Embrace The Truth - Catastrophic Gun Failure

So handloads blew up a gun?

Click to expand...

Well, we can't say that. The round that went off when the gun blew up isn't present to test.

No the gun design defect caused the gun to fail.

Click to expand...

And I don't think we can really say THAT, either. Not with anything like conviction.

We do know:
1) The gun blew up.
2) Handloads were used.
3) Some similar rifles were tested and found to have excessive headspace.
4) The jury agreed that the destroyed rifle might have also had excessive headspace.
5) The jury agreed that excessive headspace could cause a gun to blow up, using reasonably good ammo.
6) The jury decided that the fault for this was almost equally shared between the manufacturer and the plaintiff.
7) The manufacturer (defendant) feels they have more info to bring to light and are willing to gamble another set of lawyers' fees on getting this overturned.

We can't see that pic either.

Go to "manage attachments" and you should be able to upload the picture to this thread.

That picture shows a failed butt stock. It looks like the action is locked up as normal and the gun would be safe to fire. Is there anything wrong with the firearm part of the gun in that picture?

If yes, can you post a picture that shows the damage?

eating our own?

I'm embarrassed how quickly our "high road" members are to jump on this guy and hang him out to dry. His stated purpose is a "public service announcements" and I'm willing to accept that at face value, and not insist that he litigate his case in an internet forum.

Did anyone bother to actually read the thread... they had sworn statements from an engineer at Thompson who said that this was a known problem. Just because Thompson's lawyers were able to deny the jury access to those statements based on a date technicality does not negate them.

I don't personally understand how an out of tolerance head space can cause a Kaboom!

But I'd wager that technical experts on both sides of the argument presented evidence, and it appears that an impartial jury heard that testimony and found that the head space issue was a cause.

Ed Ames said:

That picture shows a failed butt stock. It looks like the action is locked up as normal and the gun would be safe to fire. Is there anything wrong with the firearm part of the gun in that picture?

If yes, can you post a picture that shows the damage?

Click to expand...

Im in the same boat as far as that question.

SSN Vet said:

I'm embarrassed how quickly our "high road" members are to jump on this guy and hang him out to dry. His stated purpose is a "public service announcements" and I'm willing to accept that at face value, and not insist that he litigate his case in an internet forum.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of that comes from the fact that he is being vague and evasive. E. g. Sam asked, "What was the exact mechanism of failure that you were able to show caused the damage?" and Ward answered. "Yes."

He is alleging a defect, and says he wants to protect us from it, but he won't say what it is. That doesn't sit well.

I'll join in with the others desiring technical details of the defect, and any other circumstances surrounding that defect (specific ammunition utilized, etc.). That's information that should be shared if safety concerns are the point of this thread.

Brian Ward said:

They requested a new trial yesterday. Crazy!

Click to expand...

Maybe not "crazy" since the OP has gone on a posting binge on every conceivable forum. Every action creates a reaction.

Looks like an extreme case of scope-eye was the injury? Why does hunting prevent wearing safety glasses? Was the lack of eye protection why the jury placed 40% of the fault on the part of the plantiff?

This thread is sad exampale of the great lengths people will go through in order to keep themselves from knolwedge and continue to only believe what they want to believe.

Normally people want court docs or news article as some sort proof.

The guy has provided court documents and people are still attacking him.

Finding both parties at partial fault is very common. Happens everyday. RARELY is someone completely innocent. For example, having a burned out break light doesn't cause some one to rear end you but may have contributed.

Not wearing safety glasses didn't cause the kaboom. But it contributed to losing sight in the eye.

He properly used the legal system and proved that the gun was defective.

If people here don't like the outcome... go complain to the judge and jury.


The post about calling S&W and TC is pretty cheesy in a bad way. The Court docs are public record and basically he is referring back to those docs. In essence that poster is trying to hurt the OP poster that's only trying to bring awareness of the court case and it's outcome.

This thread is full of Wow in a non flattering way.

ETA: I'm in complete agreement wit SSNvet.

So excessive headspace caused the buttstock to break, but left the fore-end intact?

I'm glad that the system seems to have worked (eventually ) for this guy. And as a reloaded myself, I do 't automatically assume that no one else can successfully make a cartridge. That said, as a shooter, this is a very frustrating thread.

Headspace grew? Or was bad from the factory? What is the actual design defect? Bad breech design? Bad hinge? What causes the head space to grow? What is that picture showing? Did the head space cause a case rupture that somehow vented into the stock? Would a gas vent be in order? My .50 Has one just in case of a case rupture.

This is mostly a technical firearms forum, and with a story like this technical details are a huge part of the story, and they are frustratingly absent here.

Out of curiosity, has T/C taken any public action based upon this case (e.g., a recall, a notice, etc.)? If so, a link would be of interest. Thanks.

danez71 said:

This thread is sad exampale of the great lengths people will go through in order to keep themselves from knolwedge and continue to only believe what they want to believe.

Normally people want court docs or news article as some sort proof.

