any issues with the replacement.
TC also had a recall for unhardened lugs that made it out of the factory that did lead to catastrophic failures regardless of the loads being used so that would be another possibility.
Originally Posted by UtahLefty
It was a couple posts up: max PSI handloads in a very weak action type.
(I had an Encore in .454 once that would pop open, eject, and close again during recoil and not with +P ammo either).
The more Brian avoids answering all the questions about his culpability, and the more places he drags this schit show to, the more T/C's lawyers are going to love him.
Think "malicious misrepresentation of the facts", and go from there.
And also, why are you, seemingly, so enthusiastic to be prosecutor, judge ,and executioner on so many threads?
Are you also this way in person, around a campfire?
This ^^^^, in spades. Darn, i thought i was the only one who wondered if 4 suffered hemorrhoids.
Actually, JoeBob didn't do it, it was the OP, but he still thinks TC is at fault...
Jeez, you still don't get it. I have no way of knowing if they were at fault or not. They might be. They might not be. I am simply saying that they don't get a free pass JUST because handloads were used.
This thread is Exhibit "A" as to why juries are often incapable of understanding the simplest legal issues.
This^^^. Has anyone asked the OP if the other handloads on hand at the time were examined and found to be within tolerance.
Also, whst is the likelyhood of a person loading too hot and in effect injuring himself and then pursuing a likely unwinnable lawsuit or of such a person being responsible for injuring himself and then spending as much time and effort in blaming an unresponsible party? Pretty slim, i think.
A lousy 2,300 hits on this thread......and a total of four (4) instances of catastrophic failures and malfunctions with this rifle???
With the naysayers mouthing off about something that they have no details about..............when the jury did???
The level of combative ignorance displayed by some on this forum never ceases to amaze me.
I wouldn't shoot one of these to save my life. But I'd sure like to see 4ager and RWE do it.
Originally Posted by gunswizard
I witnessed an Encore catastrophic failure at my local shooting range. The gun came apart like a grenade, the scope hit she shooter in the head and knocked him out cold landing about 10yds. behind the firing point. The barrel flew about the same distance downrange, when the guy got to his feet he had a large schrapnel wound in his bicep and his buddies loaded him up and rushed him to the nearest E.R.. No details as to what caliber or load, he was definately shooting handloads. I had never witnessed a Kaboom till then and it was really scary as the schrapnel that lodged in his bicep could have wound up in his chest.
Originally Posted by bobhanson1
I had a .300 WM Encore rifle that was brand new from the factory that had 2/3 of the first Federal Classic factory loads separate just above the case head when fired, and the third had a nice line around the brass in the same spot. The gun didn't detonate like a grenade, or even open up for that matter, but gas did escape the sides of the action. I sent the barrel back to TC and they replaced it. Didn't have any issues with the replacement.
TC also had a recall for unhardened lugs that made it out of the factory that did lead to catastrophic failures regardless of the loads being used so that would be another possibility.
Originally Posted by UtahLefty
It was a couple posts up: max PSI handloads in a very weak action type.
(I had an Encore in .454 once that would pop open, eject, and close again during recoil and not with +P ammo either).
I didn't keep it long....
FWIW, StupidBitchHysteria, I've owned, shot, and hunted an Encore in .300WM. It was my only center fire rifle for about four years. Never had an issue.
Actually, JoeBob didn't do it, it was the OP, but he still thinks TC is at fault...
Jeez, you still don't get it. I have no way of knowing if they were at fault or not. They might be. They might not be. I am simply saying that they don't get a free pass JUST because handloads were used.
This thread is Exhibit "A" as to why juries are often incapable of understanding the simplest legal issues.
This^^^. Has anyone asked the OP if the other handloads on hand at the time were examined and found to be within tolerance.
Also, whst is the likelyhood of a person loading too hot and in effect injuring himself and then pursuing a likely unwinnable lawsuit or of such a person being responsible for injuring himself and then spending as much time and effort in blaming an unresponsible party? Pretty slim, i think.
The more Brian avoids answering all the questions about his culpability, and the more places he drags this schit show to, the more T/C's lawyers are going to love him.
Think "malicious misrepresentation of the facts", and go from there.
And also, why are you, seemingly, so enthusiastic to be prosecutor, judge ,and executioner on so many threads?
Are you also this way in person, around a campfire?
This ^^^^, in spades. Darn, i thought i was the only one who wondered if 4 suffered hemorrhoids.
And to think, in another thread you were happy to see VAnimrod posting again. It's truly amazing how stupid you are.
A lousy 2,300 hits on this thread......and a total of four (4) instances of catastrophic failures and malfunctions with this rifle???
With the naysayers mouthing off about something that they have no details about..............when the jury did???
The level of combative ignorance displayed by some on this forum never ceases to amaze me.
I wouldn't shoot one of these to save my life. But I'd sure like to see 4ager and RWE do it.
Originally Posted by gunswizard
I witnessed an Encore catastrophic failure at my local shooting range. The gun came apart like a grenade, the scope hit she shooter in the head and knocked him out cold landing about 10yds. behind the firing point. The barrel flew about the same distance downrange, when the guy got to his feet he had a large schrapnel wound in his bicep and his buddies loaded him up and rushed him to the nearest E.R.. No details as to what caliber or load, he was definately shooting handloads. I had never witnessed a Kaboom till then and it was really scary as the schrapnel that lodged in his bicep could have wound up in his chest.
Originally Posted by bobhanson1
I had a .300 WM Encore rifle that was brand new from the factory that had 2/3 of the first Federal Classic factory loads separate just above the case head when fired, and the third had a nice line around the brass in the same spot. The gun didn't detonate like a grenade, or even open up for that matter, but gas did escape the sides of the action. I sent the barrel back to TC and they replaced it. Didn't have any issues with the replacement.
TC also had a recall for unhardened lugs that made it out of the factory that did lead to catastrophic failures regardless of the loads being used so that would be another possibility.
Originally Posted by UtahLefty
It was a couple posts up: max PSI handloads in a very weak action type.
(I had an Encore in .454 once that would pop open, eject, and close again during recoil and not with +P ammo either).
I didn't keep it long....
FWIW, StupidBitchHysteria, I've owned, shot, and hunted an Encore in .300WM. It was my only center fire rifle for about four years. Never had an issue.
So then.......they are all without manufacturing errors? And you're ALWAYS correct and will guarantee this?
I wanna see you shoot one again in my presence......using my handloads. Would love to see your entire lower jaw get flung downrange a couple hundred feet.........and all 14 of your fingers scatter in the wind. Not to mention the look in your eyes afterward. I might even call the ambulance for you.
That's the only scenario that I can think of that will shut you and your big, fat, lunatic, bullying mouth up forever.
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....
Always been my contention, just when you think you built something that you believe is idiot proof... God creates a better idiot!
Now tell me, would that be a dumber idiot or a smarter idiot?
A lousy 2,300 hits on this thread......and a total of four (4) instances of catastrophic failures and malfunctions with this rifle???
With the naysayers mouthing off about something that they have no details about..............when the jury did???
The level of combative ignorance displayed by some on this forum never ceases to amaze me.
I wouldn't shoot one of these to save my life. But I'd sure like to see 4ager and RWE do it.
Originally Posted by gunswizard
I witnessed an Encore catastrophic failure at my local shooting range. The gun came apart like a grenade, the scope hit she shooter in the head and knocked him out cold landing about 10yds. behind the firing point. The barrel flew about the same distance downrange, when the guy got to his feet he had a large schrapnel wound in his bicep and his buddies loaded him up and rushed him to the nearest E.R.. No details as to what caliber or load, he was definately shooting handloads. I had never witnessed a Kaboom till then and it was really scary as the schrapnel that lodged in his bicep could have wound up in his chest.
Originally Posted by bobhanson1
I had a .300 WM Encore rifle that was brand new from the factory that had 2/3 of the first Federal Classic factory loads separate just above the case head when fired, and the third had a nice line around the brass in the same spot. The gun didn't detonate like a grenade, or even open up for that matter, but gas did escape the sides of the action. I sent the barrel back to TC and they replaced it. Didn't have any issues with the replacement.
TC also had a recall for unhardened lugs that made it out of the factory that did lead to catastrophic failures regardless of the loads being used so that would be another possibility.
Originally Posted by UtahLefty
It was a couple posts up: max PSI handloads in a very weak action type.
(I had an Encore in .454 once that would pop open, eject, and close again during recoil and not with +P ammo either).
A lousy 2,300 hits on this thread......and a total of four (4) instances of catastrophic failures and malfunctions with this rifle???
With the naysayers mouthing off about something that they have no details about..............when the jury did???
The level of combative ignorance displayed by some on this forum never ceases to amaze me.
I wouldn't shoot one of these to save my life. But I'd sure like to see 4ager and RWE do it.
Originally Posted by gunswizard
I witnessed an Encore catastrophic failure at my local shooting range. The gun came apart like a grenade, the scope hit she shooter in the head and knocked him out cold landing about 10yds. behind the firing point. The barrel flew about the same distance downrange, when the guy got to his feet he had a large schrapnel wound in his bicep and his buddies loaded him up and rushed him to the nearest E.R.. No details as to what caliber or load, he was definately shooting handloads. I had never witnessed a Kaboom till then and it was really scary as the schrapnel that lodged in his bicep could have wound up in his chest.
Originally Posted by bobhanson1
I had a .300 WM Encore rifle that was brand new from the factory that had 2/3 of the first Federal Classic factory loads separate just above the case head when fired, and the third had a nice line around the brass in the same spot. The gun didn't detonate like a grenade, or even open up for that matter, but gas did escape the sides of the action. I sent the barrel back to TC and they replaced it. Didn't have any issues with the replacement.
TC also had a recall for unhardened lugs that made it out of the factory that did lead to catastrophic failures regardless of the loads being used so that would be another possibility.
Originally Posted by UtahLefty
It was a couple posts up: max PSI handloads in a very weak action type.
(I had an Encore in .454 once that would pop open, eject, and close again during recoil and not with +P ammo either).
I didn't keep it long....
With this ignorant post you finally win. Ignore.
Just like the rest of the Hyena Pack here...........you can't stand disagreement.........particularly when it clashes with your sick, twisted, perverted beliefs. Crybaby pu$$y wuss.
And I'm absolutley crushed that you have me on ignore........
I wouldn't shoot one of these to save my life. But I'd sure like to see 4ager and RWE do it.
Sounds like you are wishing harm on me.
You'll hear from my lawyer.
Freaking Douche.
Here's an sample of a better tact for this thread, as opposed to the selective dramatic recall.
someone admitting that they built a SxS 30-30 and had a pressure issue that manifested in a broken stock because they loaded a sammi spec round that was too high for the non-bushed-strikers of the shotgun action - presenting this as a service, rather than a multi-forum whine.
so, for my preferene I would have not been as snarky if:
1. a less melodramatic title was presented
2. something that addressed the shared negligence upfront would have been germaine and lend a little less "bitchiness" to the topic.
I think saying that the action is too fragile to handle near max reloads is telling enough without the drama.
I am a member of The High Road. I read the 6 page judgement. It says nothing about why the gun came apart. There is a lot about the award but it is all redacted. kwg
I wouldn't shoot one of these to save my life. But I'd sure like to see 4ager and RWE do it.
Sounds like you are wishing harm on me.
You'll hear from my lawyer.
Freaking Douche.
You can't afford one dickweed cuz you spend ALL DAY on this forum instead of working for a living.
Not to mention that I meant that you're too chickenschitt to fire an Encore after reading this. You're only tough with your typing fingers. By your own definition and posts here...........they are ALL perfectly functioning rifles.....correct? Why would harm come to you? Don't backpeddle here now..........bully, a$$hole.
The more Brian avoids answering all the questions about his culpability, and the more places he drags this schit show to, the more T/C's lawyers are going to love him.
Think "malicious misrepresentation of the facts", and go from there.
And also, why are you, seemingly, so enthusiastic to be prosecutor, judge ,and executioner on so many threads?
Are you also this way in person, around a campfire?
This ^^^^, in spades. Darn, i thought i was the only one who wondered if 4 suffered hemorrhoids.
And to think, in another thread you were happy to see VAnimrod posting again. It's truly amazing how stupid you are.
Only lately has he become somewhat rough, though having a case of hemorrhoids is not like your case of being one.
I am a member of The High Road. I read the 6 page judgement. It says nothing about why the gun came apart. There is a lot about the award but it is all redacted. kwg
Define 'The High Road'?
Judgements don't go into details, Dude.
The jury heard all of the details by the defendant, plaintiff, expert witnesses, etc.
And the jury heard a lot more than is posted here. And the judgement was made by the jury per the American judicial system. You and other here WERE NOT jury members.
The OP owes none of you Hyena Pack Members any other info. He just made a simple post that was worth the read.
You have laws stating you have to hunt with a fugly rifle?
If you live in IA and want to hunt whitetails with other than stick 'n string, it's with a shotgun and slugs, a muzzle-loader, or handguns chambered for most of the straight walled cartridges.
While I have and do pursue them from time to time with a RRH in 45 Colt, I forsake the slug seasons for reasons both of self preservation and solitude--they are short seasons with a lot of truck hunters and "enthusiastic' shooting.
That leaves muzzle loaders, and because I'm not a traditional purist of any degree (though I admire it when I see it), that leaves the so aptly described charcoal burners.
I am a member of The High Road. I read the 6 page judgement. It says nothing about why the gun came apart. There is a lot about the award but it is all redacted. kwg
A lousy 2,300 hits on this thread......and a total of four (4) instances of catastrophic failures and malfunctions with this rifle???
With the naysayers mouthing off about something that they have no details about..............when the jury did???
The level of combative ignorance displayed by some on this forum never ceases to amaze me.
I wouldn't shoot one of these to save my life. But I'd sure like to see 4ager and RWE do it.
Originally Posted by gunswizard
I witnessed an Encore catastrophic failure at my local shooting range. The gun came apart like a grenade, the scope hit she shooter in the head and knocked him out cold landing about 10yds. behind the firing point. The barrel flew about the same distance downrange, when the guy got to his feet he had a large schrapnel wound in his bicep and his buddies loaded him up and rushed him to the nearest E.R.. No details as to what caliber or load, he was definately shooting handloads. I had never witnessed a Kaboom till then and it was really scary as the schrapnel that lodged in his bicep could have wound up in his chest.
Originally Posted by bobhanson1
I had a .300 WM Encore rifle that was brand new from the factory that had 2/3 of the first Federal Classic factory loads separate just above the case head when fired, and the third had a nice line around the brass in the same spot. The gun didn't detonate like a grenade, or even open up for that matter, but gas did escape the sides of the action. I sent the barrel back to TC and they replaced it. Didn't have any issues with the replacement.
TC also had a recall for unhardened lugs that made it out of the factory that did lead to catastrophic failures regardless of the loads being used so that would be another possibility.
Originally Posted by UtahLefty
It was a couple posts up: max PSI handloads in a very weak action type.
(I had an Encore in .454 once that would pop open, eject, and close again during recoil and not with +P ammo either).
I didn't keep it long....
FWIW, StupidBitchHysteria, I've owned, shot, and hunted an Encore in .300WM. It was my only center fire rifle for about four years. Never had an issue.
So then.......they are all without manufacturing errors? And you're ALWAYS correct and will guarantee this?
I wanna see you shoot one again in my presence......using my handloads. Would love to see your entire lower jaw get flung downrange a couple hundred feet.........and all 14 of your fingers scatter in the wind. Not to mention the look in your eyes afterward. I might even call the ambulance for you.
That's the only scenario that I can think of that will shut you and your big, fat, lunatic, bullying mouth up forever.
I'd gladly shoot one again, if you stand in front of it.
Just because you're a moron and load a grenade doesn't make the manufacturer responsible for the fact that you father should have chased a swallow and not a stork.
I am a member of The High Road. I read the 6 page judgement. It says nothing about why the gun came apart. There is a lot about the award but it is all redacted. kwg
Define 'The High Road'?
Judgements don't go into details, Dude.
The jury heard all of the details by the defendant, plaintiff, expert witnesses, etc.
And the jury heard a lot more than is posted here. And the judgement was made by the jury per the American judicial system. You and other here WERE NOT jury members.
The OP owes none of you Hyena Pack Members any other info. He just made a simple post that was worth the read.
What more do you need to understand this?
Dumbass,
"The High Road" is the forum the OP linked to originally to trumpet the verdict and docs.
If you haven't a clue, say so, go back to drinking and pills and this time do the world a favor and don't stop.
I am a member of The High Road. I read the 6 page judgement. It says nothing about why the gun came apart. There is a lot about the award but it is all redacted. kwg
Define 'The High Road'?
Judgements don't go into details, Dude.
The jury heard all of the details by the defendant, plaintiff, expert witnesses, etc.
And the jury heard a lot more than is posted here. And the judgement was made by the jury per the American judicial system. You and other here WERE NOT jury members.
The OP owes none of you Hyena Pack Members any other info. He just made a simple post that was worth the read.
What more do you need to understand this?
Dumbass,
"The High Road" is the forum the OP linked to originally to trumpet the verdict and docs.
If you haven't a clue, say so, go back to drinking and pills and this time do the world a favor and don't stop.
My inquiry was already answered by your fellow forum Hyena Pack buddy.
And....since when do you post when you're not at work and receiving a paycheck for being here?
I am a member of The High Road. I read the 6 page judgement. It says nothing about why the gun came apart. There is a lot about the award but it is all redacted. kwg
Define 'The High Road'?
Judgements don't go into details, Dude.
The jury heard all of the details by the defendant, plaintiff, expert witnesses, etc.
And the jury heard a lot more than is posted here. And the judgement was made by the jury per the American judicial system. You and other here WERE NOT jury members.
The OP owes none of you Hyena Pack Members any other info. He just made a simple post that was worth the read.
What more do you need to understand this?
Dumbass,
"The High Road" is the forum the OP linked to originally to trumpet the verdict and docs.
If you haven't a clue, say so, go back to drinking and pills and this time do the world a favor and don't stop.
My inquiry was already answered by your fellow forum Hyena Pack buddy.
And....since when do you post when you're not at work and receiving a paycheck for being here?
Jealous? You always have been. It's part of your mental illness. Give in to it. The pills and booze make everything better, especially if you don't stop.
Mr Ward, Do you stop, look, and listen at marked Railway Crossings? If you chose to not do so and proceed, get run over by the train, are you planning on suing the Railway?
Did you use reloaded ammunition after reading the user manual that stated do not use reloaded ammunition? If so, you at that point let TC off the hook. They are certainly in the clear.
I would like to know the facts of the case, not just your side as was posted. What do you say happened? What was TC defense?
Did you use hot reloads, stretch your frame to the point of it coming unlocked and have it blow up in your face? The book says don't do that..
Don't want to see anyone get hurt, Hell, I have quite a few Encores myself. Would like to hear the entire story and come to my own conclusion.
SBH is funny...complaining about the bashing of people one minute and then doing a 180 the next. Classic "do as I say and not as I do."
Guess you haven't changed at all...sad.
Jackoff Cubed,
Elkhunternm is trying to give you a hand................
I will put you on my stalker list and label you Stalker Jackoff.
Originally Posted by SBH
Too many mean, brutal, dehumanizing, heartless members on this forum for me these days.
I'm outta here.......
As the campfire turns...
Stalker Jackoff,
Do us all a favor and go back to school (Oh wait....did you ever go?) and learn the meaning of the term 'sarcasm'. If you read that literally.....then you are dumb as a box of rocks.
I am soooooooo comforted by that, Stalker Jackoff. I just live for your approval.
