Ed Ames
Member
OK, this at least is a failure theory, and a warning people can act on.
I don't happen to have an encore in front of me so can't comment on how plausible the theory may be, but thank you for posting that.
Embrace The Truth - Catastrophic Gun Failure
- Thread starter Brian Ward
- Start date
- Status
OK, this at least is a failure theory, and a warning people can act on.
I don't happen to have an encore in front of me so can't comment on how plausible the theory may be, but thank you for posting that.
Kristensdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 124
But what is the truth. You have blamed the gun mfr but you have not described in detail the fault in the firearm. From the photos you produced, we cannot see a fault in the firearm either. Is the broken stock the fault? How does the chamber have any relationship to the broken stock? Did the scope hit you in the eye or did the gun explode (not as evidenced by photos) and you get metal/plastic in the eye.
Please explain you injuries and how they were caused by a defect in the gun.
I shoot T/C encore I 4 calibers. I would like to know if I have a problem.
Please explain you injuries and how they were caused by a defect in the gun.
I shoot T/C encore I 4 calibers. I would like to know if I have a problem.
xxjumbojimboxx
Member
Ok, I understand the malfunction now. I had no clue a stock could just snap under those circumstances. To me you would think you would have lost your shoulder and cheek welds, and it would have just recoiled with the rest of the gun.) Any change the stock wasnt on tight? Also, To get a better idea, were you scoped? Meaning the scope violently recoiled into your eye hole?
Has this had any effect on your willingness to shoot a firearm? What I mean is, has it scared you off from shooting anymore?
I know if it had been me, being that I'm a revolver guy, a small portion of that settlement cash would have gone right back to them in the form of purchasing a new revolver
Has this had any effect on your willingness to shoot a firearm? What I mean is, has it scared you off from shooting anymore?
I know if it had been me, being that I'm a revolver guy, a small portion of that settlement cash would have gone right back to them in the form of purchasing a new revolver
Brian Ward
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2015
- Messages
- 34
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 PLEASE 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 when he sees the rifle is out of spec.
Brian Ward
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2015
- Messages
- 34
You know funny thing…… out of complete coincidence they changed the stock after my accident.Ok, I understand the malfunction now. I had no clue a stock could just snap under those circumstances. To me you would think you would have lost your shoulder and cheek welds, and it would have just recoiled with the rest of the gun.) Any change the stock wasnt on tight? Also, To get a better idea, were you scoped? Meaning the scope violently recoiled into your eye hole?
Has this had any effect on your willingness to shoot a firearm? What I mean is, has it scared you off from shooting anymore?
I know if it had been me, being that I'm a revolver guy, a small portion of that settlement cash would have gone right back to them in the form of purchasing a new revolver
Brian Ward
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2015
- Messages
- 34
I don’t shoot much anymore. I took two years completely off. I have this strange aversion the putting a gun stock up to my face now. I shoot a bow and arrow a ton though….Ok, I understand the malfunction now. I had no clue a stock could just snap under those circumstances. To me you would think you would have lost your shoulder and cheek welds, and it would have just recoiled with the rest of the gun.) Any change the stock wasnt on tight? Also, To get a better idea, were you scoped? Meaning the scope violently recoiled into your eye hole?
Has this had any effect on your willingness to shoot a firearm? What I mean is, has it scared you off from shooting anymore?
I know if it had been me, being that I'm a revolver guy, a small portion of that settlement cash would have gone right back to them in the form of purchasing a new revolver
danez71
Member
No you don't. This guy doesn't own anyone here jack squat.
He proved in court a defect. He is saying that head space should be checked.
People need to check it or move on.
I say bleach is harmful if swallowed. I say people should take caution. I don't need to prove it. It's been proven in court.
He doesn't need to convince anyone of anything. He spent the last 10 yrs in court doing just that and people here won't take 10 minutes and try to think for themselves.
Thanks OP. If I had one, I'd take a some time and figure out if it effects me because that's my responsibility; not yours.
Just to make sure I understand. Recoil caused the break action to open. The rear of the receiver hit your face and the leverage of the action being opened combined with recoil broke the stock.
If I'm understanding this it sure sounds like a gun failure to me. If I'm misunderstanding correct me.
If I'm understanding this it sure sounds like a gun failure to me. If I'm misunderstanding correct me.
You are correct. However, if he wants people to take him seriously then describing the facts of the case is important.
