Another opinion on the T/C Arms Encore Gun Failure

[Brian Ward]

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

Link to the original post: http://www.shootersforum.com/general-discussion/98824-embrace-truth-catastrophic-gun-failure.html

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.”

 

[danez71]

Thanks for posting the detail.

Hopefully this can stay on topic rather than poster.

I just received his book. I havent started reading yet but the glance review seems like if nothing else I'll learn a thing or two about gun designs - something I've been getting more curious about.

 

[dogmush]

Interesting.

I looked at the Encore pistol's parts diagram. Here

Indeed, the locking bolt 1014 is mounted in the barrel, and is held rearward (locked) by a spring. So in a recoil event I can see the inertia of the bolt holding it still while the gun moved backwards around it, causing the gun to unlock. Kinda a very bad variation of the recoil pulling bullets in big bore revolvers. I only have two break open fire arms, but I will be looking at them when I get home to see if this design is normal, or unique to T/C.

I'm not SURE i'd call it a defect, as without the information on spring rates and bolt mass (and recoil energy and a bunch of other stuff) I can't say that they didn't address it. But I wonder how much of a safety margin is there.

Also this info adds quite a bit to the mental picture of what the OP claims happened.

 

[Garrobo]

I think

I'll stick with rifles of a proven design and history of safe operation.

 

[dogmush]

I'll stick with rifles of a proven design and history of safe operation.

To be fair, the Encore has been out for almost 40 years, and it's not like they blow up all the time.

This may be something that needs to be spread around (Don't hot rod heavy cartridges, it'll unlock) or not. Hard to tell. Even if it is, it's not like that's the only gun design that has some restrictions on it.

It's like loading 6 rounds in a SAA, or leading in Glock barrels, or heavy bullets in a PSL, or modern hot .30-06 in a Garand........you get the idea.

But first we still need to figure out what went on, and how likely it is to affect other guns.

I will say, still not seeing how enlarged headspace does this.

 

[sequins]

Thank you for this post Brian, and my condolences for the eye.

 

[Miked7762]

A single sentence summary of this would have prevented the grief you received on this board as well as the many others you posted on. The missing cartridge case - the supposed first red flag - was never mentioned before.

However, this new information doesn't agree with what you've posted previously.

In your first thread you claimed excessive headspace allowed combustion gases to leak and act upon the locking plunger directly, causing it to open. This new information states that recoil alone from heavy recoiling cartridges allows inertia to overcome the locking plunger during recoil.

You also previously stated the stock broke due to bending caused by the action blowing open during recoil. The new information states the stock is likely to break in normal use.

These are not minor discrepancies. If you want people to know what the alleged defect is and what can happen, it's important to actually identify the defect. I'm not trying to start a new dogpile here, but I'm still no more inclined to believe anything is wrong than I was before. This new information seems more along the lines of "See, someone agrees with me, I was right!" than anything else, especially given the conflicting information on what the defect actually is.

 

[jmr40]

The problem is identifying exactly what caused the incident. When things like this happen it is rarely one single failure, but a series of failures that have to all happen at the same time. Unless it is reproduced in a controlled test there will be confusion and different theories as to exactly what happened.

Reading over the many posts and links provided here and on other forums I have no doubt that "something" didn't work properly resulting in a failure that led to injuries. Exactly what happened may be difficult to determine. Improper headspace along with other minor issues probably all contributed. If any one had not happened the incident probably wouldn't have happened.

To be honest the OP didn't do a good job of communicating at first. But that doesn't mean he was not in the right. The judgement concluded that the shooter was 40% responsible and TC was 60% responsible IIRC from previous postings. Seems like a reasonable compromise based on what I've learned of the incident

I don't know what the laws are in the OP' state, but here and I'd think in most places this means the OP was probably awarded 60% of what ever amount the jury decided was a fair settlement.

 

[Jim Watson]

I'd like to see it replicated under observation... without somebody's head behind it.

 

[Davek1977]

I'd like to see it replicated under observation... without somebody's head behind it.

Exactly, if the flaw is truly a mechanical design failure, the incident should be able to be replicated in a more controlled environment, which would result in a far better understanding of what happened, rather then base it in on conjecture or theory.

 

[Brian Ward]

Everyone has their opinion, Mr. Belk gave you his.

The case missing was never a new revelation. It was always a known fact and was freely divulged to T/C Arms, jury etc….

 

[JohnBT]

Interesting. Thanks.

I didn't know Mr. Belk had a book out. Thanks again.

John

 

[sequins]

Who should pay for this laboratpry testing? Testing this would take probably 2-3 years and well over a million dollars. We would need to cause the failure in question repeatedly and reproduceably, perhaps hundreds if not thousands of tc encores would need to be purchased and abused and we'd need special equipment to safely fire them... we can't use computer models either, because what if the flaw is metallurgical? How could we ensure our test rigs used the same steel, even, as the article in question to find that out if it were true. If the flaw was a manufacturing defect since rectified it might never be reproduced.