Since you are such a superior human being, Stalker Jackoff.......can you by any chance get 4ager and his bufu buddy RWE to stand close to each other (once again) while firing one of these ALWAYS PERFECT RIFLES...........so that their heads come completely apart...........if failure occurs? This would be a great, long-awaited subtraction from this forum.
But I do generate hits. Look at the count on this one!
Not everything is about you, friend. This topic had a lot of "hits" before you ever showed up. However, if the illusion of your popularity keeps your spirits high, then believe you are the most popular person on the playgrou....err, I mean, forum!
You have a rather large problem with anyone that might have a clue what it takes to reload safely.
Take a powder and get some relief.
You ignorant plick.
What proof do you have that the rifle manufacturer isn't at fault after four (4) stories about the same.............plus a jury decision after all facts were presented?
You weren't there.........and don't have these facts.......you stubborn buffoon.
Brian, what reloading mistake did you make (according to the jury) that caused them to rule that you were 40% at fault?
Why won't you tell us this?
If you think we are going to wade through "1000s of pages" of documents from the court in some one-hourse town to find out, you're just a whining petulant …
You've wasted enough of our time. Put up or shut up.
Since you asked so nicely...I made no reloading mistake. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over….I was hunting for moose with grizzly walking around.
Since you did not answer the question, I must not have asked it clearly. I'll rephrase it.
Nicely.
I did not ask whether or not your reloads exceeded SAAMI specs. I asked what mistake did you make ACCORDING TO THE JURY that caused them to rule you were 40% at fault.
Brian, what reloading mistake did you make (according to the jury) that caused them to rule that you were 40% at fault?
Why won't you tell us this?
If you think we are going to wade through "1000s of pages" of documents from the court in some one-hourse town to find out, you're just a whining petulant …
You've wasted enough of our time. Put up or shut up.
Since you asked so nicely...I made no reloading mistake. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over….I was hunting for moose with grizzly walking around.
Since you did not answer the question, I must not have asked it clearly. I'll rephrase it.
Nicely.
I did not ask whether or not your reloads exceeded SAAMI specs. I asked what mistake did you make ACCORDING TO THE JURY that caused them to rule you were 40% at fault.
'Nicely' this time?
Why not 'nicely' the first time, Limpdick? I'll tell you why. Because you're the same chickenschitt Hyena Pack Member that the rest of these narrow-minded, loser forum addicts are. None have the sack to stand alone here. They only know how to pile on. That's why.
And why aren't you asking what mistake the rifle manufacturer made ACCORDING TO THE JURY that caused them to rule that they were 60% at fault?
Brian, what reloading mistake did you make (according to the jury) that caused them to rule that you were 40% at fault?
Why won't you tell us this?
If you think we are going to wade through "1000s of pages" of documents from the court in some one-hourse town to find out, you're just a whining petulant …
You've wasted enough of our time. Put up or shut up.
Since you asked so nicely...I made no reloading mistake. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over….I was hunting for moose with grizzly walking around.
So, why did the jury assign 40% fault to you? That question has been asked several times on several forums and you've yet to answer.
Guys, Some of you are trying to beat me to death about details, and I have been posting things people have asked for. Have you read all my previous posts? It seems like I’m rehashing things. I do know the details, but please remember I’m not a gunsmith or an engineer. But I have a fairly good grasp for a layperson. The Encore rifle hasn’t been in my possession in almost 10 years so I’m not able to break out the calipers and give you guys measurements.
Regarding the 40% fault issue. It seems like a lot of people are getting hung up on that. I’m not trying to hide that at all. But it is pure speculation why the jury decided how they did. I posted all the information I have….. the verdict. The jury didn’t write a paper summarizing their thoughts in the deliberation room.
Hey, youre just an ole soreassed pos, as opposed to the fires youngassed posits, trying to put a great co out of business for no good reason and no one should have courts recourse if they are stupid lowlife reloaders.
I am not familiar with the case, but I am glad that the manufacturer wasn't vindicated because of some over-lawyered manual excluded reloaded ammo.
TC makes barrels specifically for non-manufactured ammo...so they shouldn't be able to just write off any damage to a firearm based upon their manual.
Although I don't specifically reload 300wm, I do reload. I doubt you could 'double charge' that case, because it holds so much powder to start with. You could certainly overcharge it some and place the bullet in it some way to increase pressures, but not double charge..double charges come about from people using antiquated large cases with newer powders like the 45 long colt, 38-40, 44-40, etc. Those cases were made in black powder days, back then the black powder would nearly fill the case, not so with today's smokeless powders.
Manufacturers could make it very difficult on sportsman if they printed things like 'Only winchester wildcat subsonic 36 grain ammo may be used in this 22 caliber pistol, no cci or remington or other brands.' Or, they could just make a safe product that shot the saami loaded spec regardless of origin.
In other words, if your 20 gauge action cannot hold together with a 378supermagnum...then don't chamber it or sell it.
-my two cents...let the name calling and lawyering continue...
I will not be posting for a few days. I’m going away with my wife and kids for Memorial Day weekend. I should be back in front of my computer Wednesday.
Not impossible to over charge a load... prove that didn't happen and win the suit.. prove you used factory ammo, win the suit. Try to bullshit the court, lose the suit.
SBH, I have not clicked that button yet, as I walked out in a hurry to do other htings todya.
Hey Mr. Dyslexic Drunk,
Seems you don't know whether your a$$ was bored or punched. Typical Hyena Pack member.
You promised that you would ignore me yesterday! You were adamant with that statement and no excuses! It's all right here for all to be disgusted with!
When can we meet for you to pull the trigger on an Encore in my presence? You're not chicken are you? I will love to stand back and watch! Perhaps RWE and 4ager can stand a little bit closer to you!
I promise......honest.........to call the waaaaaaahhhhhmbulance if you lose the remaining part of your mind.......
Brian, what reloading mistake did you make (according to the jury) that caused them to rule that you were 40% at fault?
Why won't you tell us this?
If you think we are going to wade through "1000s of pages" of documents from the court in some one-hourse town to find out, you're just a whining petulant …
You've wasted enough of our time. Put up or shut up.
Since you asked so nicely...I made no reloading mistake. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over….I was hunting for moose with grizzly walking around.
Why we hunt moose every fall in grizz country. Most years carrying a MZ or 30-30... no need to have a 300 win mag or max loads because of bears thats for sure.
Brian, what reloading mistake did you make (according to the jury) that caused them to rule that you were 40% at fault?
Why won't you tell us this?
If you think we are going to wade through "1000s of pages" of documents from the court in some one-hourse town to find out, you're just a whining petulant …
You've wasted enough of our time. Put up or shut up.
Since you asked so nicely...I made no reloading mistake. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over….I was hunting for moose with grizzly walking around.
Why we hunt moose every fall in grizz country. Most years carrying a MZ or 30-30... no need to have a 300 win mag or max loads because of bears thats for sure.
but thats your choice.
You are right, it is a personal choice. IMO most people don’t think a 30-30 is a good grizzly bear round.
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..!
Lest anyone get overly invested in the "Brian used handloads" line of reasoning, remember that TC manufactured, and for all I know still does manufacture, barrels and thus firearms that could not be used with anything but handloaded ammunition. I happen to own two of those barrels - a .30 Herrett and a 7mmTCU. There are many others besides those two examples.
So, despite what the manual is saying about not using reloads or handloads, the reality is that TC is/was well aware of, and significantly responsible for, the use of handloads/reloads in their products.
P.S. No SAAMI specs on those cartridges at the time of barrel manufacture either - so there goes that line of reasoning as well.
The above is true. At one time TC made barrels in many wildcat chamberings such as mentioned in the quote above. I have barrels in the .30 Herrett, .357 Herrett, 7mm TCU, and at one time they cranked them out for other non-standard calibers. In addition there are a few custom makers of TC barrels for the Encore/Pro Hunter and G2 Contender such as:
Note how many chamberings are not available in factory loadings that will require converting brass by forming, handloading and fire forming. The implication is that TC and S&W ought to have known that their product could and likely would be use with an aftermarket barrel. At one time, pre-S&W, they operated their own custom shop to provide the same service.
Getting back to the original Contender. It was my pleasure to compete in IHMSA handgun silhouette competition during the decades of the 1970's and '80's with a Contender. TC heavily supported the sport with various chamberings such as the 7mm TCU, that required wildcat ammunition, and provided parts free of charge to competitors, I still have boxes of parts from TC.
Immediately we noticed that there were a few problems. The first of these was that the frames between the pivot pin and the standing breech would stretch, rendering the frame useless. I had TC replace one such frame. The attempt to solve this problem is found in the reinforcing boss cast into the frames resembling the Nike "Swoosh".
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.
A third problem was in the effort to unlock the action by squeezing the trigger guard. I recall a modification was made to the trigger guard frame/relationship, however time has dimmed the details. Overall, the TC was a design that evolved over time with actual field use revealing the flaws and shortcomings. The original Contender also came with a set trigger that could be reduced to mere ounces of let-off, I understand this feature has been replaced with a more lawyer friendly trigger.
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.
I went back at looked at my notes, my final loads for my hunt were 85 grains of H-1000.
It is over the published data of 83 from Hodgdon Data Manual.
I worked up from 10% below max and worked up the final load in half grain increments looking for accuracy (also potency) since I was hunting for moose in Alaska with Griz running around. There were no pressure signs in the cases compared to the 83 gr load (no blown primers, splits, cracks etc.). I even had two other experienced reloaders look at the cases.
Also, since this was a single shot, I was not seating the bullet as deep, allowing for more case capacity… but I was not engaging the rifling. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over.
Sigh...
I have no experience with the .300 Win Mag, folks. What would a 2 grain overcharge do?
(Looking at current loads for the H1000 published by Hodgdon,the max loads for the 180 grain NOS E-TIP and the 180 grain SPR MT-SP are 79.4 grains compressed and 81.0 grains compressed, respectively.)
Looks like there was an extra .45acp charge of powder in there.
I'm still interested in knowing what parts failed.
I went back at looked at my notes, my final loads for my hunt were 85 grains of H-1000.
It is over the published data of 83 from Hodgdon Data Manual.
I worked up from 10% below max and worked up the final load in half grain increments looking for accuracy (also potency) since I was hunting for moose in Alaska with Griz running around. There were no pressure signsEXCEPT FOR THE F UCKING GUN EXPLODING in the cases compared to the 83 gr load (no blown primers, splits, cracks etc.). I even had two other experienced reloaders look at the cases.
Also, since this was a single shot, I was not seating the bullet as deep, allowing for more case capacity… but I was not engaging the rifling. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over.
Sigh...
I have no experience with the .300 Win Mag, folks. What would a 2 grain overcharge do?
(Looking at current loads for the H1000 published by Hodgdon,the max loads for the 180 grain NOS E-TIP and the 180 grain SPR MT-SP are 79.4 grains compressed and 81.0 grains compressed, respectively.)
Looks like there was an extra .45acp charge of powder in there.
I'm still interested in knowing what parts failed.
Well, you won the case, so all this Monday morning quarterbacking is past moot. It does give the natives something to rail and pontificate against, though, and that is often needed. Of course, most of those railing the loudest have done similar to what you did but didn't permanently damage themselves or destroy a rifle. Nor did it pay. Therein lies the rub.
I went back at looked at my notes, my final loads for my hunt were 85 grains of H-1000.
It is over the published data of 83 from Hodgdon Data Manual.
I worked up from 10% below max and worked up the final load in half grain increments looking for accuracy (also potency) since I was hunting for moose in Alaska with Griz running around. There were no pressure signs in the cases compared to the 83 gr load (no blown primers, splits, cracks etc.). I even had two other experienced reloaders look at the cases.
Also, since this was a single shot, I was not seating the bullet as deep, allowing for more case capacity… but I was not engaging the rifling. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over.
Sigh...
I have no experience with the .300 Win Mag, folks. What would a 2 grain overcharge do?
(Looking at current loads for the H1000 published by Hodgdon,the max loads for the 180 grain NOS E-TIP and the 180 grain SPR MT-SP are 79.4 grains compressed and 81.0 grains compressed, respectively.)
Looks like there was an extra .45acp charge of powder in there.
I'm still interested in knowing what parts failed.
Interesting,..straight from Hogdgon's website..
He's probably going to sue the Brass manufacturer next because they should have known he could make an Over-Pressure load and didn't size the brass accordingly...
Well, you won the case, so all this Monday morning quarterbacking is past moot. It does give the natives something to rail and pontificate against, though, and that is often needed. Of course, most of those railing the loudest have done similar to what you did but didn't permanently damage themselves or destroy a rifle. Nor did it pay. Therein lies the rub.
Actually, if you paid any attention at all, you'd know that T/C is filing a motion for a retrial and an appeal of the decision. So, no, it's not over and most of the people are simply asking questions about details (load specifics, pressure testing, experts, why the jury determined 40% fault, etc.).
I went back at looked at my notes, my final loads for my hunt were 85 grains of H-1000.
It is over the published data of 83 from Hodgdon Data Manual.
I worked up from 10% below max and worked up the final load in half grain increments looking for accuracy (also potency) since I was hunting for moose in Alaska with Griz running around. There were no pressure signsEXCEPT FOR THE F UCKING GUN EXPLODING in the cases compared to the 83 gr load (no blown primers, splits, cracks etc.). I even had two other experienced reloaders look at the cases.
Also, since this was a single shot, I was not seating the bullet as deep, allowing for more case capacity… but I was not engaging the rifling. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over.
Sigh...
I have no experience with the .300 Win Mag, folks. What would a 2 grain overcharge do?
(Looking at current loads for the H1000 published by Hodgdon,the max loads for the 180 grain NOS E-TIP and the 180 grain SPR MT-SP are 79.4 grains compressed and 81.0 grains compressed, respectively.)
Looks like there was an extra .45acp charge of powder in there.
I'm still interested in knowing what parts failed.
T/C is filing a motion for a retrial and an appeal of the decision.
Of course they did. Doesn't mean they will get another trial or reversal but the only way they would do such a thing, is that he won his case and it may or may not be over.
I've seen this drill before many times for different things. It's not about details, it's about a time to show someone wrong and be sanctimonious doing it. Carry on.
T/C is filing a motion for a retrial and an appeal of the decision.
Of course they did. Doesn't mean they will get another trial or reversal but the only way they would do such a thing, is that he won his case and it may or may not be over.
I've seen this drill before many times for different things. It's not about details, it's about a time to show someone wrong and be sanctimonious doing it. Carry on.
No, quite frankly, it's about wanting to know what happened. The dude had a firearm blow up on him and was rather seriously injured. The only way to really prevent the same from happening to someone else is to know what happened. Juries make mistakes; quite often in fact. Taking a trial jury decision for Gospel isn't necessarily a good idea, especially when technical matters are at hand and 40% fault is assigned to the aggrieved party.
The load matters. The pressure testing and lab used matters. The experts matter. The design flaws matter. The contributory negligence matters. All the facts matter, not just the ones that are most beneficial to the publicity case being made by either party.
If the post was made in an effort to keep other people from making the same mistakes and warning them about the dangers of doing certain things that he did with the encore and he had been forth coming with information from the legitimate inquiries then many people here wouldn't have an issue with this thread.
However the tone of the thread from the beginning was strictly to harm TC and the encore brand. There has been no attempt to educate people on what happened and he has absolved himself of any wrong doing or even giving legitimate answers to questions regarding the jury findings. The post is agenda driven and wreaks of bitterness, so with that said, he gets what he gets.
No, quite frankly, it's about wanting to know what happened. The dude had a firearm blow up on him and was rather seriously injured. The only way to really prevent the same from happening to someone else is to know what happened.
The picture is of a busted stock:
The contention was that the rifle was found by his friend after the accident, and that it had no shell in the chamber.
I believe the assertion is that improper headspace somehow made the rifle unlock during firing, exposing the breech and ejecting the shell, before closing again.
Frankly, my own personal theory is that the recoil was quite stout and if the breech did open, it was due to recoil driving the triggerguard/breech lever against his middle finger, at which time muzzle rise allowed his middle finger to rotate the lever downward.
That, however, is only a guess. Did the stock break under recoil and allow this to happen, or did the stock break when it was dropped?
I flat don't know. I'm stretching things quite far as is. It seems like the only chain of events that could possibly make the rifle empty its own chamber.
I went back at looked at my notes, my final loads for my hunt were 85 grains of H-1000.
It is over the published data of 83 from Hodgdon Data Manual.
I worked up from 10% below max and worked up the final load in half grain increments looking for accuracy (also potency) since I was hunting for moose in Alaska with Griz running around. There were no pressure signs in the cases compared to the 83 gr load (no blown primers, splits, cracks etc.). I even had two other experienced reloaders look at the cases.
Also, since this was a single shot, I was not seating the bullet as deep, allowing for more case capacity… but I was not engaging the rifling. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over.
Sigh...
I have no experience with the .300 Win Mag, folks. What would a 2 grain overcharge do?
(Looking at current loads for the H1000 published by Hodgdon,the max loads for the 180 grain NOS E-TIP and the 180 grain SPR MT-SP are 79.4 grains compressed and 81.0 grains compressed, respectively.)
Looks like there was an extra .45acp charge of powder in there.
I'm still interested in knowing what parts failed.
Interesting,..straight from Hogdgon's website..
He's probably going to sue the Brass manufacturer next because they should have known he could make an Over-Pressure load and didn't size the brass accordingly...
Nosler e-tips usually max out about midway between start and max loads for standard bullets, they have a warning on the website and the manuals that the pressure curve is different on the e-tips and be uber careful to start at the minimum. 79 grains of H1000 was probably close max saami pressure, and who really knows how much powder was in that case that blew up. My guess is the OP used the the "load it up until the primer blows, than back it off a bit" method of load development. His load as he stated it was probably 5-6 grains above max saami pressure for the 300 WM. My guess is the load was well above what he admits too.
For those who are just joining this thread, read the first 5 pages and skip to page 18-19. If you end up reading everything like I did you'll wishing you read my post.
I have an Encore, used for special MZ seasons for long range stuff.....
Never had an issue with it but then I know how to load things too.....
But back to the I'm hunting moose where Grizz are... um we hunted how many years with a 30-30 and or MZ rifle, and a pistol for backup. Moved up to a 338-06 last fall just to try something new, but will be carrying the MZ again when I can get it to shoot like I want it to.
Grizz issues will get you if you are scared. But have a firearm, and a GOOD head, and you'll likely be just fine.
Those extra 5 or 6 grains of powder could be the difference between you getting eaten by a bear or blowing your own face off with your rifle.
It’s kind funny when there are statements like this. “His load as he stated it was probably 5-6 grains above max saami pressure for the 300 WM.” Wow! Kind of apples and oranges there bud.
I’m not recommending anyone exceed limits with their loads. As stated above 26th edition Hodgdon Data Manual states 83. I very judiciously worked up to 85. A lot of other factors can be weighted. That is why I stated my procedure above. I’m not hiding this at all, I very openly and willing gave this to T/C Arms, the jury, and this forum.
H-1000 is one of the slowest burning powders around; which makes a 2 grain increase not much of a pressure rise. Hand loaders can archive more constant accuracy, and pressures over factory loads. Factory loads on a hot day in the SW US or Africa can have pressure spikes well above my loads.
My loads were within SAAMI service maximum avg. pressure limits.
You can disregard everything I say but PLEASE if anyone has this gun or knows someone with one out of morbid curiosity check the headspace or have a gun smith check the headspace. I don’t know if there is much more I can add here.
Those extra 5 or 6 grains of powder could be the difference between you getting eaten by a bear or blowing your own face off with your rifle.
It’s kind funny when there are statements like this. “His load as he stated it was probably 5-6 grains above max saami pressure for the 300 WM.” Wow! Kind of apples and oranges there bud.