I see someone slandering a company before the next round of appeals while he is free to discuss the case in public. You can believe what you like, I'm done.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"I'm embarrassed how quickly our "high road" members are to jump on this guy and hang him out to dry"
Phrases like 'design flaw' mean specific things, which have not been forthcoming. If the OP is not qualified to describe the flaw, he should not call it that, but unstead a generic 'failure.' So far we know headspace was possibly off, and ammo was handloaded. We have not been given the amount headspace was out of spec on the other guns (it had better not be .003 or something, or I'll be posting some seriously nasty things about the OP's assertions of mortal danger), informative pictures of the gun, or even his supposed load data.
What are we supposed to do when presented with claims a popular gun is highly dangerous? Take his claims without scrutiny? A few years back a fellow blew his hand off when a five-seven pistol exploded. He claimed it to be a design flaw, but it was determined reloaded ammo was used, and the out of battery ignition claimed physically impossible. FNH duplicated the failure with a doublecharge of the asserted load, but replaced the pistol nonetheless. Even vindicated, the incident is still brought up as an example of 'design flaw' danger and continues to harm the pistols reputation. The OP is up front that his intent is to harm the positive reputation of the Encore with his experience as a public service; let him present his case fully (he should be good at it by now)
TCB
Phrases like 'design flaw' mean specific things, which have not been forthcoming. If the OP is not qualified to describe the flaw, he should not call it that, but unstead a generic 'failure.' So far we know headspace was possibly off, and ammo was handloaded. We have not been given the amount headspace was out of spec on the other guns (it had better not be .003 or something, or I'll be posting some seriously nasty things about the OP's assertions of mortal danger), informative pictures of the gun, or even his supposed load data.
What are we supposed to do when presented with claims a popular gun is highly dangerous? Take his claims without scrutiny? A few years back a fellow blew his hand off when a five-seven pistol exploded. He claimed it to be a design flaw, but it was determined reloaded ammo was used, and the out of battery ignition claimed physically impossible. FNH duplicated the failure with a doublecharge of the asserted load, but replaced the pistol nonetheless. Even vindicated, the incident is still brought up as an example of 'design flaw' danger and continues to harm the pistols reputation. The OP is up front that his intent is to harm the positive reputation of the Encore with his experience as a public service; let him present his case fully (he should be good at it by now)
TCB
1) The head space issue didn't come up until several people asked him about the defect.
I'm sure you've been around THR long enough to know that this thread wouldn't last very long without some information about the defect.
2) Winning a Civil Case is absolutely in NO WAY definitive proof of anything.
I want to express my sympathy for both your injury as well as the ordeal you have experienced in seeking equity.
I take your post in the spirit in which it was intended, i.e., a PSA to inform others of a potentially dangerous firearm and the precaution one should take if owning the model.
Thanks.
I take your post in the spirit in which it was intended, i.e., a PSA to inform others of a potentially dangerous firearm and the precaution one should take if owning the model.
Thanks.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"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."
1) Loose headspace can theoretically spike pressures or cause case rupture, but bad handloads do as well, so we need numbers
2) It sounds as though T/Cs design failed secondarily after the primary failure mode (case failure leading to stock failure). That is starting to be a reach as far as design expectations, since primary failure modes are the typical extent of full design responsibility. If your sudden rifle failure caused you to fall and hurt your elbow, that is a tertiary effect even further removed.
3) It seems like gas handling is the issue here, something that no break action is particularly well suited to (so hot rodding is a somewhat risky hobby in T/Cs, with bad consequences)
TCB
1) Loose headspace can theoretically spike pressures or cause case rupture, but bad handloads do as well, so we need numbers
2) It sounds as though T/Cs design failed secondarily after the primary failure mode (case failure leading to stock failure). That is starting to be a reach as far as design expectations, since primary failure modes are the typical extent of full design responsibility. If your sudden rifle failure caused you to fall and hurt your elbow, that is a tertiary effect even further removed.
3) It seems like gas handling is the issue here, something that no break action is particularly well suited to (so hot rodding is a somewhat risky hobby in T/Cs, with bad consequences)
TCB
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Okay, someone is going to have to walk me through this, because I don't see how the sequence works.
1) Excessive head space allows gas flow to bypass the case and act on the plunger? Are we talking gas flowing around the case like a fluted chamber or gas blowing out the back of the primer? Because if it's blowing around from the front of the case, the case should seal up the chamber walls. If it's blowing out the primer, just how out of head space is it?... and shouldn't that have been detected when you loaded the gun?
2) The gas activating the plunger allows the gun to unlock and open? Wait, hang on. You hand one hand on the pistol grip and one hand on the fore end right? How is the action swinging open in the brief fraction of a second there is enough gas pressure to hold the plunger in the unlocked position? Even with the action unlocked, the position of your hands should have kept the chamber close. Even without a hand on the fore end, gravity is only going to open it a tiny fraction in the time the gas pressure is up. And even then, the recoil impulse is still straight to the rear.