Speculation is probably the only economical way to figure it out.

 

[barnbwt]

"I would like to bring it to the court's attention that opposing council has been withholding evidence; namely, a spent brass casing." (paraphrased from Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law character Peanut imitating a TV lawyer)

In all seriousness, the utter absence of literally the most pertinent evidence in this case is beyond suspicious. Especially in light of the OP/expert's muddled reasoning for the failure (the OP doesn't seem to be the expert, but the explanations offered in this and the last thread seem contradictory to impossible). Even more so considering the apparent dismissive attitude the OP had for this most critical supporting element for both the plaintiff and defense arguments (how exactly, was this not an issue for the judge, btw? If I were the judge, I'd have ordered a search in the area of the accident for the spent casing, but I suspect that never happened...)

I can't help but wonder if that casing went home with Mr. Expert Gun Guy or Ambulance Chaser Lawyer at the end of the day. It's not the OP's fault for wanting to be made whole in light of a severe injury, that's just human nature. But it looks more and more like his quest for restitution may have been fulfilled by shysters motivated by fees bilked from a corporation that was not actually liable for the injury.

If excess headspace 'allowed gas to act on the locking plunger,' as alleged in the first threat (paraphrased) it could only be through a case head rupture or separation. The majority of the case body would have been glued up inside the chamber for all to see and recoil in horror at. The remainder would be partially located inside our unfortunate OP and detected by magnetic or Xray inspection (I do truly hope the OP got checked out thoroughly at the hospital and received proper attention and care to promote the best recovery).

If recoil caused 'the forward sliding locking plunger to shift out of latch' as alleged in this thread, now, I am afraid I have to object as an engineer. Whatever recoil loads on the small plunger piece are, they are several orders of magnitude lower than the loads applied by the action trying to blow itself apart. The pressure between barrel and breech tries to force the gun open, and this force is resisted by shearing the locking plunger. This shear force is likely in the thousands of pounds; even with polished, oiled parts, more than enough friction to resist sliding forward under the relatively tiny loads from inertia under recoil.

That is, of course, unless the gun was dangerously ill-maintained and this plunger was either worn down beyond its travel or at an angle to its mating surfaces. In such case the pressure of the firing cartridge shearing the angled plunger will eventually overcome the friction holding it in place if the angle is steep enough. I don't think you'd find a whole lot of liability with T/C if you were shooting a gun so loose and damaged the barrel was flopping up and down as you brought it on target.

In any case, if the action opened under recoil somehow, the case would most likely have appeared normal, as pressures would drop to ambient before that pin could move freely enough to shift. The spent brass would have been instrumental in proving that your handloads showed no signs of excessive pressure, and that the fault must therefore lie with the firearm.

If the stock simply broke under the force of recoil, the action would likely be closed, or perhaps partially opened due to the user's finger impacting the break lever/trigger guard. Again, the primer and brass casing would show no signs of pressure if the ammo were not at fault.

If you remove your car engine's RPM governor then miss a downshift at 100mph and float your valves, the manufacturers will not be at fault. Even if the engine damage causes you to crash into a wall because the power steering/brakes failed. That's effectively what we have determined happened here; the user pushed the gun beyond its design capabilities (standard-spec ammo maximums for which it was chambered) causing it to fail, and was injured by subsequent effects of said failure.

Just be happy your lawyer did right by you in getting a jury of non-gunnies selected. I have jury duty coming up myself, and I intend on making a point of my gun knowledge, since I'm pretty sure it will get me excused

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"Who should pay for this laboratpry testing? Testing this would take probably 2-3 years and well over a million dollars. We would need to cause the failure in question repeatedly and reproduceably, perhaps hundreds if not thousands of tc encores would need to be purchased and abused and we'd need special equipment to safely fire them... we can't use computer models either, because what if the flaw is metallurgical? How could we ensure our test rigs used the same steel, even, as the article in question to find that out if it were true. If the flaw was a manufacturing defect since rectified it might never be reproduced.

Speculation is probably the only economical way to figure it out."