I’m not recommending anyone exceed limits with their loads. As stated above 26th edition Hodgdon Data Manual states 83. I very judiciously worked up to 85. A lot of other factors can be weighted. That is why I stated my procedure above. I’m not hiding this at all, I very openly and willing gave this to T/C Arms, the jury, and this forum.
H-1000 is one of the slowest burning powders around; which makes a 2 grain increase not much of a pressure rise. Hand loaders can archive more constant accuracy, and pressures over factory loads. Factory loads on a hot day in the SW US or Africa can have pressure spikes well above my loads.
My loads were within SAAMI service maximum avg. pressure limits.
You can disregard everything I say but PLEASE if anyone has this gun or knows someone with one out of morbid curiosity check the headspace or have a gun smith check the headspace. I don’t know if there is much more I can add here.
Can you actually answer the questions that have been asked multiple times about what actually happened to the gun? My own Encore .300 WM had excessive headspace, but my gun didn't explode. Is the action still in one piece? Were the locking lugs intact, etc? All of these things would have been brought up in court if they applied and even though you stated haven't handled your gun since the incident it would have likely been present in court so you could at least tell us what was broken, what wasn't, etc.
Also, are you sure H1000 burns at the same rate once it's compressed heavily? Lots of powders don't so what are you basing your assumption on? Using visual pressure signs for max loads is always a bad idea which is why you were found partially at fault as many reloading guides now include pictures showing exactly that-no visible signs of grossly overpressure loads...
I have multiple Encores and would like to legitimately know what happened to your gun, not just that you think the design is bad as clearly several of us have had similar headspace issues that didn't result in catastrophic failure and the only legitimate difference thus far seems to be your use of max/over pressure loads...
Those extra 5 or 6 grains of powder could be the difference between you getting eaten by a bear or blowing your own face off with your rifle.
It’s kind funny when there are statements like this. “His load as he stated it was probably 5-6 grains above max saami pressure for the 300 WM.” Wow! Kind of apples and oranges there bud.
I’m not recommending anyone exceed limits with their loads. As stated above 26th edition Hodgdon Data Manual states 83. I very judiciously worked up to 85. A lot of other factors can be weighted. That is why I stated my procedure above. I’m not hiding this at all, I very openly and willing gave this to T/C Arms, the jury, and this forum.
H-1000 is one of the slowest burning powders around; which makes a 2 grain increase not much of a pressure rise. Hand loaders can archive more constant accuracy, and pressures over factory loads. Factory loads on a hot day in the SW US or Africa can have pressure spikes well above my loads.
My loads were within SAAMI service maximum avg. pressure limits.
You can disregard everything I say but PLEASE if anyone has this gun or knows someone with one out of morbid curiosity check the headspace or have a gun smith check the headspace. I don’t know if there is much more I can add here.
Hodgdon lists 79.4 grains as the maximum load under a 180 grain Nosler E-tip. That is verified on their Reloading Data site as of 45 seconds ago, and it is listed as a compressed load at 3.340" COAL and 62,400 PSI. You have stated that your load was at 85 grains. Not only is that more than 5 grains over book maximum, it is also a severely compressed load.
You've been asked, time and again, who your firearms expert was and what laboratory he used for the pressure testing. That is information you clearly should know and yet you refuse to offer it up, in spite of your words saying that you're giving all the information that you have.
Those extra 5 or 6 grains of powder could be the difference between you getting eaten by a bear or blowing your own face off with your rifle.
It’s kind funny when there are statements like this. “His load as he stated it was probably 5-6 grains above max saami pressure for the 300 WM.” Wow! Kind of apples and oranges there bud.
I’m not recommending anyone exceed limits with their loads. As stated above 26th edition Hodgdon Data Manual states 83. I very judiciously worked up to 85. A lot of other factors can be weighted. That is why I stated my procedure above. I’m not hiding this at all, I very openly and willing gave this to T/C Arms, the jury, and this forum.
H-1000 is one of the slowest burning powders around; which makes a 2 grain increase not much of a pressure rise. Hand loaders can archive more constant accuracy, and pressures over factory loads. Factory loads on a hot day in the SW US or Africa can have pressure spikes well above my loads.
My loads were within SAAMI service maximum avg. pressure limits.
You can disregard everything I say but PLEASE if anyone has this gun or knows someone with one out of morbid curiosity check the headspace or have a gun smith check the headspace. I don’t know if there is much more I can add here.
Can you actually answer the questions that have been asked multiple times about what actually happened to the gun? My own Encore .300 WM had excessive headspace, but my gun didn't explode. Is the action still in one piece? Were the locking lugs intact, etc? All of these things would have been brought up in court if they applied and even though you stated haven't handled your gun since the incident it would have likely been present in court so you could at least tell us what was broken, what wasn't, etc.
Also, are you sure H1000 burns at the same rate once it's compressed heavily? Lots of powders don't so what are you basing your assumption on? Using visual pressure signs for max loads is always a bad idea which is why you were found partially at fault as many reloading guides now include pictures showing exactly that-no visible signs of grossly overpressure loads...
I have multiple Encores and would like to legitimately know what happened to your gun, not just that you think the design is bad as clearly several of us have had similar headspace issues that didn't result in catastrophic failure and the only legitimate difference thus far seems to be your use of max/over pressure loads...
I thought I did post what happened, I think people are attacking me and getting worked up when they have not read what I posted before...I’m trying to answer every question I have gotten.
The action is in one piece, I was unable to post the picture here but it is on multiple other forms...just google it.
I increased the cartridge length reducing the compression of the load....no magazine problems because it is a single shot.
Plunger (Lug?) still works but has chips on the corners.
Those extra 5 or 6 grains of powder could be the difference between you getting eaten by a bear or blowing your own face off with your rifle.
It’s kind funny when there are statements like this. “His load as he stated it was probably 5-6 grains above max saami pressure for the 300 WM.” Wow! Kind of apples and oranges there bud.
I’m not recommending anyone exceed limits with their loads. As stated above 26th edition Hodgdon Data Manual states 83. I very judiciously worked up to 85. A lot of other factors can be weighted. That is why I stated my procedure above. I’m not hiding this at all, I very openly and willing gave this to T/C Arms, the jury, and this forum.
H-1000 is one of the slowest burning powders around; which makes a 2 grain increase not much of a pressure rise. Hand loaders can archive more constant accuracy, and pressures over factory loads. Factory loads on a hot day in the SW US or Africa can have pressure spikes well above my loads.
My loads were within SAAMI service maximum avg. pressure limits.
You can disregard everything I say but PLEASE if anyone has this gun or knows someone with one out of morbid curiosity check the headspace or have a gun smith check the headspace. I don’t know if there is much more I can add here.
Can you actually answer the questions that have been asked multiple times about what actually happened to the gun? My own Encore .300 WM had excessive headspace, but my gun didn't explode. Is the action still in one piece? Were the locking lugs intact, etc? All of these things would have been brought up in court if they applied and even though you stated haven't handled your gun since the incident it would have likely been present in court so you could at least tell us what was broken, what wasn't, etc.
Also, are you sure H1000 burns at the same rate once it's compressed heavily? Lots of powders don't so what are you basing your assumption on? Using visual pressure signs for max loads is always a bad idea which is why you were found partially at fault as many reloading guides now include pictures showing exactly that-no visible signs of grossly overpressure loads...
I have multiple Encores and would like to legitimately know what happened to your gun, not just that you think the design is bad as clearly several of us have had similar headspace issues that didn't result in catastrophic failure and the only legitimate difference thus far seems to be your use of max/over pressure loads...
I thought I did post what happened, I think people are attacking me and getting worked up when they have not read what I posted before...I’m trying to answer every question I have gotten.
The action is in one piece, I was unable to post the picture here but it is on multiple other forms...just google it.
I increased the cartridge length reducing the compression of the load....no magazine problems because it is a single shot.
Plunger (Lug?) still works but has chips on the corners.
People are asking what happened and for details. You refuse to provide details so that people can actually try to figure out what happened. The more actual details that come out, though, the worse you end up looking in this.
85 grains when book maximum is compressed at 79.4? Good grief.
Those extra 5 or 6 grains of powder could be the difference between you getting eaten by a bear or blowing your own face off with your rifle.
It’s kind funny when there are statements like this. “His load as he stated it was probably 5-6 grains above max saami pressure for the 300 WM.” Wow! Kind of apples and oranges there bud.
I’m not recommending anyone exceed limits with their loads. As stated above 26th edition Hodgdon Data Manual states 83. I very judiciously worked up to 85. A lot of other factors can be weighted. That is why I stated my procedure above. I’m not hiding this at all, I very openly and willing gave this to T/C Arms, the jury, and this forum.
H-1000 is one of the slowest burning powders around; which makes a 2 grain increase not much of a pressure rise. Hand loaders can archive more constant accuracy, and pressures over factory loads. Factory loads on a hot day in the SW US or Africa can have pressure spikes well above my loads.
My loads were within SAAMI service maximum avg. pressure limits.
You can disregard everything I say but PLEASE if anyone has this gun or knows someone with one out of morbid curiosity check the headspace or have a gun smith check the headspace. I don’t know if there is much more I can add here.
There is lots more you "could" add, but likely won't, here are a few things that would smooth this all over and maybe make people take this more seriously.
What exactly happened to the gun, pictures would be great.
Why did the jury, right or wrong, find you 40% at fault, what did you do or what did they think you did to cause this.
Your loads are above book max according to several sources, what lab tested your loads to determine they were within SAAMI spec.
Who were the experts that inspected the loads, and your fired cases to determine they were within SAAMI spec, not only pressure but sized properly etc...
Did your loads (sizing specifically) contribute in any way to exasperate an already existing headspace issue.
Here is a picture of Brian's rifle that he posted on other forum. From what I understand the stock broke and the scope caused the injury. Then check this statement out:
Originally Posted by Brian Ward
It’s one of the mysteries of this case. The gun found by my friend did not have a case in it. I have no idea where it went, I was laying there bleeding.
I never had any cases rupture, split, blown primers, etc…on any of my loads, or factory loads. All my reloads and brass from reloads was inspected by experts on the defenses side. No one could point to specific excessive pressure sign….only conjecture.
They don't blow up the gun. Hence the point. It wasn't going over published max that made the gun blow up. It was either the wrong powder or a mix of powders, headspace issues, or a faulty rifle.
I can't remember the last time I found pressure at max book.
Those extra 5 or 6 grains of powder could be the difference between you getting eaten by a bear or blowing your own face off with your rifle.
It’s kind funny when there are statements like this. “His load as he stated it was probably 5-6 grains above max saami pressure for the 300 WM.” Wow! Kind of apples and oranges there bud.
I’m not recommending anyone exceed limits with their loads. As stated above 26th edition Hodgdon Data Manual states 83. I very judiciously worked up to 85. A lot of other factors can be weighted. That is why I stated my procedure above. I’m not hiding this at all, I very openly and willing gave this to T/C Arms, the jury, and this forum.
H-1000 is one of the slowest burning powders around; which makes a 2 grain increase not much of a pressure rise. Hand loaders can archive more constant accuracy, and pressures over factory loads. Factory loads on a hot day in the SW US or Africa can have pressure spikes well above my loads.
My loads were within SAAMI service maximum avg. pressure limits.
You can disregard everything I say but PLEASE if anyone has this gun or knows someone with one out of morbid curiosity check the headspace or have a gun smith check the headspace. I don’t know if there is much more I can add here.
There is lots more you "could" add, but likely won't, here are a few things that would smooth this all over and maybe make people take this more seriously.
What exactly happened to the gun, pictures would be great.
Why did the jury, right or wrong, find you 40% at fault, what did you do or what did they think you did to cause this.
Your loads are above book max according to several sources, what lab tested your loads to determine they were within SAAMI spec.
Who were the experts that inspected the loads, and your fired cases to determine they were within SAAMI spec, not only pressure but sized properly etc...
Did your loads (sizing specifically) contribute in any way to exasperate an already existing headspace issue.
There are more but lets start there.
I did answer these, please go back and read my posts.
The more I read this thread, the more questions I have.
I got my Encore in 1998, and my father got his around 2003. Both of us have loaded for numerous barrels, rifle and pistol. Both of us are very experienced reloaders, many years of experience precision reloading with numerous action designs. The Encore is not my favorite design, but like any rifle if used with it's design parameters can work quite well. I know the frame flexes with high pressures and large case heads, and we have gotten much better brass life by backing off maximum in those situations. However, never have I felt in any danger from the action itself.
I like many others here, would like to know exactly what part of the frame, locking lugs, barrel, or whatever failed, and how that was negligent in the design? Besides the stock breaking and recoil damage from the scope, exactly what else failed? Because a stock breaking has nothing that I can see to do with headspace issues.
Maybe I am slow (don't think so) but I am just not getting it.
Maybe I've missed it somewhere in this epic clusterfug, but what was the muzzle velocity of the 85 grain load? What was the mv in the manual for their max load? Surely it must have been chrono'd and been "slow", or why the heck would you keep adding powder after book max,without a clue as to what was really going on?
As to the two Encore frames and half dozen or so barrels I load for, only one has a "belted mag" size .515ish chamber diameter, a custom 300 H&H - I never felt the need to push it, my normal load for it is actually about 2.5 grains below max in the data I used. Call me crazy, that's where it grouped best at.
I grew up reloading with a Hornady manual that in certain higher powered calibers that might be encountered in drillings or other break action guns, cautioned to reduce book max charges by 10 percent. This was before the Encore came along, but I fail to trust it to be stronger than high end European break actions, so I've always treated the Encore with caution in the larger chamberings.
If I was worried about facing an angry bear, and limited to an Encore, I'd be a lot more concerned with a possible extraction problem from a "hot" load than that 200-300 less fps would make any difference to the bear...
I appears as though I owe some of you guys an apology, at first I thought some of you fellers were being a little hard on Brian but after seeing the picture it is apparent there is a little whining going on.
My apologies gentleman.
Excessive headspace is responsible for a broken stock, unless I'm missing something........hmmmmmm.
Yes, campfire members never shoot handloads over what reloading manuals publish.
I'm sure there are some that do, just like there are risk takers in all sports. I've never done so, and see no reason to. The slight velocity gains are not worth the risk. If your max load is going too slow for you, buy a bigger round. Don't try to turn it into something it's not. Instead of trying to boost a 300 Win Mag to higher velocity/unsafe pressures, he would have been better served to go buy a 300 Weatherby, a 300 RUM, or a 30-378 Weatherby.
Since the .300WM headspaces on the belt, how exactly does the headspace get to be excessive?
On the .300 WM barrel I had TC had reamed the chamber too deeply leading to excessive headspace. Also, with the large case head/high pressure rounds, the encore action actually will flex slightly (opening at the top of the action) which can exacerbate existing headspace issues. Various TC sites will talk about shimming the Encore action to help mitigate the headspace issues, but none of those things address a grossly overpressure round that somehow mysteriously vanished. Almost sounds like some of the tests done in bolt guns with bullseye where the brass "vanished" due to the insane overpressure they generated even if the action held together...(Accuratereloading has the pics for this if I remember correctly.)
For the OP, I think you need to rephrase your title as "TC stock broke when I loaded up a grenade"-whether TC should have made the stock stronger I'm not sure, but I shoot a .458 Lott and .416 Remington on my plastic stock Encore with no issues... I fail to see how based on the evidence you've presented the action actually failed as even on mine when the case ruptured the case head and body were still in the gun...
I suppose if the frame stretched than there may be daylight between the barrel and the breech.
Happens sometimes on the old Handi-rifles.
Not if the barrel stretched first....unless it stretched forward trying to follow the bullet.
When that happens, the action will open and break the stock.
The barrel lug on an Encore will give out long before the barrel stretches.
Based on the pistol grip break away from the actual bolt/contact point, it almost makes me wonder if a lead sled wasn't involved where the tie down on grip becomes the pivot point during recoil???
here is what you posted in this thread, you have not answered many many questions asked of you, specifically the ones that I posed above. You have dodged and deflected but never directly answered anything, and now to the surprise of absolutely nobody you are starting to play the victim card again. Though the reaction to this thread couldn't be through your fault, nothing ever is I'm sure.
Originally Posted by Brian_Ward
Thompson / Center Arms Found at Fault in Catastrophic Gun Failure
On September 1, 2005, I was severely injured by a catastrophic gun failure. My face was permanently disfigured and sight in my right eye was lost forever. I was shooting with the Thompson/Center Encore Rifle. It blew apart because of a defect in its design. That horrendous day propelled me down a path I never planned on or wanted in my life. I’m not speaking out for personal gain or to be vindictive toward Smith & Wesson or Thompson/Center Arms (Thompson/Center Arms has apparently been sold to Smith & Wesson). I merely want the truth about this rifle to be known. I don’t want anyone to go through the pain and suffering I’ve endured. In my opinion, this rifle defect is something that was known about and has been covered up for years.
After almost 10 years of battling over the Encore, I received the final judgment order from the 46th Circuit Court for the County of Otsego, Michigan. I sued Thompson Center Arms (TCA), and the jury found TCA at fault. The jury found TCA to have a defect in its design and found their manual to be defective.
Throughout this entire process, from the day that my rifle had failed, until being given the green light to speak freely about this rifle, I have felt as though I’m involved in a David and Goliath scenario. In the end, no matter how much money they threw at this problem, with their team of lawyers and paid experts, the truth could not be veiled from the jury. At many points over the nearly 10 years since my injury, I have experienced hopelessness about the outcome of the case. One of these moments occurred during the trial. My attorney had in his possession letters, obtained from Thompson/Center through discovery, from other individuals who had incurred similar injuries from the same type of failure. Although the letters were discussed in open court, they were not allowed to be shown to the jury as evidence, based on a technicality concerning Thompson / Center’s claims as to when they had actually received the letters in relation to the date of my injury. A representative of the company did admit that he saw failures of this kind during testing. He also admitted that TCA destroys customer complaints every six months.
Because of the pending suit, I have not been able to share these details until recently. I cannot adequately express what a tremendous relief it is to be able to finally share the truth about the dangers of this rifle.
Most gun owners I know - including myself - thought suing a gun company was practically blasphemy. My suit was never about anything more than seeking truth. I believe wholeheartedly in the Constitution and stand for our Second Amendment rights. I love freedom. I was an NRA member when my injury occurred and I’m an NRA member now.
This is the first lawsuit brought against TCA regarding this rifle that has been successfully litigated. In my opinion, TCA is fighting me so hard because the Encore Rifle has been wildly popular. A recall would cost potentially a lot of money. Still, I am now finally allowed to spread the truth about this gun. Please notify anyone you know who owns this rifle that it could catastrophically fail!
The judgment is attached. I have blacked out the award amounts because the money is not important in this regard. No amount of money can compensate me for the loss of my sight and the years spent in recovery. Additionally, I truly believe this company will continue to fight this judgment, and as a result I will never see any monetary compensation. The court documents are now a matter of public record, and if you wish to seek out more details they can be obtained.
Thank you for your time, and if you would like any additional information please let me know.
To summarize and very very briefly in my opinion the big take away from my case was the TCA Encore can not keep tolerances and head space grows overtime, especially with larger calibers like I was shooting (300 win mag). In my trial we had 3 guns with excessive head space. My gun was out of spec. A gun with 5 shots was out of spec. A gun with no shots was out of spec.
Originally Posted by Brian_Ward
There 10 years’ worth and 1000s of pages of documents and testimony being held with the 46th Circuit Court for the County of Otsego, Michigan if you want all the facts of the case. Public Record
The simple answer is what I have time for right now and it’s what I posted above” You can disregard everything I say but PLEASE if anyone has this gun or knows someone with one out of morbid curiosity check the headspace or have a gun smith check the headspace.” Then see what a qualified gun smith tell you to do.