In fact, doing a little bit of internet searching, apparently TC actions unlocking when fired is an annoying but not inherently dangerous known issue:
http://www.lasc.us/BellmFiresFliesOpen.htm
3) Still can't internalize how enough force was imparted in any direction other than straight to the rear to break the stock.
So, that puts us right back in the land of this feeling like we aren't being told the whole story... again.
1) Excessive head space allows gas flow to bypass the case and act on the plunger? Are we talking gas flowing around the case like a fluted chamber or gas blowing out the back of the primer? Because if it's blowing around from the front of the case, the case should seal up the chamber walls. If it's blowing out the primer, just how out of head space is it?... and shouldn't that have been detected when you loaded the gun?
2) The gas activating the plunger allows the gun to unlock and open? Wait, hang on. You hand one hand on the pistol grip and one hand on the fore end right? How is the action swinging open in the brief fraction of a second there is enough gas pressure to hold the plunger in the unlocked position? Even with the action unlocked, the position of your hands should have kept the chamber close. Even without a hand on the fore end, gravity is only going to open it a tiny fraction in the time the gas pressure is up. And even then, the recoil impulse is still straight to the rear.
In fact, doing a little bit of internet searching, apparently TC actions unlocking when fired is an annoying but not inherently dangerous known issue:
http://www.lasc.us/BellmFiresFliesOpen.htm
3) Still can't internalize how enough force was imparted in any direction other than straight to the rear to break the stock.
So, that puts us right back in the land of this feeling like we aren't being told the whole story... again.
danez71
Member
Look up the word slander. He has done no such thing.
He has stated it was defective. That was proven in court.
Don't get me wrong. There's bad court decisions every day.
That's why people should take a little bit of time out of their live and take some responsibility for them selves and see if it applies to them.
Its NOT the OPS job to hand hold everyone and teach and prove to everyone the how's and whys of wiping our own butts.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
reloads, hand loaded ....
In my view, if you elect to fire any reloads or hand-loaded ammunition you must take some responsibility or accountability if the firearm breaks or misfires.
Gun companies and gunsmiths state they can not be liable for reloads or certain types of ammunition for these reasons.
If you say: hey, so what or why bother reading the owner's manual, then you can not cry foul or sue a gun maker/manufacturer if you load-fire hand loads that might not be approved-allowed by the gun company.
The longer this topic rolls on, the more "story" gets pulled out.
In my view, if you elect to fire any reloads or hand-loaded ammunition you must take some responsibility or accountability if the firearm breaks or misfires.
Gun companies and gunsmiths state they can not be liable for reloads or certain types of ammunition for these reasons.
If you say: hey, so what or why bother reading the owner's manual, then you can not cry foul or sue a gun maker/manufacturer if you load-fire hand loads that might not be approved-allowed by the gun company.
The longer this topic rolls on, the more "story" gets pulled out.
Nathan Detroit
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 92
Brian,
I sympathize with your plight I am sorry to hear that you were so seriously injured, but I think the request for details is not out of line. It is difficult for folks to understand what went wrong. No one here wants to go through 1000s of pages of court documents to sift out the facts. You could summarize them for us in just a few sentences.
How old was the gun at the time of the accident? How many rounds had you put through it. We only know that it was a .300 Win Mag. What was the load at the time of the accident? How excessive was the headspace after the accident, assuming that the receiver and barrel still fit together? If it was just a few thousandths of an inch, it is hard to image that that would cause a catastrophic failure. How much excess headspace did you find on the guns you bought for the trial?
What was the failure mechanism as determined by you, your attorney and your experts? As was suggested earlier, did the gun just unlock and hit you in the face with the barrel breech? Did the case eject at high speed and hit you in the eye? Did the case rupture and hit you in the eye with pieces of the debris? Was there any other injury to your face?
As I remember the history of the Encore, the lateral buttressing was added to prevent the frame from stretching which would cause the headspace to increase. If that is the case, the original Contender should have been a real problem.
Do the summary one time and you can provide it to all of the sites that you have to deal with.
Detroit
I sympathize with your plight I am sorry to hear that you were so seriously injured, but I think the request for details is not out of line. It is difficult for folks to understand what went wrong. No one here wants to go through 1000s of pages of court documents to sift out the facts. You could summarize them for us in just a few sentences.