Baloney. Not true unless the goal is to determine statistical likelihood. To determine mere possibility you'd only have to demonstrate a similar failure, once. Heck, to suggest likelihood, computer models are more than enough. For a metallurgical failure, the original gun should A) be in pieces in this case, and B) readily show signs of the inclusion or fatigue fracture. Same for the plastic stock, too, though it seems no such detailed analysis was done.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"The case missing was never a new revelation. It was always a known fact and was freely divulged to T/C Arms, jury etc…"
Yup, and the only evidence that could definitively prove whether you or T/C were at fault here

Withholding of evidence is hardly rare in tort cases, so forgive my skepticism for this extremely convenient state of affairs. In every story of cartridge or firearm failure I've read of or about, yours is the first in which the casing disappeared while the gun action remained intact. Which leads me to believe it was merely lost by the shooter, rather than lost in the accident, which I am afraid hurts your credibility greatly (and may have accounted for your share of the fault, rather than merely the use of a very hot hand load of an admittedly dangerous cartridge)

TCB

 

[Snyper]

Everyone has their opinion, Mr. Belk gave you his.

The case missing was never a new revelation. It was always a known fact and was freely divulged to T/C Arms, jury etc….

Mr Belk gave the opinion that fits best with his agenda, just like you are doing by spamming these threads across the internet.

He read the cherry picked data given by your "expert" and simply chose to agree, since it helps sell his books

It still comes back to you grossly overloading the round, and the scope hit you in the eye.

You caused this incident, and got very lucky that the jury felt sorry for you

That raises the first flag---Where is the fired case? If nobody removed it, it had to have left on its own. How?

Someone removed it.
There's no mystery there.

It would have been helpful to your contention that "headspace" was the problem, but likely showed extreme over pressure was the real culprit

 

[danez71]

Much like the last thread, theres more effort going into discrediting the OP than discussing the topic.

The posts that actually adress the topic unfortunately seem most suspicious than the OP due to the manner that they're written, as if they is no other possible reality than what they determine.

 

[barnbwt]

"theres more effort going into discrediting the OP than discussing the topic."
I, at least, have tried to describe several scenarios trying to work through how what the OP's description of events could have happened. It don't stand up to scrutiny, sorry.

"The posts that actually adress the topic unfortunately seem most suspicious than the OP due to the manner that they're written, as if they is no other possible reality than what they determine."
Okay, let's play; it what reality does the case go missing and the action remain intact. I have never, never heard of that happening, unless the item was lost. I find that circumstance highly suspicious in light of the OP's allegations.

There is easily as much energy being expended defending the OP's contradictory, evasive, and incomplete telling of events. Just because he was injured does not mean he doesn't have an axe to grind --rather, it suggests he has great interest in doing just that.

TCB

 

[lilguy]

Can't speak to the Encore but will speak up for TC. My Contender in 357 Herrett has been running flawlessly for close to 40 years. Steel or White tails never a glich, only hand loads obviously.

 

[MistWolf]

The kind of character assassination going on in this thread is one reason I do not find this forum to be the creditable source of information many claim it to be

 

[JN01]

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.

I'm wondering if the basic design is severely flawed and the materials and workmanship substandard, why there are not more examples of these guns failing? Or are they occurring and not being publicized?

 

[barnbwt]

Must be. Scores of people whose guns are failing within a dozen rounds, who simply decide not to tell anyone about it

TCB

 

[BSA1]

The kind of character assassination going on in this thread is one reason I do not find this forum to be the creditable source of information many claim it to be

There is not any character assassination occurring on this thread. The O.P. has started a second discussion about a accident that he claims left him blind in one eye due to a product failure.

Some of us found his description of the events in his original thread to be evasive and self-serving. We also find missing fired cartridge which is a crucial piece of evidence in determining if the cartridge was overcharged to be suspicious.

Take a look at the photograph the O.P. posted in Post #56 in his original discussion thread. I am left with the impression the O.P. took the picture at the time of the accident.

So a person that had just suffered a severe blow to his face and was blinded in one eye had the calmness and presence of mind to take a photograph of the damaged gun laying on the ground when it landed instead of immediately seeking medical attention.

Or did he stage the photograph sometime after the accident?

I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't own a TC Encore. However I very interested when I read about firearms failure due to a design problem.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=210668&d=1432308906

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=780669&page=3&highlight=encore

 

[JRH6856]

Okay, let's play; it what reality does the case go missing and the action remain intact. I have never, never heard of that happening, unless the item was lost. I find that circumstance highly suspicious in light of the OP's allegations.

The only scenario I can imagine would be that the case was so overloaded that it was completely vaporized by the burning powder. But the intact action would then indicate the action was extremely strong and extremely safe--just the opposite of the obvious intent.

And from the data provided about the load, it wasn't that strong. It was only 114% of case capacity and 4000 psi over maximum SAMMI pressure (per QuickLoad), so I doubt it vaporized the case. But it would very likely have damaged the cases (both the brass one and the legal one)

OTOH, if the gun had excessive head space, and the reloaded case had been previously fired in the gun before reloading, it is possible that the case was already stretched to the bursting point by previous firings. and would actually hold the stated charge without compression and without powder overflowing on the the loading bench. IWC, the pressure could be well within range (as much as 15k below max).