Originally Posted by Brian_Ward
Since you asked so nicely...I made no reloading mistake. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over….I was hunting for moose with grizzly walking around.
Originally Posted by Brian_Ward
Guys, Some of you are trying to beat me to death about details, and I have been posting things people have asked for. Have you read all my previous posts? It seems like I’m rehashing things. I do know the details, but please remember I’m not a gunsmith or an engineer. But I have a fairly good grasp for a layperson. The Encore rifle hasn’t been in my possession in almost 10 years so I’m not able to break out the calipers and give you guys measurements.
Regarding the 40% fault issue. It seems like a lot of people are getting hung up on that. I’m not trying to hide that at all. But it is pure speculation why the jury decided how they did. I posted all the information I have….. the verdict. The jury didn’t write a paper summarizing their thoughts in the deliberation room.
Originally Posted by Brian_Ward
I will not be posting for a few days. I’m going away with my wife and kids for Memorial Day weekend. I should be back in front of my computer Wednesday.
Thanks,
Brian Ward
Originally Posted by Brian_Ward
You are right, it is a personal choice. IMO most people don’t think a 30-30 is a good grizzly bear round.
Originally Posted by Brian_Ward
It’s kind funny when there are statements like this. “His load as he stated it was probably 5-6 grains above max saami pressure for the 300 WM.” Wow! Kind of apples and oranges there bud.
I’m not recommending anyone exceed limits with their loads. As stated above 26th edition Hodgdon Data Manual states 83. I very judiciously worked up to 85. A lot of other factors can be weighted. That is why I stated my procedure above. I’m not hiding this at all, I very openly and willing gave this to T/C Arms, the jury, and this forum.
H-1000 is one of the slowest burning powders around; which makes a 2 grain increase not much of a pressure rise. Hand loaders can archive more constant accuracy, and pressures over factory loads. Factory loads on a hot day in the SW US or Africa can have pressure spikes well above my loads.
My loads were within SAAMI service maximum avg. pressure limits.
You can disregard everything I say but PLEASE if anyone has this gun or knows someone with one out of morbid curiosity check the headspace or have a gun smith check the headspace. I don’t know if there is much more I can add here.
Originally Posted by Brian_Ward
I thought I did post what happened, I think people are attacking me and getting worked up when they have not read what I posted before...I’m trying to answer every question I have gotten.
The action is in one piece, I was unable to post the picture here but it is on multiple other forms...just google it.
I increased the cartridge length reducing the compression of the load....no magazine problems because it is a single shot.
Plunger (Lug?) still works but has chips on the corners.
Originally Posted by Brian_Ward
I did answer these, please go back and read my posts.
Since the .300WM headspaces on the belt, how exactly does the headspace get to be excessive?
That's the "official" headspace setter for belted mags. But for handloaders the clearance in the shoulder area is quite important, just as in other bottle necked cartridges.
Since the .300WM headspaces on the belt, how exactly does the headspace get to be excessive?
That's the "official" headspace setter for belted mags. But for handloaders the clearance in the shoulder area is quite important, just as in other bottle necked cartridges.
BTW, I'm not arguing pro-OP.
I understand that. However, since the belt is there, the shoulder spacing is largely irrelevant so long as it does not shrink the length of the neck to an unusable length.
I don't see it that way. If the chamber is "long to the shoulder" than the brass will stretch and thin ahead of the belt.
But he said his cases looked normal with no signs of pressure. If they were stretching to the point of failure him and his experts, whoever they are would have noticed.
I don't see it that way. If the chamber is "long to the shoulder" than the brass will stretch and thin ahead of the belt.
But he said his cases looked normal with no signs of pressure. If they were stretching to the point of failure him and his experts, whoever they are would have noticed.
Exactly. And, the brass (instead of stretching) may well have just bumped the shoulder forward as is done in forming something like the .300Wby from .300H&H, or similar.
I don't see it that way. If the chamber is "long to the shoulder" than the brass will stretch and thin ahead of the belt.
But he said his cases looked normal with no signs of pressure. If they were stretching to the point of failure him and his experts, whoever they are would have noticed.
Hence my earlier comment about my not arguing pro-OP.
I'm merely addressing a particular point about belted cases and official vs. actual headspace.
I don't see it that way. If the chamber is "long to the shoulder" than the brass will stretch and thin ahead of the belt.
But he said his cases looked normal with no signs of pressure. If they were stretching to the point of failure him and his experts, whoever they are would have noticed.
Hence my earlier comment about my not arguing pro-OP.
I'm merely addressing a particular point about belted cases and official vs. actual headspace.
I know I just wanted to be clear that 'experts' said there were no signs of pressure in the previously fired cases...
So we are led to believe that everything was fine with no warning signs and then one shot later, BOOM.
I know I just wanted to be clear that 'experts' said there were no signs of pressure in the previously fired cases...
So we are led to believe that everything was fine with no warning signs and then one shot later, BOOM.
I had a professor in college who was a Professional Witness/"Expert". Didn't matter who was right or wrong, he'd sit and argue on the witness stand, and try proving anything scientifically or mathematically if the $$$ was right.
I haven't had anything to say in this thread. But it appears that the action of the rifle was sufficient to withstand whatever it was that was fired through it. The problem is, the stock wasn't up for the task. It's hard to say whether the overload was responsible for enough recoil to break the stock, but in any event, it's surprising to me that someone got a judgment in their favor when using handloads in the rifle that were, by the published data, loaded above the listed maximum.
In fact, from a legal prospective, it would seem to me that manufacturers are exempt from any liability in the use of handloads.
Think of it this way. If you buy a commercial cartridge that turns out to be overloaded and you get injured by how the rifle reacts to it,..who gets sued? The ammo manufacturer or the rifle manufacturer?
I don't see it that way. If the chamber is "long to the shoulder" than the brass will stretch and thin ahead of the belt.
But he said his cases looked normal with no signs of pressure. If they were stretching to the point of failure him and his experts, whoever they are would have noticed.
Exactly. And, the brass (instead of stretching) may well have just bumped the shoulder forward as is done in forming something like the .300Wby from .300H&H, or similar.
Whether the shoulder bumps forward or the case stretches just ahead of the belt depends in large part on the headspace as set by the reamer, and to a lesser extent on how hard/soft the brass is. If the head space is too long, the case stretches above the belt in part because the WM is fairly straight walled round which under pressure helps prevent the case from sliding rearward. That's why when you blow out cartridges (like the JDJ rounds) you seat the bullet into the lands so the case head is firmly against the breech forcing the majority of the stretching to occur at the shoulder. Excessive headspace in an Encore can cause problems, but it's unclear how it would have caused the OP's issues as blown cases don't cause the pistol grip to break.
Originally Posted by The OP from a different forum
I need to ask my gun expert and lawyer for a definite part failure list. The Gun stock for sure broke! I know what parts appeared to be damaged and what caused it to open. But I don’t know if I can say that particular part failed.
10 years of trial, and you haven't acquainted yourself with what exactly on the gun failed, the gun which may have contributed to the loss of an eye and the gun that caused you to doggedly sue a firearm manufacturer for a decade?
In fact, from a legal prospective, it would seem to me that manufacturers are exempt from any liability in the use of handloads.
Think of it this way. If you buy a commercial cartridge that turns out to be overloaded and you get injured by how the rifle reacts to it,..who gets sued? The ammo manufacturer or the rifle manufacturer?
You contradict yourself. The question is not whether the cartridge is handloaded or commercial, the question is if it is dangerously overloaded, regardless of whether it is handloaded or factory.
In fact, from a legal prospective, it would seem to me that manufacturers are exempt from any liability in the use of handloads.
Think of it this way. If you buy a commercial cartridge that turns out to be overloaded and you get injured by how the rifle reacts to it,..who gets sued? The ammo manufacturer or the rifle manufacturer?
You contradict yourself. The question is not whether the cartridge is handloaded or commercial, the question is if it is dangerously overloaded, regardless of whether it is handloaded or factory.
What does a highly compressed load 6.6 grains (8.3%) over book maximum say (max is at 79.4 grains, his stated load was 85 grains)? Run the pressure calcs on even QuickLoad and you start getting into ridiculous pressure ranges.
Originally Posted by The OP from a different forum
I need to ask my gun expert and lawyer for a definite part failure list. The Gun stock for sure broke! I know what parts appeared to be damaged and what caused it to open. But I don’t know if I can say that particular part failed.
10 years of trial, and you haven't acquainted yourself with what exactly on the gun failed, the gun which may have contributed to the loss of an eye and the gun that caused you to doggedly sue a firearm manufacturer for a decade?
Why is this turning into a joke?
Not only that, but who is the gun expert we keep hearing about and what lab and testing procedures did they use?
In fact, from a legal prospective, it would seem to me that manufacturers are exempt from any liability in the use of handloads.
Think of it this way. If you buy a commercial cartridge that turns out to be overloaded and you get injured by how the rifle reacts to it,..who gets sued? The ammo manufacturer or the rifle manufacturer?
You contradict yourself. The question is not whether the cartridge is handloaded or commercial, the question is if it is dangerously overloaded, regardless of whether it is handloaded or factory.
What does a highly compressed load 6.6 grains (8.3%) over book maximum say (max is at 79.4 grains, his stated load was 85 grains)? Run the pressure calcs on even QuickLoad and you start getting into ridiculous pressure ranges.
And that's assuming his stated "seated long" bullets weren't actually in contact with the lands jacking pressure even higher...
In fact, from a legal prospective, it would seem to me that manufacturers are exempt from any liability in the use of handloads.
Think of it this way. If you buy a commercial cartridge that turns out to be overloaded and you get injured by how the rifle reacts to it,..who gets sued? The ammo manufacturer or the rifle manufacturer?
You contradict yourself. The question is not whether the cartridge is handloaded or commercial, the question is if it is dangerously overloaded, regardless of whether it is handloaded or factory.
What does a highly compressed load 6.6 grains (8.3%) over book maximum say (max is at 79.4 grains, his stated load was 85 grains)? Run the pressure calcs on even QuickLoad and you start getting into ridiculous pressure ranges.
You're mixing up issues. I'm merely making the point that the issue is if a cartridge is overloaded, not if it is factory or handloaded. Your question is a question of fact.
I don't have any position as to this particular set of facts. I'll abide by what the jury said. They heard the evidence. Let them decide.
I'm not mixing up any issues. I'm relating this specifically to the situation at hand.
None of us have enough pertinent facts in this one to know one way or the other. That's what people keep trying to get by asking questions, and the answers given are raising more and more serious questions as they go.
Juries in civil cases quite often go by the way side on appeal or a retrial, especially when a mere 10% liability would have resulted in no award at all.
The point is that folks want to know what happened to try to determine whether the OP was truly at fault or whether there is a very dangerous firearm out there in circulation so that they can act accordingly. It wasn't too long ago that the Mossberg 4x4 was under the same sort of scrutiny and a lot of questions and facts that came to light on internet forums like this one led to that very bad, very dangerous design being completely overhauled (if not completely withdrawn).
Jury awards of civil damages are often changed on appeal, that is to say the amounts. The determination of liability is SELDOM changed on appeal. The Courts are and always have been very reluctant to override juries on questions of fact and a jury's interpretation of them.
In fact, from a legal prospective, it would seem to me that manufacturers are exempt from any liability in the use of handloads.
Think of it this way. If you buy a commercial cartridge that turns out to be overloaded and you get injured by how the rifle reacts to it,..who gets sued? The ammo manufacturer or the rifle manufacturer?
You contradict yourself. The question is not whether the cartridge is handloaded or commercial, the question is if it is dangerously overloaded, regardless of whether it is handloaded or factory.
No contradiction.
If a firearm fails due to an overloaded cartridge, who is responsible for the failure? The rifle or the overloaded cartridge?
In this case, the owner was the manufacturer of the ammo.
So the question is, if a commercial ammo manufacturer sold some overloaded ammo and the rifle shooting it failed, who is liable? The ammo manufacturer or the rifle manufacturer?
In fact, from a legal prospective, it would seem to me that manufacturers are exempt from any liability in the use of handloads.
Think of it this way. If you buy a commercial cartridge that turns out to be overloaded and you get injured by how the rifle reacts to it,..who gets sued? The ammo manufacturer or the rifle manufacturer?
You contradict yourself. The question is not whether the cartridge is handloaded or commercial, the question is if it is dangerously overloaded, regardless of whether it is handloaded or factory.
No contradiction.
If a firearm fails due to an overloaded cartridge, who is responsible for the failure? The rifle or the overloaded cartridge?
In this case, the owner was the manufacturer of the ammo.
So the question is, if a commercial ammo manufacturer sold some overloaded ammo and the rifle shooting it failed, who is liable? The ammo manufacturer or the rifle manufacturer?
Yes, you do. I'll turn your question on its head.
If a handloader loads ammunition that is within SAAMI specs and the firearm fails, does the firearm manufacturer escape liability just because the cartridge was a handload?
Jury awards of civil damages are often changed on appeal, that is to say the amounts. The determination of liability is SELDOM changed on appeal. The Courts are and always have been very reluctant to override juries on questions of fact and a jury's interpretation of them.
Not always so, if there was a problem with the jury instructions or a misapplication of the law or similar; thus the motion for a retrial and the basis for a possible appeal (neither of which do we have in front of us, and I'm sure Brian will tell us that we'd have to go to the court in Michigan to get it).
In fact, from a legal prospective, it would seem to me that manufacturers are exempt from any liability in the use of handloads.
Think of it this way. If you buy a commercial cartridge that turns out to be overloaded and you get injured by how the rifle reacts to it,..who gets sued? The ammo manufacturer or the rifle manufacturer?
You contradict yourself. The question is not whether the cartridge is handloaded or commercial, the question is if it is dangerously overloaded, regardless of whether it is handloaded or factory.
No contradiction.
If a firearm fails due to an overloaded cartridge, who is responsible for the failure? The rifle or the overloaded cartridge?
In this case, the owner was the manufacturer of the ammo.
So the question is, if a commercial ammo manufacturer sold some overloaded ammo and the rifle shooting it failed, who is liable? The ammo manufacturer or the rifle manufacturer?
Yes, you do. I'll turn your question on its head.
If a handloader loads ammunition that is within SAAMI specs and the firearm fails, does the firearm manufacturer escape liability just because the cartridge was a handload?
Hard to be within SAAMI specs when you're 8.3% over capacity, highly compressed, and way over the recommended book load, and even more so when your gun expert and testing lab and procedures are more highly classified that Hillary's internet server.
In fact, from a legal prospective, it would seem to me that manufacturers are exempt from any liability in the use of handloads.
Think of it this way. If you buy a commercial cartridge that turns out to be overloaded and you get injured by how the rifle reacts to it,..who gets sued? The ammo manufacturer or the rifle manufacturer?
You contradict yourself. The question is not whether the cartridge is handloaded or commercial, the question is if it is dangerously overloaded, regardless of whether it is handloaded or factory.
No contradiction.
If a firearm fails due to an overloaded cartridge, who is responsible for the failure? The rifle or the overloaded cartridge?
In this case, the owner was the manufacturer of the ammo.
So the question is, if a commercial ammo manufacturer sold some overloaded ammo and the rifle shooting it failed, who is liable? The ammo manufacturer or the rifle manufacturer?
Yes, you do. I'll turn your question on its head.
If a handloader loads ammunition that is within SAAMI specs and the firearm fails, does the firearm manufacturer escape liability just because the cartridge was a handload?
How will they ever be able to prove that the cartridge which destroyed the rifle was SAAMI spec?
There's no way to do it. It's been fired and it's gone. So that's why I say that firerarm manufacturers should be exempt from damage to a firearm from the use of handloaded ammo.
That doesn't mean that I'm anti handloading or even that I'm anti hotloads.
It's just the nature of the beast. The firearm manufacturers have no control over what somebody cooks up and fires through their guns.
The only reasonable way for them to address the issue is to claim no responsibility or warranty for the use of handloaded ammo.
How will they ever be able to prove that the cartridge which destroyed the rifle was SAAMI spec?
There's no way to do it. It's been fired and it's gone. So that's why I say that firerarm manufacturers should be exempt from damage to a firearm from the use of handloaded ammo.
That doesn't mean that I'm anti handloading or even that I anti hotloads.
It's just the nature of the beast. The firearm manufacturers have no control over what somebody cooks up and fires through their guns.
The only reasonable way for them to address the issue is to claim no responsibility or warranty for the use of handloaded ammo
How do you prove a factory cartridge was within specs? You fire it and it is gone. Factories make mistakes as well from time to time.
The standard in a civil trial is by preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, it is a 51% to 49% standard. Thus, you prove something with regard to a handloaded shell the same way you do a factory shell. You look at all the information you can find. You look at shells loaded at the same time. You look at the case. You look at the firearm. You get expert opinions and so on and so forth.
Having said all that, it IS much more difficult to prove with handloading because the perception at least, is that some guy out in his garage is much more likely to make a mistake than a machine in a factory. That isn't always so, but like I said, by the time four or five $700 an hour attorneys run you and handloading through the wringer for four or five years, you'll look like a combination of Dr. Faustus and Yosemite Sam churning out miniature grenades, just waiting for the primer to strike and maim everyone within a 50 foot radius.
So, having said ALL that, I'm very impressed that a jury found a firearms manufacturer 60% liable when there was admitted handloading. There must have been some pretty compelling evidence.
Please 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.
So, having said ALL that, I'm very impressed that a jury found a firearms manufacturer 60% liable when there was admitted handloading. There must have been some pretty compelling evidence.
That, or a damned sympathetic jury feeling sorry for the injured person and against the "evil firearms company". As you've said, we weren't there, so we don't know what the jury was thinking.
Please 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.
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.
Please 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Current. Verified this morning that the maximum for the 180 E-Tip in the .300WM at 3.340" COAL is 79.4 grains, and even that load is compressed.
If the listed maximum then was higher, it would stand to reason that the proper defendant - had the load in question actually blown the action (vs a busted stock) - would be the propellant manufacturer and load data publisher for putting out information that was well in excess of proper safety standards.
That said, was the E-Tip even out long enough for load data to be available a decade ago?
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.
No, I'm not mixing up issues. YOU said that the manufacturer should not be liable because handloaded ammunition was used and they warn against it in their manual. That is wrong, legally speaking.
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 suppose if the frame stretched than there may be daylight between the barrel and the breech.
Happens sometimes on the old Handi-rifles.
Not if the barrel stretched first....unless it stretched forward trying to follow the bullet.
When that happens, the action will open and break the stock.
The barrel lug on an Encore will give out long before the barrel stretches.
Based on the pistol grip break away from the actual bolt/contact point, it almost makes me wonder if a lead sled wasn't involved where the tie down on grip becomes the pivot point during recoil???
Can Quickload guess at an estimated pressure level for this? [/quote]
I have been doing just that. My QL gives a choice of several brand cases, that have very different capacities. So much of this post is murky - I'm pretty clear on the 85 gr. of H-1000, but is 180 gr. E-tip the right bullet? Anyhow, adjusting the seating depth way WAY out there, and with the highest capacity case, I'm seeing around 60,000 psi. Switch to the lower capacity, seat the bullet a little deeper, it goes to 75,000 and beyond rather quickly. I'd really like to know what brand brass and COAL were involved in this situation, but am not holding my breath...
I will say one thing - from my personal experience with compressed loads, IF these were compressed as high as some of the scenarios QL conjures up, NO WAY were the bullets not creeping out of the case. So probably jammed into the rifling I'd guess. Which is about all I can do without the details.