How old was the gun at the time of the accident? How many rounds had you put through it. We only know that it was a .300 Win Mag. What was the load at the time of the accident? How excessive was the headspace after the accident, assuming that the receiver and barrel still fit together? If it was just a few thousandths of an inch, it is hard to image that that would cause a catastrophic failure. How much excess headspace did you find on the guns you bought for the trial?
What was the failure mechanism as determined by you, your attorney and your experts? As was suggested earlier, did the gun just unlock and hit you in the face with the barrel breech? Did the case eject at high speed and hit you in the eye? Did the case rupture and hit you in the eye with pieces of the debris? Was there any other injury to your face?
As I remember the history of the Encore, the lateral buttressing was added to prevent the frame from stretching which would cause the headspace to increase. If that is the case, the original Contender should have been a real problem.
Do the summary one time and you can provide it to all of the sites that you have to deal with.
Detroit
ClickClickD'oh
Member
danez71 said:
All that was proven in court is that a lawyer could get 12 people, who probably had no knowledge about firearms, to agree to something.
That doesn't prove anything was wrong with the gun.
danez71 said:
Well, if he is going to come in screaming "DANGER WILL ROBINSON", he should at least give us a plausible explanation of what's wrong... or you get what you have here.
I for one don't believe that gas bypass opened the chamber and let the devil out, or what ever it is that caused the stock to break and what ever else it is that's alleged to have happened.
There is something more to this story that isn't being told, and frankly before I blink at buying or using a TC, I'd like to know the full story.
Ed Ames
Member
So let's take that on face value. Just like original Ruger single action revolvers were defective, the encore is defective. What value is that warning, as given? What would be the value of a court documents that layed out the amounts of a judgment but no facts of the case, especially if the amounts of the judgment were blotted out so we can't tell if the court thought this was a minor or major issue?
I think warning that original ruger single actions were, by court decision, defective, without pointing out that the issue is that they could fire if the hammer was lowered on a live round (a trait they share in common with many firearms, including guns sold new today), is not a worthy warning. I think if you are going to claim a defect and tell people to be careful, you should from message one say what the defect is. OP didn't.
The OP didn't provide enough information to do so. The court documents, and paragraphs of text, didn't have the necessary details. It was only when he was presed that he revealed anything meaningful, and that seemed reluctant.
Actually, I recall the OP saying that he considered warning people about this "defect" to be his "unpaid second job."
danez71
Member
Reread the part that I said courts make bad decisions everyday. But the fact is, in the real world, what the court rules matters and what you believe is irrelevent.
He has provided some explanation. People are apparently not reading.
Whether you believe it or not really doesn't matter to anyone but youself. You haven't provided a thing to show how his explanation might not be valid. At least he's pointed to the docs.
fireman 9731
Member
I have had a 45-70 H&R Buffalo Classic open up with heavy loads. I figured it was just the recoil moving the breakdown lever. No harm done though.
danez71
Member
If it's dismissed out of hand... it's of no value.
If someone takes a little bit of time out of their lives and looks into it.... potentially you could save your eyesight or life.
I see enough potential value that IF I had one I would look into the issue deeper.
I'm not so jaded or big headed to just ignore the post because what he wrote wasnt written in my preferred style. Or worse, question the OPS integrity particularly when he has nothing to gain.
sirgilligan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2010
- Messages
- 895
Welcome to the court of public opinion. May everyone be found guilty and hanged at the nearest tree.
I thank the OP for sharing. If I had such a firearm, I would contact the manufacturer and ask them if there is anything I should be concerned about. After they answered I would then say, "Even after the court case?" I would ask for their assurance in writing. If they didn't baulk I would have the firearm checked and if it was looking good I would then consider it safe.
It is up to the owners to decide what they are willing to do. Not all of us that don't own one.
Thank you again.
I thank the OP for sharing. If I had such a firearm, I would contact the manufacturer and ask them if there is anything I should be concerned about. After they answered I would then say, "Even after the court case?" I would ask for their assurance in writing. If they didn't baulk I would have the firearm checked and if it was looking good I would then consider it safe.
It is up to the owners to decide what they are willing to do. Not all of us that don't own one.
Thank you again.
Brian Ward
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2015
- Messages
- 34
Nathan,
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.
The gun was a few years old.
Number of rounds 100-300 mostly factory rounds.
The load on my hunt when the gun failed was- Remington brass - 215 primers - 180g Nosler accubond – H-1000 83g if memory serves…… I would need to confirm with my gunsmith /expert. I loaded those cases over 10 years ago, and the trial was over 2 years ago. They have been just bickering over attorney fees.
The gun still fits together quite well. The headspace on the gun is another question from the gunsmith /expert. I don’t remember…..But 5 thousands sounds right….
- Status
Similar threads