The guy has provided court documents and people are still attacking him.

Click to expand...

Whether or not a Judgment went in his favor is utterly superfluous. This is a gun message board. People are asking for details about the actual failure and supposed defect of the gun. Details of the outcome of the case, the amount of money awarded, how the jury voted etc. etc. etc. are absolutely irrelevant.

The subject of this thread, should be what actually went wrong with the gun, why it went wrong. Will it go wrong again, will it be fixed.

I feel sorry for the OP, I really do. I can't imagine going blind in either of my eyes. I understand that after keeping it bottled up for so long, that posting about it is probably a cathartic experience.

But, if this is truly a public service announcement about a possible defect in the Thompson Center Venture, we need details about that defect.

Headspace grew?

Click to expand...

Headspace always grows. On an AR-15, headspace will grow .003-005" over 10,000 rounds.

In a rifle the typical issues with excessive headspace are flattened primers, poor ignition, poor accuracy, variable velocity, and case head separations. None of these things result in a broken stock.

The only thing I see here is that the plaintiffs lawyer was better than T/C -S&W. The guy claims catastrophic gun failure. He doesn't claim Kaboom. I'm surmising that his claim was that somehow, excessive headspace caused excessive recoil, thereby breaking the stock and allowing the scope to gouge out his right eye. Looks more like a bunch of red-herrings to hoodwink a jury to me.

I speculate that he shot the gun out of a tree stand and he didn't account for the recoil or necessary eye relief for a 300 magnum. The stock probably broke when he dropped the gun.

Handloads, intentionally obstructing the barrel with tape may cause a kaboom but the photo evidence provided by the plaintiff easily shows that a kaboom was not the issue.

No way I award him anything if I was on that jury.

I think T/C - S&W will have that verdict set aside if any real facts are produced in an appeal.

Brian Ward said:

"The fact that you are not willing to tell us what the jury found you responsible for causes me to questions your stated goal"

JSH1,
What is your specific question? I will answer it to the best of my ability. I’m talking to tons of different people right now.

Click to expand...

I asked a specific question, the same one that multiple people asked and you will not answer. What did you do that the jury assigned 40% of the fault on you?

Ed Ames said:

I think a lot of that comes from the fact that he is being vague and evasive. E. g. Sam asked, "What was the exact mechanism of failure that you were able to show caused the damage?" and Ward answered. "Yes."

He is alleging a defect, and says he wants to protect us from it, but he won't say what it is. That doesn't sit well.

Click to expand...

Yup. People question a person's motive when that person claims they are trying to raise awareness about a dangerous defect but won't tell us what that defect is.

Okay, I saw your attached document.

It almost entirely deals with the fact that you won, and that you won XXX amount for various things, with the amounts blacked out.

It seems to me that if you were really here to WARN OTHERS about this, you'd post the content that deals with the exact nature of the defect.

You don't do that. This makes me suspicious your intentions are not the intentions you state you have.

If I were you from now on when you bring this up I'd do it as follows: (I am using I below to represent YOU using I)

#1 I had a Thompson Encore in 300 winmag blow up and seriously injure me including blinding me in one eye. I felt that TC's gun was to blame, specifically that the headspace was off, that the factory couldn't keep tolerances enough and unsafe guns were leaving the factory, plus the materials or design was such that firing potent cartridges would move the gun out of spec to the degree it quickly became unsafe.

#2 The jury agreed with me, but because I had used hand-loads TC was able to convince the jury that it might be partly my fault. I think my handloads were (absolutely safe and mild/ possibly a bit on the hot side but still reasonable/ an accidental overcharge but a good gun design should have held, whatever) Jury found 60% TC's fault, 40% my fault. I disagree, but with all of TC's legal power compared to my own I think that getting an admission of 60% TC's fault is a telling victory. I think people using factory ammo could have the same kind of disaster, so I am here to give you the facts. Another part of the reason the jury assigned 40% of the blame to me is I wasn't wearing eye protection. I was hunting, and chose to NOT wear eye protection, which I believe to be a reasonable and common decision. I now would recommend you at least consider wearing eye pro when hunting, both to protect yourself physically and legally!

#3 Here are the MECHANICAL and other factual claims I made about the defect <insert key points and summaries>

#5 after applying the 60%/40% forumla I won approximately (500K, or whatever) and of that 200K (or whatever)went to the lawyer, too much went to medical bills, but in the end this wasn't about the money, it was about getting the word out there that this product was flawed.

Come out with an opening statement like that and you'd get a lot less heat.

Let me say first and foremost, I did NOT work this case and know no details of it. However, after 22 years of testifying in multiple firearms cases I wrote a descriptive book of some of those cases and findings.
Until you know the facts, which is the gun companies have USED the Second Amendment against us, you really don't have a basis for judgement. Abuse of the system has a 68 year old history that is mostly secret.

I wont post a link but it's findable at Amazon and Kindle and at least one site has it totally for free.

"Unsafe by Design-Forensic Gunsmithing and Firearms Accident Investigations"