I do not feel sorry for someone who deliberately exceeds the recommended hand loads.I bet TC would love to read this thread.Will probably win an appeal with a firearms expert testifying for them.You Sir, deserve what you got.What a Gomer!!!!
Then again it could be someone from the other side of the argument hoping to help the appeal...
Judging by the posts on other forums where Brian has been a member for a long time and has people who know him personally, posting on those forums, I'd say highly unlikely.
So the gun action blew open, the empty case flew out and struck the President, than sailed over the grassy knoll.
There's only one man could make that shot. Let's get Bob Lee Swagger to go talk to Levon Helm and find out who dunnit.
Originally Posted by RWE
The gun fell and broke the stock as gravity and momentum closed the action?
What he said in the other thread was, the action blew open and that's what broke the stock. I have an Encore muzzleloader, and if it blew open and fell to the ground, I could see how it could easily fall in a closed position like that.
It doesn't really matter though, that photo proves nothing. No one here knows the circumstances under which it was taken, or whether it's an accurate portrayal of what happened. Could have been staged, or it could have been disturbed.
Then again it could be someone from the other side of the argument hoping to help the appeal...
Judging by the posts on other forums where Brian has been a member for a long time and has people who know him personally, posting on those forums, I'd say highly unlikely.
Or someone with an axe to grind? Or an ex-wife, or.....
I haven't read the whole thread, but after seeing the recent pictures I am more favorably disposed toward the owner. Originally I was inclined to think him a whiner trying to make a profit.
Apparently, the stock failed, causing the rest of the gun to strike him in the face and do serious injury. A failure of the stock is caused by the effects of recoil, not chamber pressure.
It's meaningless that his handloads were a bit above book. It was straight line force that did the damage, and his "8% over book load" probably made about 2-3% more recoil above a factory load.
The Encore is sold in calibers larger than the .300 win mag, like the .35 Whelan, .45-70, and 12 gauge, which presumably kick as hard or harder than even a warm loaded .300 mag. And T/c should have made a stock strong enough to handle anything they chamber.
I have no dog in this hunt, and I'm not gonna spend hours researching the case and technical details. If someone finds different details that blows up my theory, more power to them. But if some product fails and badly injures me during reasonable, normal use, I'd sue the manufacturer, too.
I haven't read the whole thread, but after seeing the recent pictures I am more favorably disposed toward the owner. Originally I was inclined to think him a whiner trying to make a profit.
Apparently, the stock failed, causing the rest of the gun to strike him in the face and do serious injury. A failure of the stock is caused by the effects of recoil, not chamber pressure.
It's meaningless that his handloads were a bit above book. It was straight line force that did the damage, and his "8% over book load" probably made about 2-3% more recoil above a factory load.
The Encore is sold in calibers larger than the .300 win mag, like the .35 Whelan, .45-70, and 12 gauge, which presumably kick as hard or harder than even a warm loaded .300 mag. And T/c should have made a stock strong enough to handle anything they chamber.
I have no dog in this hunt, and I'm not gonna spend hours researching the case and technical details. If someone finds different details that blows up my theory, more power to them. But if some product fails and badly injures me during reasonable, normal use, I'd sue the manufacturer, too.
The issue with your theory is that we don't know if the stock broke during firing or when the gun hit the ground... If the action came open, threw the brass free, then closed again as the op claimed, all while the scope slammed him in the face, it seems most likely the stock would have broken when it hit the ground as to that point too many other things including his face would have absorbed the recoil that would have been necessary to break the pistol grip in half...
I haven't read the whole thread, but after seeing the recent pictures I am more favorably disposed toward the owner. Originally I was inclined to think him a whiner trying to make a profit.
Apparently, the stock failed, causing the rest of the gun to strike him in the face and do serious injury. A failure of the stock is caused by the effects of recoil, not chamber pressure.
It's meaningless that his handloads were a bit above book. It was straight line force that did the damage, and his "8% over book load" probably made about 2-3% more recoil above a factory load.
The Encore is sold in calibers larger than the .300 win mag, like the .35 Whelan, .45-70, and 12 gauge, which presumably kick as hard or harder than even a warm loaded .300 mag. And T/c should have made a stock strong enough to handle anything they chamber.
I have no dog in this hunt, and I'm not gonna spend hours researching the case and technical details. If someone finds different details that blows up my theory, more power to them. But if some product fails and badly injures me during reasonable, normal use, I'd sue the manufacturer, too.
The other issue is he keeps saying the action failed due to design flaws all while failing to mention the pistol grip broke in half. We have no idea if what he says is actually true regarding the action but if the same thing happened to me I'd be suing over the design of said pistol grip and not the action as ge claimed as which is more believable, a grip busting under recoil or his version of events?
The gun fell and broke the stock as gravity and momentum closed the action?
What he said in the other thread was, the action blew open and that's what broke the stock. I have an Encore muzzleloader, and if it blew open and fell to the ground, I could see how it could easily fall in a closed position like that.
It doesn't really matter though, that photo proves nothing. No one here knows the circumstances under which it was taken, or whether it's an accurate portrayal of what happened. Could have been staged, or it could have been disturbed.
What does matter is that we've been led down the "catastrophic failure" path, talking loads, head space, faulty design and other guns out of tolerance, pressure, SAAMI spec, etc and trying to get more information of same, with visions of Steelhead's vaporized Savage in our heads.
Come to find out by the photo that the gun is actually "intact" by most accounts with the exception of the stock, posts from other forums where the OP can't recite what actually failed on the gun, and only a hypothesis on the mechanism of injury,
Seems awfully light for a 10 year trial synopsis.
Steelhead's right. This is a post by someone trying to defame the plaintiff.
But I would like to think that someone that just sued a firearm maker for 10 years of struggle and that went through the trouble of putting this thing on 10 sites that I found, would have a little more information, and forthcoming of same.
As it stands, it is in the realm of tinfoilness that someone catfished the plaintiff's ID, and posted a bunch of stuff to make him appear a fool.
Because right now, based on this thread, and every other thread posted on other website forums, he's getting his ass handed to him.
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.
heavywalker, I don’t think anyone will acusse you and a lot of other people on this forum of mincing words. HAHA!
I got the information from my gun expert, and load data software.
The T/C Arms team of experts and lawyers never took my (cartridges, components, etc. or similar) performed pressure testing and submitted Brian Ward’s load produces XX,XXX amount of PSI. In my opinion it would have definitely proven all the ranting and raving about over pressure rounds false.
In turn and unknown to me until trial, my team matched that action (stupidly in my opinion) and did not get a lab test for my rounds and relied on load programs as far as I know. Later the defense was able to get that evidence from my expert and load programs thrown out and the PSI of my cartridge’s was not allowed to be presented to the jury.
Kind of frustrating to say the least. In my opinion the jury does not hear even close to the whole truth in a case.
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.
heavywalker, I don’t think anyone will acusse you and a lot of other people on this forum of mincing words. HAHA!
I got the information from my gun expert, and load data software.
The T/C Arms team of experts and lawyers never took my (cartridges, components, etc. or similar) performed pressure testing and submitted Brian Ward’s load produces XX,XXX amount of PSI. In my opinion it would have definitely proven all the ranting and raving about over pressure rounds false.
In turn and unknown to me until trial, my team matched that action (stupidly in my opinion) and did not get a lab test for my rounds and relied on load programs as far as I know. Later the defense was able to get that evidence from my expert and load programs thrown out and the PSI of my cartridge’s was not allowed to be presented to the jury.
Kind of frustrating to say the least. In my opinion the jury does not hear even close to the whole truth in a case.
So, who is this "gun expert" of yours? That question has been asked very plainly many times and never once answered.
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.
heavywalker, I don’t think anyone will acusse you and a lot of other people on this forum of mincing words. HAHA!
I got the information from my gun expert, and load data software.
The T/C Arms team of experts and lawyers never took my (cartridges, components, etc. or similar) performed pressure testing and submitted Brian Ward’s load produces XX,XXX amount of PSI. In my opinion it would have definitely proven all the ranting and raving about over pressure rounds false.
In turn and unknown to me until trial, my team matched that action (stupidly in my opinion) and did not get a lab test for my rounds and relied on load programs as far as I know. Later the defense was able to get that evidence from my expert and load programs thrown out and the PSI of my cartridge’s was not allowed to be presented to the jury.
Kind of frustrating to say the least. In my opinion the jury does not hear even close to the whole truth in a case.
Sounds like your story is changing again as you were adamant your loads weren't over SAAMI specs, yet now you say they were never actually tested by you or TC? All you've proven thus far is you ignored published load data, and seriously injured yourself due to some sort of failure. You contend headspace based on no evidence thus far while you failed to mention initially that the pistol grip broke in half. If you want to bad mouth TC say they make crappy plastic stocks, not that the action design is faulty as thus far you have zero proof of that regardless of what the jury found. What is especially damning is your lack of inclusion of all these facts in your initial TC bashing when you could have just as easily said "I sued TC and won because the pistol grip broke" but instead have piecemealed out information that supported only your story, until further pressed for more information when you suddenly develop amnesia. If I were on that jury you wouldn't have gotten a damn dime since you clearly don't seem to have any idea what actually happened. Interestingly, I also don't see any blood on the scope yet when I've witnessed others take a scope in the eye/forehead there was a visible (if not substantial) amount of blood on the scope +/- gun...
Can Quickload guess at an estimated pressure level for this?
I have been doing just that. My QL gives a choice of several brand cases, that have very different capacities. So much of this post is murky - I'm pretty clear on the 85 gr. of H-1000, but is 180 gr. E-tip the right bullet? Anyhow, adjusting the seating depth way WAY out there, and with the highest capacity case, I'm seeing around 60,000 psi. Switch to the lower capacity, seat the bullet a little deeper, it goes to 75,000 and beyond rather quickly. I'd really like to know what brand brass and COAL were involved in this situation, but am not holding my breath...
I will say one thing - from my personal experience with compressed loads, IF these were compressed as high as some of the scenarios QL conjures up, NO WAY were the bullets not creeping out of the case. So probably jammed into the rifling I'd guess. Which is about all I can do without the details.[/quote]
Thanks for the calcs.
I was using Nosler Accubond bullet
Bullet creep - . I never had a rifling mark on my loads, never had a stuck bullet and when none of my hand loads moved (powder pushing bullets out) during the trial 8 years later, I tend to think they were not going to move.
Bullets were seated out about as far as I could get them and not contact the lands.
Also I took a good 30 or so to tap the case and let the powder settle....I was not mass producing round...box of 20 for a hunt.
There's a very simple explanation for all of this. Mr. Ward blew up a gun and sued the manufacturer. But the simple fact is, if you handload and blow up a gun, there's no way to prove that the round you blew up the gun with wasn't faulty. But that doesn't let the gun manufacturer off the hook entirely.
The jury didn't think it was entirely T/C's fault, but the gun blew up and injured the Mr. Ward, so they thought he deserved something. They decided on a 60/40 split but we don't know their rationale.
That was not enough in Mr. Ward's opinion, so now Mr. Ward is trying to "get back" at T/C, the only way he knows how, by posting his version of the facts or side of the story all over the internet.
What more needs to be said? The grandiosity of the thread title says it all, don't you think?
I haven't read the whole thread, but after seeing the recent pictures I am more favorably disposed toward the owner. Originally I was inclined to think him a whiner trying to make a profit.
Apparently, the stock failed, causing the rest of the gun to strike him in the face and do serious injury. A failure of the stock is caused by the effects of recoil, not chamber pressure.
It's meaningless that his handloads were a bit above book. It was straight line force that did the damage, and his "8% over book load" probably made about 2-3% more recoil above a factory load.
The Encore is sold in calibers larger than the .300 win mag, like the .35 Whelan, .45-70, and 12 gauge, which presumably kick as hard or harder than even a warm loaded .300 mag. And T/c should have made a stock strong enough to handle anything they chamber.
I have no dog in this hunt, and I'm not gonna spend hours researching the case and technical details. If someone finds different details that blows up my theory, more power to them. But if some product fails and badly injures me during reasonable, normal use, I'd sue the manufacturer, too.
TC Arms changed the Encore stock after my accident to a thicker profile....but that was completely unrelated and for aesthetics according to what was presented in trial
The gun fell and broke the stock as gravity and momentum closed the action?
What he said in the other thread was, the action blew open and that's what broke the stock. I have an Encore muzzleloader, and if it blew open and fell to the ground, I could see how it could easily fall in a closed position like that.
It doesn't really matter though, that photo proves nothing. No one here knows the circumstances under which it was taken, or whether it's an accurate portrayal of what happened. Could have been staged, or it could have been disturbed.
What does matter is that we've been led down the "catastrophic failure" path, talking loads, head space, faulty design and other guns out of tolerance, pressure, SAAMI spec, etc and trying to get more information of same, with visions of Steelhead's vaporized Savage in our heads.
Come to find out by the photo that the gun is actually "intact" by most accounts with the exception of the stock, posts from other forums where the OP can't recite what actually failed on the gun, and only a hypothesis on the mechanism of injury,
Seems awfully light for a 10 year trial synopsis.
Steelhead's right. This is a post by someone trying to defame the plaintiff.
Said this before.....I don’t have the case files my attorney does. I’m speaking in just general terms from memory. I’m not trying to re-litigate this case over the internet.
TC Arms changed the Encore stock after my accident to a thicker profile....but that was completely unrelated and for aesthetics according to what was presented in trial
I personally did not believe it, do you?
I sure as hell don't.
But when they get sued for someone using handloads in their gun, despite a warning saying not to use handloads in their gun, my guess is they thought a little more idiot proofing was in order.
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.
heavywalker, I don’t think anyone will acusse you and a lot of other people on this forum of mincing words. HAHA!
I got the information from my gun expert, and load data software.
The T/C Arms team of experts and lawyers never took my (cartridges, components, etc. or similar) performed pressure testing and submitted Brian Ward’s load produces XX,XXX amount of PSI. In my opinion it would have definitely proven all the ranting and raving about over pressure rounds false.
In turn and unknown to me until trial, my team matched that action (stupidly in my opinion) and did not get a lab test for my rounds and relied on load programs as far as I know. Later the defense was able to get that evidence from my expert and load programs thrown out and the PSI of my cartridge’s was not allowed to be presented to the jury.
Kind of frustrating to say the least. In my opinion the jury does not hear even close to the whole truth in a case.
Originally Posted by bobhanson1
Originally Posted by tex_n_cal
I haven't read the whole thread, but after seeing the recent pictures I am more favorably disposed toward the owner. Originally I was inclined to think him a whiner trying to make a profit.
Apparently, the stock failed, causing the rest of the gun to strike him in the face and do serious injury. A failure of the stock is caused by the effects of recoil, not chamber pressure.
It's meaningless that his handloads were a bit above book. It was straight line force that did the damage, and his "8% over book load" probably made about 2-3% more recoil above a factory load.
The Encore is sold in calibers larger than the .300 win mag, like the .35 Whelan, .45-70, and 12 gauge, which presumably kick as hard or harder than even a warm loaded .300 mag. And T/c should have made a stock strong enough to handle anything they chamber.
I have no dog in this hunt, and I'm not gonna spend hours researching the case and technical details. If someone finds different details that blows up my theory, more power to them. But if some product fails and badly injures me during reasonable, normal use, I'd sue the manufacturer, too.
The other issue is he keeps saying the action failed due to design flaws all while failing to mention the pistol grip broke in half. We have no idea if what he says is actually true regarding the action but if the same thing happened to me I'd be suing over the design of said pistol grip and not the action as ge claimed as which is more believable, a grip busting under recoil or his version of events?
Said this before.....I don’t have the case files my attorney does. I’m speaking in just general terms from memory. I’m not trying to re-litigate this case over the internet.
I am going to apologize for being a dick in this thread; chalk it up to to many years of dealing with the public and a level of cynicism you may not deserve, but I got to know a few simple answers.
What was the mechanism of injury, i.e. what, specifically caused the damage to your eye?
Seeing as your expert had his information rendered inadmissible, was he actually a professional or a lay expert in cartridge loading?
Brian, what reloading mistake did you make (according to the jury) that caused them to rule that you were 40% at fault?
Why won't you tell us this?
If you think we are going to wade through "1000s of pages" of documents from the court in some one-hourse town to find out, you're just a whining petulant …
You've wasted enough of our time. Put up or shut up.
Since you asked so nicely...I made no reloading mistake. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over….I was hunting for moose with grizzly walking around.
Originally Posted by Brian_Ward
Originally Posted by heavywalker
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.
heavywalker, I don’t think anyone will acusse you and a lot of other people on this forum of mincing words. HAHA!
I got the information from my gun expert, and load data software.
The T/C Arms team of experts and lawyers never took my (cartridges, components, etc. or similar) performed pressure testing and submitted Brian Ward’s load produces XX,XXX amount of PSI. In my opinion it would have definitely proven all the ranting and raving about over pressure rounds false.
In turn and unknown to me until trial, my team matched that action (stupidly in my opinion) and did not get a lab test for my rounds and relied on load programs as far as I know. Later the defense was able to get that evidence from my expert and load programs thrown out and the PSI of my cartridge’s was not allowed to be presented to the jury.
Kind of frustrating to say the least. In my opinion the jury does not hear even close to the whole truth in a case.
You're story never changed-really? It sure looks like you were adamant your loads met SAAMI specs, yet then you admit no one ever actually measured the pressure to verify that??? We can argue whether your story changed or whether you just continue to omit details that make you look like a bigger dumbass than you do already, but at the end of the day your inability to follow a load manual and your wild ass guesses on what the pressure of a compressed load of powder aided in your misfortunes.
As I said earlier, if you were on here saying TC made a bad stock, it broke, and you had a terrible injuries when it did so, I'd be all for believing you as that's perfectly believable even with reloading errors. However, your various additions to your original story only seem to confirm you only wished to bash TC because you felt you deserved more as another poster noted above, not actually point out what was defective with the gun which only appears to be the stock (and may include the headspace based on your court testimony, but headspace doesn't explain why your stock broke in half does it?)
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.
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.
Said this before.....I don’t have the case files my attorney does. I’m speaking in just general terms from memory. I’m not trying to re-litigate this case over the internet.
I am going to apologize for being a dick in this thread; chalk it up to to many years of dealing with the public and a level of cynicism you may not deserve, but I got to know a few simple answers.
What was the mechanism of injury, i.e. what, specifically caused the damage to your eye?
Seeing as your expert had his information rendered inadmissible, was he actually a professional or a lay expert in cartridge loading?
The injury was blunt force trauma…. No powder burns or brass. What actually hit me… I do not know for sure so its speculation.
My expert is a gunsmith / firearms maker / customizer. I did not ask if I could post his name online so I will not be doing so. I don’t think he or anyone would want to be a part of the bashing....IMO mainly because people can see past their preconceived notions.
Brian, what reloading mistake did you make (according to the jury) that caused them to rule that you were 40% at fault?
Why won't you tell us this?
If you think we are going to wade through "1000s of pages" of documents from the court in some one-hourse town to find out, you're just a whining petulant …
You've wasted enough of our time. Put up or shut up.
Since you asked so nicely...I made no reloading mistake. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over….I was hunting for moose with grizzly walking around.
Originally Posted by Brian_Ward
Originally Posted by heavywalker
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.
heavywalker, I don’t think anyone will acusse you and a lot of other people on this forum of mincing words. HAHA!
I got the information from my gun expert, and load data software.
The T/C Arms team of experts and lawyers never took my (cartridges, components, etc. or similar) performed pressure testing and submitted Brian Ward’s load produces XX,XXX amount of PSI. In my opinion it would have definitely proven all the ranting and raving about over pressure rounds false.
In turn and unknown to me until trial, my team matched that action (stupidly in my opinion) and did not get a lab test for my rounds and relied on load programs as far as I know. Later the defense was able to get that evidence from my expert and load programs thrown out and the PSI of my cartridge’s was not allowed to be presented to the jury.
Kind of frustrating to say the least. In my opinion the jury does not hear even close to the whole truth in a case.
You're story never changed-really? It sure looks like you were adamant your loads met SAAMI specs, yet then you admit no one ever actually measured the pressure to verify that??? We can argue whether your story changed or whether you just continue to omit details that make you look like a bigger dumbass than you do already, but at the end of the day your inability to follow a load manual and your wild ass guesses on what the pressure of a compressed load of powder aided in your misfortunes.
As I said earlier, if you were on here saying TC made a bad stock, it broke, and you had a terrible injuries when it did so, I'd be all for believing you as that's perfectly believable even with reloading errors. However, your various additions to your original story only seem to confirm you only wished to bash TC because you felt you deserved more as another poster noted above, not actually point out what was defective with the gun which only appears to be the stock (and may include the headspace based on your court testimony, but headspace doesn't explain why your stock broke in half does it?)
I posted this before also.....
The stock breaks in bending when the gun blows open....very violent.
The excessive headspace allows gasses to act on the plunger thus allowing the gun to open. (We are not talking about a bolt gun here….the plunger is held in place with a spring That supposedly needs to be replaced after so many shots that they never tell you about.)
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.
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?!!
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.
Hit the nail on the head with that post!!!!
It is also exhibit "A" as to why so many of these types of cases go by the wayside and are never filed. I'll bet, even though he might not tell you, your attorney is sorry he ever took the case. It might equal a decent payday for him at some point, but it will be after fifteen years of wrangling with these guys and probably wasn't worth it in the end for him.
The damages have to be huge for this sort of thing to really be worth it for an attorney.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There is no such thing as truth and facts. Truth is always dependent upon perspective and facts are always interpreted according to that perspective. That is reality.
For instance. Is a gun that will open up, but only under excess pressure defective? Who can say? Some would say, that a gun that will open up at all before completely blowing up is defective. Some would say that it isn't the gun but the load. Who is right? Mostly a matter of opinion I would guess. After all, a somewhat excessive load is foreseeable as that even factory ammunition makers sometimes make mistakes. On the other hand, how can a firearms manufacturer be responsible for someone making a bomb instead of a cartridge?
There is no such thing as truth and facts. Truth is always dependent upon perspective and facts are always interpreted according to that perspective. That is reality.
What BS is that?
Facts interpreted according to perspective...
Sounds like words used to try and convince juries they don't need all the information.
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.
There is no such thing as truth and facts. Truth is always dependent upon perspective and facts are always interpreted according to that perspective. That is reality.
For instance. Is a gun that will open up, but only under excess pressure defective? Who can say? Some would say, that a gun that will open up at all before completely blowing up is defective. Some would say that it isn't the gun but the load. Who is right? Mostly a matter of opinion I would guess. After all, a somewhat excessive load is foreseeable as that even factory ammunition makers sometimes make mistakes. On the other hand, how can a firearms manufacturer be responsible for someone making a bomb instead of a cartridge?
"Truth? What is truth?"
If you ever want to know what it looks or sounds like when an attorney had run out of rope and lost an argument, this is it.
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.
There is no such thing as truth and facts. Truth is always dependent upon perspective and facts are always interpreted according to that perspective. That is reality.
For instance. Is a gun that will open up, but only under excess pressure defective? Who can say? Some would say, that a gun that will open up at all before completely blowing up is defective. Some would say that it isn't the gun but the load. Who is right? Mostly a matter of opinion I would guess. After all, a somewhat excessive load is foreseeable as that even factory ammunition makers sometimes make mistakes. On the other hand, how can a firearms manufacturer be responsible for someone making a bomb instead of a cartridge?
"Truth? What is truth?"
If you ever want to know what it looks or sounds like when an attorney had run out of rope and lost an argument, this is it.
No schatt.... [i]laffin
...and please wipe your feet before exiting the court room!
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.
There is no such thing as truth and facts. Truth is always dependent upon perspective and facts are always interpreted according to that perspective. That is reality.
For instance. Is a gun that will open up, but only under excess pressure defective? Who can say? Some would say, that a gun that will open up at all before completely blowing up is defective. Some would say that it isn't the gun but the load. Who is right? Mostly a matter of opinion I would guess. After all, a somewhat excessive load is foreseeable as that even factory ammunition makers sometimes make mistakes. On the other hand, how can a firearms manufacturer be responsible for someone making a bomb instead of a cartridge?
"Truth? What is truth?"
If you ever want to know what it looks or sounds like when an attorney had run out of rope and lost an argument, this is it.
I haven't lost an argument. My point is/was proved. I merely responded to a guy who said he wanted the truth and facts.
Adults realize that truth is highly subjective and that facts are malleable things. Children still live in make believe worlds of their own constructs.
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.
There is no such thing as truth and facts. Truth is always dependent upon perspective and facts are always interpreted according to that perspective. That is reality.
For instance. Is a gun that will open up, but only under excess pressure defective? Who can say? Some would say, that a gun that will open up at all before completely blowing up is defective. Some would say that it isn't the gun but the load. Who is right? Mostly a matter of opinion I would guess. After all, a somewhat excessive load is foreseeable as that even factory ammunition makers sometimes make mistakes. On the other hand, how can a firearms manufacturer be responsible for someone making a bomb instead of a cartridge?
"Truth? What is truth?"
If you ever want to know what it looks or sounds like when an attorney had run out of rope and lost an argument, this is it.
I haven't lost an argument. My point is/was proved. I merely responded to a guy who said he wanted the truth and facts.
Adults realize that truth is highly subjective and that facts are malleable things. Children still live in make believe worlds of their own constructs.
Q:"Were the loads over pressure" A:(Lie)"They were at max but not over" A:(truth) "I don't know they were never tested"
Facts: Load pressure equal x psi
There you have it truth and facts all in the same post.
Nope, according to his data as it was understood by his expert, they were not over. Thus, truth.
"I don't know, they were never tested." Also, truth because one can't be for one hundred percent certain since they weren't tested.
And I'll give you another. For the kind of "truth" you claim to be after, it doesn't matter because there was absolutely no way to determine what the pressure of the actual load that was fired was. That is also the "truth".
Q:"Were the loads over pressure" A:(Lie)"They were at max but not over" A:(truth) "I don't know they were never tested"
Facts: Load pressure equal x psi
There you have it truth and facts all in the same post.
Nope, according to his data as it was understood by his expert, they were not over. Thus, truth.
"I don't know, they were never tested." Also, truth because one can't be for one hundred percent certain since they weren't tested.
And I'll give you another. For the kind of "truth" you claim to be after, it doesn't matter because there was absolutely no way to determine what the pressure of the actual load that was fired was. That is also the "truth".
His "expert" was disallowed, and easily. I suspect his "expert" is little more than a local gun plumber and such testimony ain't worth a helluva lot. He's asserted they were not over pressure, but his own load data puts them well over book maximum and highly compressed. I.e., he contradicted himself and had no way of knowing what pressure they were at all. T/C didn't test, and you're grasping at straws simply because you have a distinct bias against corporate defendants.
BS he stated they were not over max, that was a flat out lie to advance his agenda, deflect, and mislead people. He knew it and everyone with a lick of common sense knows it.
Q:"Were the loads over pressure" A:(Lie)"They were at max but not over" A:(truth) "I don't know they were never tested"
Facts: Load pressure equal x psi
There you have it truth and facts all in the same post.
Nope, according to his data as it was understood by his expert, they were not over. Thus, truth.
"I don't know, they were never tested." Also, truth because one can't be for one hundred percent certain since they weren't tested.
And I'll give you another. For the kind of "truth" you claim to be after, it doesn't matter because there was absolutely no way to determine what the pressure of the actual load that was fired was. That is also the "truth".
His "expert" was disallowed, and easily. I suspect his "expert" is little more than a local gun plumber and such testimony ain't worth a helluva lot. He's asserted they were not over pressure, but his own load data puts them well over book maximum and highly compressed. I.e., he contradicted himself and had no way of knowing what pressure they were at all. T/C didn't test, and you're grasping at straws simply because you have a distinct bias against corporate defendants.
So, why didn't TC test? That would be a relevant question. Because you can damned well bet that if TC thought those loads were overpressure, they would have tested. Even if they didn't think the gun failed or that any failure was caused by the overpressure, they still would have beaten him over the head with it.
And I'll tell you one more thing. I can guarantee you that they DIDN'T disqualify him for the reason you say. How can I say that? Because you claim that easily found load data puts them at heavily compressed and over max. Frick yeah, I would have let him put on his expert based on software data because then I could have put on my MUCH more prestigious expert who could have testified that based on an EASILY found source that the load was heavily compressed, WAY over max, and thus WAY over pressure. I could have introduced testimony that he was making bombs in his garage WITHOUT EVER taking the risk of ACTUALLY taking one of those loads apart and seeing if it was over pressure.
My expert is a gunsmith / firearms maker / customizer. I did not ask if I could post his name online so I will not be doing so. I don’t think he or anyone would want to be a part of the bashing....IMO mainly because people can see past their preconceived notions.
My expert is a gunsmith / firearms maker / customizer. I did not ask if I could post his name online so I will not be doing so. I don’t think he or anyone would want to be a part of the bashing....IMO mainly because people can see past their preconceived notions.
Like I said, if pressure were even the issue, they would have let him put on his expert, no matter how much of a shade tree expert he was. Because they could have then put on one with multiple PHDs behind his name who could have used the same shoddy sources to testify to the exact opposite WITHOUT HAVING TO RISK ACTUALLY TAKING APART ONE OF THE LOADS AND TESTING IT.
I mean really, the guy got his face mangled, and spent the last 10 years of his life fighting with TC, and then comes in here and accuses us of having preconceived notions on the subject.
My expert is a gunsmith / firearms maker / customizer. I did not ask if I could post his name online so I will not be doing so. I don’t think he or anyone would want to be a part of the bashing....IMO mainly because people can see past their preconceived notions.
Like I said, if pressure were even the issue, they would have let him put on his expert, no matter how much of a shade tree expert he was. Because they could have then put on one with multiple PHDs behind his name who could have used the same shoddy sources to testify to the exact opposite WITHOUT HAVING TO RISK ACTUALLY TAKING APART ONE OF THE LOADS AND TESTING IT.
I don't think either side wanted pressure discussed or it would have been, there was too much to lose for both sides by bringing it up, the gamble wasn't worth it. TC's lawyers likely wanted that testimony out because they didn't want to open up pandora's box with regards to the pressure. Brians attorney steered clear of actual testing the ammo as well. Also the experts testimony may have included more information that just pressure, such as design flaws that were damaging to TC's case.
I get the feeling that most guys here could have got behind the man, despite any contributory issues, providing the OP was forthcoming and not a Lifetime Made for TV movie.
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.
Did he ever mention if he was wearing safety glasses? If the jury didn't hear the pressure info. that would almost make the fact that it was a reload a moot point so what else did he do/not do that he hasn't said to make them find him 40% at fault?
Did he ever mention if he was wearing safety glasses? If the jury didn't hear the pressure info. that would almost make the fact that it was a reload a moot point so what else did he do/not do that he hasn't said to make them find him 40% at fault?
I wouldn't find it far fetched for the jury to find 40% at fault for simply going to a shooting range to test loads, believing that to be an assumption of risk. The OP did say the jury gave no qualification for the 40%, nor were they asked to do so by either side.
My expert is a gunsmith / firearms maker / customizer. I did not ask if I could post his name online so I will not be doing so. I don’t think he or anyone would want to be a part of the bashing....IMO mainly because people can see past their preconceived notions.
Like I said, if pressure were even the issue, they would have let him put on his expert, no matter how much of a shade tree expert he was. Because they could have then put on one with multiple PHDs behind his name who could have used the same shoddy sources to testify to the exact opposite WITHOUT HAVING TO RISK ACTUALLY TAKING APART ONE OF THE LOADS AND TESTING IT.
I don't think either side wanted pressure discussed or it would have been, there was too much to lose for both sides by bringing it up, the gamble wasn't worth it. TC's lawyers likely wanted that testimony out because they didn't want to open up pandora's box with regards to the pressure. Brians attorney steered clear of actual testing the ammo as well. Also the experts testimony may have included more information that just pressure, such as design flaws that were damaging to TC's case.
He lost me when he stated that he uses cracked case necks to judge pressure signs. Also, apparently he has Quickload and didn't comprehend that placing the bullet closer to the throat raises shot start pressure and also max pressure.
I loaded Accubonds for a .300 RUM when the bullets were first introduced, Nosler lumped them with Partitions for reloading data. The manual even had a warning that the Accubonds developed higher pressure than ballistic tipped bullets.
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.
Getting into this very late, and just commenting on the technical aspects. If a rifle goes kB! that most certainly can be from headspaces (as well as many other issues). It should also be noted that just because headspace is excessive, doesn't mean it's automatically going to blow up.
Maybe my experience can help shed a little light on this subject. Several years back I purchased a used, 15" .357 Maximum barrel for my Encore stamped "Coyote Guns". I started working up loads for it, and once I got to moderate loads, the action would open when I fired. The first time it happened I knew that something funny had occurred. I didn't move, just took in the details of what everything looked like. It looked normal - action was closed, resting on my shooting bags, right hand still wrapped around the grip. But I KNEW something funky had happened. I looked down at my lap and, lo and behold, there was a fired .357 Maximum case lying in my lap! I thought, "What the hell?!?!?" Then I opened my gun. Sure enough, chamber was empty. What had happened is the frame opened when I fired, the snap of the action opening ejected the case, then snapped back shut. Of course I quit shooting and went to the shop to figure out what the hell had happened. I got out my feeler gauges and measured headspace. IIRC, headspace on that barrel was .014". Light was easily visible between the breech face and the barrel face. I got online and started doing some research. I knew from previous experience that the headspace varies from barrel to barrel based on the placement of the lug and hinge pin hole. I also found out that Coyote Guns was no longer in business, partly because his Encore barrels had excessive headspace issues due to misplacement of the barrel lug, which affects how far the locking lugs enter into the locking lug recess in the frame. I tried various solutions to keep the frame closed on firing and finally succeeded by carefully stoning the locking lugs so they were square on the end and had more purchase on the recess area and I installed a muzzle break to reduce the recoil and stress on the frame. If my barrel would have been a .300 Win Mag, with the recoil and pressures involved, combined with the much larger case head on the breech face, I can completely see exactly what happened to Brian. The frame, due to excess headspace, came open upon firing because the locking lugs did not fully engage in the locking lug recess. The recoil, being restricted by his shoulder, had enough leverage due to the long barrel and recoil force that the stock snapped in the grip when it came open, and then snapped back shut. All of this happened in a split second. I would bet a large sum of money that the fired case could be found somewhere within 30 feet of where he fired, straight behind him.
Brian - I'm sorry for your experience and the loss of your sight. Headspace issues have been known with these guns for years. Mike Bellm dedicates an entire page on his website and a specific tool for measuring headspace and setting resizing dies for the TC Contenders and Encores. But Mike's stuff is for OCD reloaders like me and intended to solve fail-to-fire issues and extend brass life - not to resolve inherent safety issues if the barrels have excess headspace.
Maybe my experience can help shed a little light on this subject. Several years back I purchased a used, 15" .357 Maximum barrel for my Encore stamped "Coyote Guns". I started working up loads for it, and once I got to moderate loads, the action would open when I fired. The first time it happened I knew that something funny had occurred. I didn't move, just took in the details of what everything looked like. It looked normal - action was closed, resting on my shooting bags, right hand still wrapped around the grip. But I KNEW something funky had happened. I looked down at my lap and, lo and behold, there was a fired .357 Maximum case lying in my lap! I thought, "What the hell?!?!?" Then I opened my gun. Sure enough, chamber was empty. What had happened is the frame opened when I fired, the snap of the action opening ejected the case, then snapped back shut. Of course I quit shooting and went to the shop to figure out what the hell had happened. I got out my feeler gauges and measured headspace. IIRC, headspace on that barrel was .014". Light was easily visible between the breech face and the barrel face. I got online and started doing some research. I knew from previous experience that the headspace varies from barrel to barrel based on the placement of the lug and hinge pin hole. I also found out that Coyote Guns was no longer in business, partly because his Encore barrels had excessive headspace issues due to misplacement of the barrel lug, which affects how far the locking lugs enter into the locking lug recess in the frame. I tried various solutions to keep the frame closed on firing and finally succeeded by carefully stoning the locking lugs so they were square on the end and had more purchase on the recess area and I installed a muzzle break to reduce the recoil and stress on the frame. If my barrel would have been a .300 Win Mag, with the recoil and pressures involved, combined with the much larger case head on the breech face, I can completely see exactly what happened to Brian. The frame, due to excess headspace, came open upon firing because the locking lugs did not fully engage in the locking lug recess. The recoil, being restricted by his shoulder, had enough leverage due to the long barrel and recoil force that the stock snapped in the grip when it came open, and then snapped back shut. All of this happened in a split second. I would bet a large sum of money that the fired case could be found somewhere within 30 feet of where he fired, straight behind him.
Brian - I'm sorry for your experience and the loss of your sight. Headspace issues have been known with these guns for years. Mike Bellm dedicates an entire page on his website and a specific tool for measuring headspace and setting resizing dies for the TC Contenders and Encores. But Mike's stuff is for OCD reloaders like me and intended to solve fail-to-fire issues and extend brass life - not to resolve inherent safety issues if the barrels have excess headspace.
While a good explanation of your problem, your issue is actually potentially a lack of headspace leading to the barrel failing to lock up correctly, or more likely what you alluded to in the barrel/frame gap being too large on Coyote barrels. The point on the cartridge that limits the forward movement of the cartridge in the chamber dictates the headspace which would be the gap created between the breech and the cartridge when the cartridge slides all the way forward (or in a CRF bolt gun it would be the distance between the stopping point on the cartridge and the corresponding point in the chamber. In your example you actually have too little headspace and/or too large of a barrel to frame gap that prevents the locking lugs from engaging adequately. With solely an excessive headspace issue the cartridges lengthen and eventually separate around the case head due to overstretching because the case slides too far into the barrel, then lengthens to the rear stretching the brass above the case head (which is the problem I had with a brand new encore barrel in .300 WM.) No one is arguing that excessive headspace or unintentional openings aren't issues with encores, only the fact that they usually aren't related as they tend to create different issues as your example illustrates. There's also the issue of the frame flexing and coming unlocked, but in the OP's case he doesn't seem to know which one he actually had or why, nor can he seem to tell us what TC said was wrong with his barrel, at least not all on one site in one sitting...
Thank you. That makes far more sense than anything the OP who has been involved with this thing for 10 years has said here or anywhere else.
With that explanation, I can see a 60% fault to T/C, and 40% to the OP for loading WELL over book maximum and basically creating a bomb that exacerbated the headspace issue to a catastrophic level.
Thank you. That makes far more sense than anything the OP who has been involved with this thing for 10 years has said here or anywhere else.
With that explanation, I can see a 60% fault to T/C, and 40% to the OP for loading WELL over book maximum and basically creating a bomb that exacerbated the headspace issue to a catastrophic level.
Except Selmer's example is the opposite headspace issue the OP claims to have had...
Thank you. That makes far more sense than anything the OP who has been involved with this thing for 10 years has said here or anywhere else.
With that explanation, I can see a 60% fault to T/C, and 40% to the OP for loading WELL over book maximum and basically creating a bomb that exacerbated the headspace issue to a catastrophic level.
Except Selmer's example is the opposite headspace issue the OP claims to have had...
Well, there goes that. Selmer's explanation has still made far more sense than anything the OP has said to date.
Thank you. That makes far more sense than anything the OP who has been involved with this thing for 10 years has said here or anywhere else.
With that explanation, I can see a 60% fault to T/C, and 40% to the OP for loading WELL over book maximum and basically creating a bomb that exacerbated the headspace issue to a catastrophic level.
Except Selmer's example is the opposite headspace issue the OP claims to have had...
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.
Maybe my experience can help shed a little light on this subject. Several years back I purchased a used, 15" .357 Maximum barrel for my Encore stamped "Coyote Guns". I started working up loads for it, and once I got to moderate loads, the action would open when I fired. The first time it happened I knew that something funny had occurred. I didn't move, just took in the details of what everything looked like. It looked normal - action was closed, resting on my shooting bags, right hand still wrapped around the grip. But I KNEW something funky had happened. I looked down at my lap and, lo and behold, there was a fired .357 Maximum case lying in my lap! I thought, "What the hell?!?!?" Then I opened my gun. Sure enough, chamber was empty. What had happened is the frame opened when I fired, the snap of the action opening ejected the case, then snapped back shut. Of course I quit shooting and went to the shop to figure out what the hell had happened. I got out my feeler gauges and measured headspace. IIRC, headspace on that barrel was .014". Light was easily visible between the breech face and the barrel face. I got online and started doing some research. I knew from previous experience that the headspace varies from barrel to barrel based on the placement of the lug and hinge pin hole. I also found out that Coyote Guns was no longer in business, partly because his Encore barrels had excessive headspace issues due to misplacement of the barrel lug, which affects how far the locking lugs enter into the locking lug recess in the frame. I tried various solutions to keep the frame closed on firing and finally succeeded by carefully stoning the locking lugs so they were square on the end and had more purchase on the recess area and I installed a muzzle break to reduce the recoil and stress on the frame. If my barrel would have been a .300 Win Mag, with the recoil and pressures involved, combined with the much larger case head on the breech face, I can completely see exactly what happened to Brian. The frame, due to excess headspace, came open upon firing because the locking lugs did not fully engage in the locking lug recess. The recoil, being restricted by his shoulder, had enough leverage due to the long barrel and recoil force that the stock snapped in the grip when it came open, and then snapped back shut. All of this happened in a split second. I would bet a large sum of money that the fired case could be found somewhere within 30 feet of where he fired, straight behind him.
Brian - I'm sorry for your experience and the loss of your sight. Headspace issues have been known with these guns for years. Mike Bellm dedicates an entire page on his website and a specific tool for measuring headspace and setting resizing dies for the TC Contenders and Encores. But Mike's stuff is for OCD reloaders like me and intended to solve fail-to-fire issues and extend brass life - not to resolve inherent safety issues if the barrels have excess headspace.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Still love to see the technical stuff on pressure though.
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...
BS he stated they were not over max, that was a flat out lie to advance his agenda, deflect, and mislead people. He knew it and everyone with a lick of common sense knows it.
I never lied about anything, nor did I claim to have a third party testing agency.
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.
BS he stated they were not over max, that was a flat out lie to advance his agenda, deflect, and mislead people. He knew it and everyone with a lick of common sense knows it.
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.
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...
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.
Jeff,
Please, don't try to make sense. He is well beyond that now.
BS he stated they were not over max, that was a flat out lie to advance his agenda, deflect, and mislead people. He knew it and everyone with a lick of common sense knows it.
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.
The "gun expert" that was disallowed rather quickly and has heretofore remained nameless?
That's one hell of an "expert". Especially when they rely on nothing more than load software that at that point was dealing with a largely untested bullet and a new powder at a highly compressed rate.
BS he stated they were not over max, that was a flat out lie to advance his agenda, deflect, and mislead people. He knew it and everyone with a lick of common sense knows it.
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.
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...
Again, please don't try to make any sense. He's well beyond that.
BS he stated they were not over max, that was a flat out lie to advance his agenda, deflect, and mislead people. He knew it and everyone with a lick of common sense knows it.
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.
The "gun expert" that was disallowed rather quickly and has heretofore remained nameless?
That's one hell of an "expert". Especially when they rely on nothing more than load software that at that point was dealing with a largely untested bullet and a new powder at a highly compressed rate.
No wonder they were disallowed.
A gunsmith wouldn't be my first choice to support my position on whether my handloads were safe either especially when numerous testing labs exist that can provide reputable pressure info, but as long as he said brian's loads were safe that should be good enough to sell all my encores...
He's never even said he was a "gunsmith", just an unnamed "gun expert". Hell, it could have been Larry Root, Maser, or Lee24 for all anyone knows, and the court kicked that "expert" to the curb with a quickness.
I don't know if Brian's loads were over maximum pressure or under maximum pressure.
Nor, for that matter, does 4ager. Even though he keeps quoting his holy grail, stating that loads were 8.3% over maximum.
He is forgetting that the "book", that he holds so dearly as the source of all knowledge on pressures in the .300 Win mag, is simply a guide. Using one very specific set of components, in one specific rifle.
Change the primer, and pressure could easily change a couple thousand psi, plus or minus.
Change the case, and pressure could also change, again, plus or minus.
Brian has stated that his loaded COAL was much longer than a standard loaded round. Which could lead to pressure excursions, or possibly to a much lower pressure. Depending on the chamber in which it was fired.
It just so happens that at least two of my T/C barrels have freebore that ole Roy Weatherby himself would be proud of, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that Brian's loads had the bullets well away from the lands, and thus, as another poster has indicated, been at 60,000 psi. 4000 psi short of SAAMI max.
Brian has also stated that he used a different projectile than the "book". Again - this could reduce or increase pressure.
So, unless one were to test the loads in a chamber that simulated the one in Brian's Encore, it is pure speculation as to whether or not the loads were under pressure, over pressure, or to be completely hyperbolic - "bombs".
I do find it rather telling that T/C did not take one of their barrels and create duplicate loads to verify whether or not SAAMI max pressures were exceeded. And then present this evidence to the court. All of a single days worth of work, I'd think. Then again, maybe they did test...
As for me - I'll give the jury the benefit of the doubt - and find that culpability should be shared, with the slight majority falling on T/C. I also feel that Brian is likely to find himself back in court over the matter. And not from an appeal of the judgement, but in the manner he initially presented the information, rather globally...
Scott Quickload has a warning that the software is math based modeling and doesn't use empirical data for problem solving and therefore an accurate reloading manual has to be used for load development. I've used Quickload in conjunction with RSI Pressure Trace and a chronograph to developers loads. While Quickload's pressure curve may mirror Pressure Trace's curve Pmax is different between the two.
The book load 4ager keeps referring to, is another guess. And yes, it is a guess in this case, as the very important COAL was changed. And who knows about the manufacturer of the case and primer...
But, with the variables that were thrown in by Brian and possibly by T/C's fondness for freebore, both resources are just that - guesses.
But it's really interesting that neither party to the suit introduced lab results for those loads, in a T/C Encore chamber...
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.
1) nobody who loads over book max for a standard cartridge is doing "due diligence". They are hotdogging it. 2) it's a flat out lie to assert your loads were within the SAAMI specs of 64k without any testing. The best you can say is that it showed no pressure signs, and that IF you used any software such as Quickload before the blowup that it possibly showed less?
In the end it seems you hotrodded a cartridge in a rifle that was already pushing it's max, and you suffered for it. You thought you were smarter than every guy who ever published a hand loading book, or that if you were over a bit too much that the consequence would be minor. Is TC responsible for putting out a rifle that was possibly dangerous at 300 Win pressures, but could definitely be dangerous to unsafe hand loaders who would overload it? The jury says yes, they are a little more responsible for it than you are.
We're all sorry you got hurt, but we are all gun guys. You have your story which you want us all to believe with no questions asked. But that's not going to happen. We don't know you, we don't know if you are the most anal hand loader on the planet, or if you were tossing back rum and cokes while you load, or if you can't throw the same load twice in a row, or even if you screwed up and used the wrong powder.
My only question left is: when are you suing the powder manufacturer? If the max load 8 years ago was 83 but has been dropped to 79, why aren't you suing them?
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.
1) nobody who loads over book max for a standard cartridge is doing "due diligence". They are hotdogging it. 2) it's a flat out lie to assert your loads were within the SAAMI specs of 64k without any testing. The best you can say is that it showed no pressure signs, and that IF you used any software such as Quickload before the blowup that it possibly showed less?
In the end it seems you hotrodded a cartridge in a rifle that was already pushing it's max, and you suffered for it. You thought you were smarter than every guy who ever published a hand loading book, or that if you were over a bit too much that the consequence would be minor. Is TC responsible for putting out a rifle that was possibly dangerous at 300 Win pressures, but could definitely be dangerous to unsafe hand loaders who would overload it? The jury says yes, they are a little more responsible for it than you are.
We're all sorry you got hurt, but we are all gun guys. You have your story which you want us all to believe with no questions asked. But that's not going to happen. We don't know you, we don't know if you are the most anal hand loader on the planet, or if you were tossing back rum and cokes while you load, or if you can't throw the same load twice in a row, or even if you screwed up and used the wrong powder.
My only question left is: when are you suing the powder manufacturer? If the max load 8 years ago was 83 but has been dropped to 79, why aren't you suing them?
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.
What, you don't like it that folks here aren't buying your version of the story?
Only a fool listens to one side of a story and thinks he has all the facts. Especially one side of a story with two adversaries.
After reading this whole thing, and being convinced of the inherent danger involved with even looking at an Encore, I have decided to provide a very important public service for all of you guys stuck with these death machines. PM me for my shipping info, and I'll reluctantly let you all ship them to me, where, for the good of all, I'll properly dispose of them...........
I don't know if Brian's loads were over maximum pressure or under maximum pressure.
Nor, for that matter, does 4ager. Even though he keeps quoting his holy grail, stating that loads were 8.3% over maximum.
He is forgetting that the "book", that he holds so dearly as the source of all knowledge on pressures in the .300 Win mag, is simply a guide. Using one very specific set of components, in one specific rifle.
Change the primer, and pressure could easily change a couple thousand psi, plus or minus.
Change the case, and pressure could also change, again, plus or minus.
Brian has stated that his loaded COAL was much longer than a standard loaded round. Which could lead to pressure excursions, or possibly to a much lower pressure. Depending on the chamber in which it was fired.
It just so happens that at least two of my T/C barrels have freebore that ole Roy Weatherby himself would be proud of, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that Brian's loads had the bullets well away from the lands, and thus, as another poster has indicated, been at 60,000 psi. 4000 psi short of SAAMI max.
Brian has also stated that he used a different projectile than the "book". Again - this could reduce or increase pressure.
So, unless one were to test the loads in a chamber that simulated the one in Brian's Encore, it is pure speculation as to whether or not the loads were under pressure, over pressure, or to be completely hyperbolic - "bombs".
I do find it rather telling that T/C did not take one of their barrels and create duplicate loads to verify whether or not SAAMI max pressures were exceeded. And then present this evidence to the court. All of a single days worth of work, I'd think. Then again, maybe they did test...
As for me - I'll give the jury the benefit of the doubt - and find that culpability should be shared, with the slight majority falling on T/C. I also feel that Brian is likely to find himself back in court over the matter. And not from an appeal of the judgement, but in the manner he initially presented the information, rather globally...
All I want is for people to be aware of the situation and check their T/C Arms Encore for problems. I’ve done my best to try forget all this junk and just live my life for the past nearly 10 years. Stewing and obsessing on the case would drive a person crazy.
I don’t have the case files my attorney does and the Encore rifle and components hasn’t been in my possession in almost 10 years so I’m not able to break out the calipers and give you guys measurements. I’m speaking in just general terms from memory. I’m not trying to re-litigate this case over the internet. Also I think that would be foolish on my part since T/C Arms has already filed for a re-trial. If people are really that concerned with getting all the details and determining what happened the court documents are public record and can be obtained.
I’ve done my best to try forget all this junk and just live my life for the past nearly 10 years. Stewing and obsessing on the case would drive a person crazy.
Looks lie the T/C Encore isn't the only thing that needs better closure...
When this unfortunate accident happened, was Thompson/Center advertising in 'Handloader Magazine', and were they making barrels for their break-open actions that were chambered for cartridges that were basically wildcats (produced expressly by handloaders)...?
When this unfortunate accident happened, was Thompson/Center advertising in 'Handloader Magazine', and were they making barrels for their break-open actions that were chambered for cartridges that were basically wildcats (produced expressly by handloaders)...?
Not sure about where they advertised and when, but TC has made handload only barrels for a long time before this incident.
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.
That assumes the chamber is cut right. You could have a barrel with perfect outside dimensions and still have excessive headspace if the chamber is cut too deep.
When this unfortunate accident happened, was Thompson/Center advertising in 'Handloader Magazine', and were they making barrels for their break-open actions that were chambered for cartridges that were basically wildcats (produced expressly by handloaders)...?
The rub is that TC is not the only Company that produces barrels for their Contender and Encore.There is MGM,Bullberry,SSK and a few more that will just about chamber anything you request.The man stated he was not using a factory barrel.I cant figure how TC can be held responsible for an aftermarket product that did not have the locking lugs either installed correctly or made correctly?
The book load 4ager keeps referring to, is another guess. And yes, it is a guess in this case, as the very important COAL was changed. And who knows about the manufacturer of the case and primer...
But, with the variables that were thrown in by Brian and possibly by T/C's fondness for freebore, both resources are just that - guesses.
But it's really interesting that neither party to the suit introduced lab results for those loads, in a T/C Encore chamber...
Since the gun was intact after the incident, it really wouldn't have been too difficult to work up a load to see at what point you duplicate the failure. (Assuming the action came open, which is the scenario that makes the most sense to me).
When this unfortunate accident happened, was Thompson/Center advertising in 'Handloader Magazine', and were they making barrels for their break-open actions that were chambered for cartridges that were basically wildcats (produced expressly by handloaders)...?
The rub is that TC is not the only Company that produces barrels for their Contender and Encore.There is MGM,Bullberry,SSK and a few more that will just about chamber anything you request.The man stated he was not using a factory barrel.I cant figure how TC can be held responsible for an aftermarket product that did not have the locking lugs either installed correctly or made correctly?
How do you guys come up with this stuff?
It was a Fox Ridge Outfitters Barrel AKA Thompson/Center Custom Shop.
So, you installed a barrel that was not original to the gun - regardless of where it came from - thereby altering the firearm from the original factor condition?
Did you, by chance, have it installed by a gunsmith and/or have a gunsmith check the headspace on that barrel when it was installed?
So, you installed a barrel that was not original to the gun - regardless of where it came from - thereby altering the firearm from the original factor condition?
Did you, by chance, have it installed by a gunsmith and/or have a gunsmith check the headspace on that barrel when it was installed?
Really? That's their whole selling point! "one gun for all seasons" or something like that.
So, you installed a barrel that was not original to the gun - regardless of where it came from - thereby altering the firearm from the original factor condition?
Did you, by chance, have it installed by a gunsmith and/or have a gunsmith check the headspace on that barrel when it was installed?
Really? That's their whole selling point! "one gun for all seasons" or something like that.
So, in fact, you did install a barrel that was not original to that rifle and you did not have the headspace checked.
Let's see:
Non-original barrel. No gunsmith or headspace check after installation. Severely over max handload. No pressure testing of load before or after incident.
You could have laid all that out in the first place IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY CARED ABOUT HAVING PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED. Instead, you dribbled all this out over a myriad of websites and avoided direct questions like the plague. That's not a very forthright showing for someone who supposedly is interested in the safety of other shooters and not in a smear campaign against the manufacturer.
I think T/C has a damned good case against whomever represented them for incompetent representation at this point. At the very least they have multiple grounds for a retrial and/or appeal. If they are successful on either motion, they may likely have a pretty good case for libel as well.
So, you installed a barrel that was not original to the gun - regardless of where it came from - thereby altering the firearm from the original factor condition?
Did you, by chance, have it installed by a gunsmith and/or have a gunsmith check the headspace on that barrel when it was installed?
Really? That's their whole selling point! "one gun for all seasons" or something like that.
So, in fact, you did install a barrel that was not original to that rifle and you did not have the headspace checked.
Let's see:
Non-original barrel. No gunsmith or headspace check after installation. Severely over max handload. No pressure testing of load before or after incident.
You could have laid all that out in the first place IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY CARED ABOUT HAVING PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED. Instead, you dribbled all this out over a myriad of websites and avoided direct questions like the plague. That's not a very forthright showing for someone who supposedly is interested in the safety of other shooters and not in a smear campaign against the manufacturer.
I think T/C has a damned good case against whomever represented them for incompetent representation at this point. At the very least they have multiple grounds for a retrial and/or appeal. If they are successful on either motion, they may likely have a pretty good case for libel as well.
You really are confused and your statements are absurd.
Do you know how an Encore works? In the T/C Arms own Encore commercial says …..”2 screws and one pin….new gun”.
I think it does not matter what I say here…. some of you guys you would pontificate and attack no matter what.
So, you installed a barrel that was not original to the gun - regardless of where it came from - thereby altering the firearm from the original factor condition?
Did you, by chance, have it installed by a gunsmith and/or have a gunsmith check the headspace on that barrel when it was installed?
Really? That's their whole selling point! "one gun for all seasons" or something like that.
So, in fact, you did install a barrel that was not original to that rifle and you did not have the headspace checked.
Let's see:
Non-original barrel. No gunsmith or headspace check after installation. Severely over max handload. No pressure testing of load before or after incident.
You could have laid all that out in the first place IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY CARED ABOUT HAVING PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED. Instead, you dribbled all this out over a myriad of websites and avoided direct questions like the plague. That's not a very forthright showing for someone who supposedly is interested in the safety of other shooters and not in a smear campaign against the manufacturer.
I think T/C has a damned good case against whomever represented them for incompetent representation at this point. At the very least they have multiple grounds for a retrial and/or appeal. If they are successful on either motion, they may likely have a pretty good case for libel as well.
You really are confused and your statements are absurd.
Do you know how an Encore works? In the T/C Arms own Encore commercial says …..”2 screws and one pin….new gun”.
I think it does not matter what I say here…. some of you guys you would pontificate and attack no matter what.
I am far from confused and my statements are spot on from a factual and legal perspective.
I know precisely how an Encore works (used to own a couple), and I also know what you have stated was at issue in your case. That you can't put that together is rather more telling than most anything else you've posted.
It mattered quite a bit what you've posted here and elsewhere. Had you been completely forthcoming from the beginning you'd have been and would be far more sympathetic and believable. As it is, you come across as someone who made a string of errors all of which your own doing and the results were a severe injury that you then sued someone else to cover and a sympathetic jury gave you just barely enough credit for your injury to make an award. You've taken that ball and run with it, and the facts that have come to light sense would give any decent attorney more than enough grounds to request a retrial or grounds for an appeal.
Your actions further have shown a severe and personal interest in damaging T/C's brand and name in spite of (and in fact often due to the concealment of) material facts. Again, T/C - if successful on retrial or on appeal - may very well pursue a libel action and I'd not want to be you trying to explain all these myriad song-and-dance routines to a judge or jury looking to see whether your intent in posting the same was malicious.
That's not an attack, Brian, it's an opinion and one founded on a good bit more than just trying to remember points from 10 years of litigation that are only favorable to my side.
I have two Fox Ridge barrels and they have T/C Custom Shop stamped on them.
And? You can swap out a barrel on a Remington 700 with three screws and a barrel wrench. Does that mean that you ought not check the headspace on the new "Remington" barrel?
[/quote]I am far from confused and my statements are spot on from a factual and legal perspective.
I know precisely how an Encore works (used to own a couple), and I also know what you have stated was at issue in your case. That you can't put that together is rather more telling than most anything else you've posted.
It mattered quite a bit what you've posted here and elsewhere. Had you been completely forthcoming from the beginning you'd have been and would be far more sympathetic and believable. As it is, you come across as someone who made a string of errors all of which your own doing and the results were a severe injury that you then sued someone else to cover and a sympathetic jury gave you just barely enough credit for your injury to make an award. You've taken that ball and run with it, and the facts that have come to light sense would give any decent attorney more than enough grounds to request a retrial or grounds for an appeal.
Your actions further have shown a severe and personal interest in damaging T/C's brand and name in spite of (and in fact often due to the concealment of) material facts. Again, T/C - if successful on retrial or on appeal - may very well pursue a libel action and I'd not want to be you trying to explain all these myriad song-and-dance routines to a judge or jury looking to see whether your intent in posting the same was malicious.
That's not an attack, Brian, it's an opinion and one founded on a good bit more than just trying to remember points from 10 years of litigation that are only favorable to my side.[/quote]
[/quote]I am far from confused and my statements are spot on from a factual and legal perspective.
I know precisely how an Encore works (used to own a couple), and I also know what you have stated was at issue in your case. That you can't put that together is rather more telling than most anything else you've posted.
It mattered quite a bit what you've posted here and elsewhere. Had you been completely forthcoming from the beginning you'd have been and would be far more sympathetic and believable. As it is, you come across as someone who made a string of errors all of which your own doing and the results were a severe injury that you then sued someone else to cover and a sympathetic jury gave you just barely enough credit for your injury to make an award. You've taken that ball and run with it, and the facts that have come to light sense would give any decent attorney more than enough grounds to request a retrial or grounds for an appeal.
Your actions further have shown a severe and personal interest in damaging T/C's brand and name in spite of (and in fact often due to the concealment of) material facts. Again, T/C - if successful on retrial or on appeal - may very well pursue a libel action and I'd not want to be you trying to explain all these myriad song-and-dance routines to a judge or jury looking to see whether your intent in posting the same was malicious.
That's not an attack, Brian, it's an opinion and one founded on a good bit more than just trying to remember points from 10 years of litigation that are only favorable to my side.
Sir,
I still haven't heard what exactly happened; did the action indeed come open during firing?
4ager, Your statements are ridiculous.
Feel free have your misguided to opinion. [/quote]
[/quote]I am far from confused and my statements are spot on from a factual and legal perspective.
I know precisely how an Encore works (used to own a couple), and I also know what you have stated was at issue in your case. That you can't put that together is rather more telling than most anything else you've posted.
It mattered quite a bit what you've posted here and elsewhere. Had you been completely forthcoming from the beginning you'd have been and would be far more sympathetic and believable. As it is, you come across as someone who made a string of errors all of which your own doing and the results were a severe injury that you then sued someone else to cover and a sympathetic jury gave you just barely enough credit for your injury to make an award. You've taken that ball and run with it, and the facts that have come to light sense would give any decent attorney more than enough grounds to request a retrial or grounds for an appeal.
Your actions further have shown a severe and personal interest in damaging T/C's brand and name in spite of (and in fact often due to the concealment of) material facts. Again, T/C - if successful on retrial or on appeal - may very well pursue a libel action and I'd not want to be you trying to explain all these myriad song-and-dance routines to a judge or jury looking to see whether your intent in posting the same was malicious.
That's not an attack, Brian, it's an opinion and one founded on a good bit more than just trying to remember points from 10 years of litigation that are only favorable to my side.
4ager, Your statements are ridiculous.
Feel free have your misguided to opinion. [/quote]
Given your demonstrated ability to reason, I'm not adverse to you thinking such is ridiculous. Then again, I have more than a clue about what I'm talking about. You've never shown anything approaching the same.
Your benefit of the doubt ran out long ago.
Please, go have some cheese with your whine as it may be all you're left with by the end of this.
I am far from confused and my statements are spot on from a factual and legal perspective.
I know precisely how an Encore works (used to own a couple), and I also know what you have stated was at issue in your case. That you can't put that together is rather more telling than most anything else you've posted.
It mattered quite a bit what you've posted here and elsewhere. Had you been completely forthcoming from the beginning you'd have been and would be far more sympathetic and believable. As it is, you come across as someone who made a string of errors all of which your own doing and the results were a severe injury that you then sued someone else to cover and a sympathetic jury gave you just barely enough credit for your injury to make an award. You've taken that ball and run with it, and the facts that have come to light sense would give any decent attorney more than enough grounds to request a retrial or grounds for an appeal.
Your actions further have shown a severe and personal interest in damaging T/C's brand and name in spite of (and in fact often due to the concealment of) material facts. Again, T/C - if successful on retrial or on appeal - may very well pursue a libel action and I'd not want to be you trying to explain all these myriad song-and-dance routines to a judge or jury looking to see whether your intent in posting the same was malicious.
That's not an attack, Brian, it's an opinion and one founded on a good bit more than just trying to remember points from 10 years of litigation that are only favorable to my side.
Sir,
I still haven't heard what exactly happened; did the action indeed come open during firing?
4ager, Your statements are ridiculous.
Feel free have your misguided to opinion. [/quote] [/quote]
He hasn't a clue what happened, supposedly.
He loaded a grossly over max charge into a non-factory installed barrel that did not subsequently have the headspace or anything else checked, and the stock broke.
Somehow, he deduces that the over max load, the non-original barrel, the lack of checking for specs and safety were not to blame and that the action - which withstood the blast - is to blame.
To summarize and very very briefly in my opinion the big take away from my case was the TCA Encore can not keep tolerances and head space grows overtime, especially with larger calibers like I was shooting (300 win mag). In my trial we had 3 guns with excessive head space. My gun was well out of spec., A gun with 5 shots was out of spec., A gun with no shots was out of spec.
The excessive headspace allows gasses to act on the plunger thus allowing the gun to open. (We are not talking about a bolt gun here….the plunger is held in place with a spring That supposedly needs to be replaced after so many shots that they never tell you about.) The stock breaks in bending when the gun blows open…very violent.
I still haven't heard what exactly happened; did the action indeed come open during firing?
Originally Posted by Brian_Ward
GunGeek,
To summarize and very very briefly in my opinion the big take away from my case was the TCA Encore can not keep tolerances and head space grows overtime, especially with larger calibers like I was shooting (300 win mag). In my trial we had 3 guns with excessive head space. My gun was well out of spec., A gun with 5 shots was out of spec., A gun with no shots was out of spec.
The excessive headspace allows gasses to act on the plunger thus allowing the gun to open. (We are not talking about a bolt gun here….the plunger is held in place with a spring That supposedly needs to be replaced after so many shots that they never tell you about.) The stock breaks in bending when the gun blows open…very violent.
You didn't answer his question as to what actually happened.
To summarize and very very briefly in my opinion the big take away from my case was the TCA Encore can not keep tolerances and head space grows overtime, especially with larger calibers like I was shooting (300 win mag). In my trial we had 3 guns with excessive head space. My gun was well out of spec., A gun with 5 shots was out of spec., A gun with no shots was out of spec.
The excessive headspace allows gasses to act on the plunger thus allowing the gun to open. (We are not talking about a bolt gun here….the plunger is held in place with a spring That supposedly needs to be replaced after so many shots that they never tell you about.) The stock breaks in bending when the gun blows open…very violent.
Brian,
You're warning people about this rifle yet you say NOTHING about what actually happened, why is that?
We're big boys here (and I'll admit, I'm not a fan of the Encore), and we kinda like to make our own minds up.
If you can tell us just a simple explanation of what happened, that would be helpful.
Just a simple question: Did the action come open upon firing?
Said this before.....I don’t have the case files my attorney does. I’m speaking in just general terms from memory. I’m not trying to re-litigate this case over the internet.
....
What was the mechanism of injury, i.e. what, specifically caused the damage to your eye? .....
The injury was blunt force trauma…. No powder burns or brass. What actually hit me… I do not know for sure so its speculation.
Basically, He has said they have witnessed a number of Encores that were "out of spec". 3 in fact, including his, but we have no idea how many they tested.
Not sure what spec that is, specifically, OP mentions headspace, and it was important enough bit of information to bring up as a contributing issue to the "catastrophic gun failure" (GCF)
Yet given this out of spec, we do not know if this condition manifests for all encores, or just those with custom shop barrels? OP mentions develops in magnum cartridges like his 300WM. Curious if that bit of info was ascertained prior to or post GCF?
And are there a similar percentage of catastrophic gun failures analogous to the percentage of "out of specs" guns he cites?
And are there any other common conditions to catastrophic failures? Early in the thread, someone mentioned witnessing a CGF that they were sure involved handloads.
The OP has stated he does not know what happened, does not know the mechanism of injury, and has precious little data on a 10 year trial that cost him an eye.
And with this information, he comes here and about 10 other places with a public service announcement that rails against the Encore, which appears to be a decent gun platform, unless you hotrod reloads in a gun that happens to have the condition of being "out of spec"
Said this before.....I don’t have the case files my attorney does. I’m speaking in just general terms from memory. I’m not trying to re-litigate this case over the internet.
....
What was the mechanism of injury, i.e. what, specifically caused the damage to your eye? .....
The injury was blunt force trauma…. No powder burns or brass. What actually hit me… I do not know for sure so its speculation.
So, he doesn't know what hit him in the eye, but he's pretty sure T/C's flawed design caused it to hit him in the eye.
I have given up trying to make sense of it all. Too many variables and the guy who should have the answers hasn't exactly been forthcoming or straight forward with them.
Encore rifles may have an issue with head space on some or all of their guns. Larger calibers may or may not be more prone to failure. Over pressure loads may or may not have been a contributing factor to the failure, and may or may not have been a contributing factor to the growth of the head space issue. The gun may or may not have opened upon firing and the scope many or may not have hit Brian in the eye. The stock broke but the gun (action) stayed intact. An aftermarket barrel may have been used and head space was not checked. The loads were at but not over max SAAMI pressure but no pressure test was ever conducted. An expert said some stuff, we are not sure who or what was said, but it was thrown out of court. Brian spent 10 years of this life fighting this fight, but we have preconceived notions because we want the above cleared up....
Said this before.....I don’t have the case files my attorney does. I’m speaking in just general terms from memory. I’m not trying to re-litigate this case over the internet.
....
What was the mechanism of injury, i.e. what, specifically caused the damage to your eye? .....
The injury was blunt force trauma…. No powder burns or brass. What actually hit me… I do not know for sure so its speculation.
Okay so if the round went off and it broke the stock, he could have just been the victim of "Weatherby Eye"...albeit on the extreme side.
Now we're into some murky waters. The round he chose was on the high end of the recoil spectrum for what T/C offers from the factory. And the load is excessive. So while the extra recoil may have been the straw that broke the camels back, the difference in recoil wasn't tremendous, and that tells me that stock was going to give way at some point anyhow.
But does anyone know what condition the stock was in before the incident? Had it been damaged?
T/C's stocks are pure tupperware, but they're made of graphite which tend to be VERY flexible and typically doesn't break.
When this unfortunate accident happened, was Thompson/Center advertising in 'Handloader Magazine', and were they making barrels for their break-open actions that were chambered for cartridges that were basically wildcats (produced expressly by handloaders)...?
The rub is that TC is not the only Company that produces barrels for their Contender and Encore.There is MGM,Bullberry,SSK and a few more that will just about chamber anything you request.The man stated he was not using a factory barrel.I cant figure how TC can be held responsible for an aftermarket product that did not have the locking lugs either installed correctly or made correctly?
How do you guys come up with this stuff?
It was a Fox Ridge Outfitters Barrel AKA Thompson/Center Custom Shop.
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.
That assumes the chamber is cut right. You could have a barrel with perfect outside dimensions and still have excessive headspace if the chamber is cut too deep.
GunGeek - thanks for the correction. You are quite correct. I'm referring to the barrel to frame gap - headspace is determined by how the chamber is cut. On bottleneck cartridges, one can adjust the sizing dies to reduce case stretching to a minimum by knowing the barrel to frame gap. On a belted case or rimmed case it's a different ballgame. Thank you for the correction.
To summarize and very very briefly in my opinion the big take away from my case was the TCA Encore can not keep tolerances and head space grows overtime, especially with larger calibers like I was shooting (300 win mag). In my trial we had 3 guns with excessive head space. My gun was well out of spec., A gun with 5 shots was out of spec., A gun with no shots was out of spec.
The excessive headspace allows gasses to act on the plunger thus allowing the gun to open. (We are not talking about a bolt gun here….the plunger is held in place with a spring That supposedly needs to be replaced after so many shots that they never tell you about.) The stock breaks in bending when the gun blows open…very violent.
Brian,
You're warning people about this rifle yet you say NOTHING about what actually happened, why is that?
We're big boys here (and I'll admit, I'm not a fan of the Encore), and we kinda like to make our own minds up.
If you can tell us just a simple explanation of what happened, that would be helpful.
Just a simple question: Did the action come open upon firing?
GunGeek, I thought I did give an abridged version of my take on what happened......
"Just a simple question: Did the action come open upon firing?" In my opinion, yes is did.
It looks like posts on this thread have subsided. I just want to thank everyone that posted on this thread. Some posters stated this thread didn’t turn out how I had hoped, but actually it did. I knew some people would attack me no matter what, and some would give an honest evaluation on what I was saying
Above all I just wanted to bring awareness about this gun and have people check their T/C Arms Encore for problems. I was not trying to re-litigate this case over the internet; I would never be able to do it justice. If people are really that concerned with getting all the details and determining what happened, the court documents are public record.
So at the end of the day, even people attacking me actually helped me by driving up the number of people being made aware of the situation and the judgement against T/C Arms and their Encore design.
Another opinion on the T/C Arms Encore Gun Failure
Guys, I said my final piece on this thread. But I was contacted by Jack Belk (Author of UnSafe by Design: Forensic Gunsmithing and Firearms Investigations) and I put him in contact with my Gun Expert. I thought his assessment was pertinent and want to share it. Thanks, Brian Ward
Text: “I have discussed this case with the plaintiff's expert witness that did the analysis of Brian's accident. As is normal in these type cases, there's a lot that can't be released to the public (and the gun companies fight to keep it that way).
Here's the physical facts that were demonstrated to the jury to 'prove' one or more defects in design or defects in material that was 'more likely than not' the causation of Brian's injuries. To do that, the firearms expert has to testify to the facts and opinions concerning the gun. Medical experts and monetary loss experts and all sorts of supporting testimony covers the areas outside the firearm.
In this case, the medical testimony did not or could not point to one specific thing or item that caused the loss of the eye but "impact" was named as causation. There was no one piece of debris named even though the fired case was not recovered from the eye or anywhere else.
That raises the first flag---Where is the fired case? If nobody removed it, it had to have left on its own. How?
The firearms expert and engineer in this case found that the weight of the locking block is sufficient to UN LOCK the TC Encore with the recoil of a .300Win Mag. This is inertia as described by Sir Isaac Newton and recognized by the Courts as mechanical fact. It was also found that the material and design of the (severely angled) grip section of the plastic stock was not proper for the amount of recoil applied by that caliber/weight combination of rifle. Proper stock design and materials are well-known and fully accepted by the courts.
Once it was shown through testimony the locking assembly on the rifle was not proper for the cartridge and could cause the gun to unlock itself and eject the case, then reclose when it fell, AND the cheap plastic stock was likely to break from recoil from normal use, the further facts of sloppy headspacing and the tested stretching of the headspace dimension in as few as five rounds just showed more exacerbating circumstances due to faulty designs in more than one place. The jury saw the gun was defective in design and materials and awarded the majority of the verdict to the plaintiffs. They retained part of the award because the handload was an unknown that the company contended could have been causation. (Common in civil courts in states where 'proportional liability' is the law.)
MY OPINION concurs with the plaintiff's expert: He believes as do I the TC Encore is not designed correctly for the calibers they call on it to hold. The weird stock was just stupid. Economy was chosen over shooter's safety......by design. Ignorance of basic firearms design history played a major roll, unless they knowingly gambled and lost.
All it takes to accept that opinion is to look at similar rifles (and shotguns) and how they were made: Locking blocks are to the rear of the locking notch(es). Recoil makes them lock up tighter, not loosens that most important connection. It has been that way since Manton invented the double underlock in about 1873. Purdey's made it famous and just about everybody on the planet has copied it since then. The greater back-thrust pressure of rifle cartridges usually made a 'third fastener' of some kind above the pivot point very common but not universal. (Browning Superposed, rifles)
Examine a heavy recoiling double rifle and see the metal tang extension all the way to the top of the stock comb and the trigger guard goes to the steel grip cap and is firmly attached there as re-inforcement to a (fine Circassian) walnut butt stock that has a shear strength higher than the plastics used on the TC rifle. Pictured is such a tang done on a .404 bolt gun by Steve Heilmann. The inertia of the shooter means the gun recoils before the stock unless they're well connected and in a straight line. That means the same plastic used for AR platform stocks is likely to be too weak in shear strength to be used in 'crooked' stocks. AR stocks are strong in compression which doesn't count in the TC 'drop stocks'.
Consider also the safety factors that should be brought in because TC knows how shooters are. (Don't we all.) Just because the TC-E "will hold" a .300 Mag does not mean it will still hold one with excess resizing lube left on it, or an oversized flashhole, or a weld-crimped bullet or a round grabbed off the dashboard with hot and degraded powder. (don't ask me how I know THAT one!)
Hopefully this enlightens this group to the 'behind the scenes' take on what was a 'grenade of good intentions' without enough technical information to support it.”
Let's see: most of his current income comes from being a hired "expert" witness to testify against firearms companies. Prior that, he was a gunsmith in ID that seems to have taken more than a few customers for a ride, even though the work he did produce was very well regarded. Then there's an issue about his online "health issues" that resulted in folks sending money in to help (damn, if that doesn't sound familiar), etc.
I was done, but Jack posted this and I thought it was important.
Jack is promoting Jack.
One of the basic techniques Snopes and others use to judge veracity in a case like this is to examine the motivation of the "expert," specifically whether they stand to gain anything via their testimony or in this case, commentary.
Asking Jack Belk (who makes money writing about unsafe gun designs) whether a gun design is unsafe is the same as asking a barber if you need a haircut.
I'm guessing you've been walking around bald most of your life.
![[Linked Image]](http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/luv2safari/popcorngazelle_zps13571400.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://i.imgur.com/TBX8ZiW.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i.imgur.com/bOWXt6D.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i.imgur.com/v0eyduc.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i.imgur.com/8A7P3D7.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.tcarms.com/images/uploads/content/series-family/interchangeable/encore_product_prohuntershotgun.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1243.photobucket.com/user/elkhunterinnm/media/Mobile%20Uploads/blah-blah_1995.gif.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/661/sJHW55.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/905/vgzyQy.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/540/2P2qjV.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/538/kTYXBH.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/909/cIz0Fu.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/911/y3CLmy.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i.imgur.com/3bpNqvS.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.nationalgunforum.com/attachments/general-gun-discussion/14059d1432357215-embrace-truth-catastrophic-gun-failure-p1010020.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://forums.bowsite.com/TF/pics/00small66051010.JPG)
![[Linked Image]](http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r155/taylorce1/Mobile%20Uploads/1432828875.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b297/Shoalcove/Savage/Part2.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/jorgeIg/318WC.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g172/spirithawkarts/MVC-039S-3.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://blogs.helsinki.fi/esn-hyy/files/2012/04/wine-and-cheese.jpg)