Embrace The Truth - Catastrophic Gun Failure

[barnbwt]

What's it called when you indirectly slander someone? You know, rumor-monger. Like, you toss a few sensational troll bread crumbs out there to the curious onlookers (lookie-me, I'm a hungry pigeon ) and fuel their speculation? It's not something you could get nailed for --obviously you yourself aren't saying things that can be verified as untruthful & hurtful-- so long as you keep your statements vague and uninformative...just as the OP has been doing the whole time, all across the internet...

Love that you brought up the Toyota reference Ed Ames; that gas-pedal thing was the latest of like ten "sudden acceleration" allegations in automotive history that have each and every time been ultimately proven out as pure hoaxes (at best the result of incompetent drivers), but only after inflicting severe and long-lasting damage on the automakers (which is why Toyota, being a wise company, treated those moronic claims as serious very early on, and rolled out not one, not two, but three separate design solutions for the supposed problem, hoping to shut the lawyers up before sales tanked)

TCB

 

[danez71]

Nobody dimissed it out of hand, but you are still right.



And here you are wrong. You see, when Ward poste his first post, I did research it. I looked for Brian Ward v. Thompson Center, etc., and the only reference I found was in S&W 10-k reports to the SEC warning that it was a pending legal issue.


There was no way, with the info provided, for someone to "look deeper". Even now, when asked detailed questions the OP is sending us to his lawyer and other non-internet sources that are unlikely to actually give that information. I suppose I could call the attorney (I have his number) and ask to see the depositions and the like, but it flat shouldn't be necessary. Someone alledging a design defect should be able to write a description of the problem.

I get what your saying and you're right. Theres not much info.

But I didn't mean it that way. What I meant by 'look into it' was to check the head space or have it check if you don't know how. If you even care. I didn't mean research the court case. None of us knew it existed.

That's nice. Relevance? The issue here has nothing to do with style and the integrity questions were all self inflicted. It has to do with someone saying the equivalent of, "OMG if you drive a toyota your car has a design defect and you should stop! I just spent 10 years suing them and I just won my case so I can finally tell you about the Toyota defect. You should really stop driving Toyota cars if you care about your safety because of the defect, " and then playing ignorant (" oh if you want to know more you need to go to a court in michigan and pay them $2 a page to copy out a thousand pages of public record, and read it yourself, because I don't really know what happened or why I was found partially at fault... oh if you must know I had mixed up my own fuel and wasn't wearing a seat belt... but it is a design defect and I'm just trying to help keep everyone safe by telling you about it.") when asked for basic details. He did finally give a defect theory, and as I said at the time I would need an encore in front of me to check our the plausibility, but that was something that should have been in the very first post not begrudgingly offered after three pages

I agree with a lot of what youre saying BUT he never told people to stop using it.

I think its important to re-post the OP. Again, he never told anyone to stop using it.

He didn't write in it an alarmist way. All he did was say (paraphrasing) My gun blew up. I believe its a defective design. I won a court case proving it. I want everyone to know.'

He did NOT do what a lot of people are claiming.

So lets repost the OP:

Embrace The Truth - Catastrophic Gun Failure

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Sincerely,

Brian Ward

Emphasis added by me.


Again... he didn't tell anyone to stop using it. He wasn't being an alarmist. All of those accusations of that are pretty much fabricated.

This thread is like a witch hunt.

 

[Ed Ames]

But I didn't mean it that way. What I meant by 'look into it' was to check the head space or have it check if you don't know how. If you even care. I didn't mean research the court case. None of us knew it existed.

But that's the problem in a nutshell. The idea that the issue is headspace related wasn't part of the OP, and wasn't something Ward revealed willingly. The only thing he released unprompted was a personal statement that he had won a lawsuit and felt there was a design defect. He didn't say check your headspace or anything of that sort. The info he provided could only be reseached one way: to try to find info on the court case. He pointed out it is public record, butunless you happen to be in Michigan and have a couple thousand dollars to waste on public records copy fees, that's really not an answer.

I agree with a lot of what youre saying BUT he never told people to stop using it.

A design defect is a defect in the very idea of something, meaning every instance has the defect. There are only two ways to address design defects: replace the item, or modify it, to remove the defect. In either case, it is implicit that you must stop using the defective design if you wish to avoid the potential harm. So... yes he did.

He didn't write in it an alarmist way. All he did was say (paraphrasing) My gun blew up. I believe its a defective design. I won a court case proving it. I want everyone to know.'

He did NOT do what a lot of people are claiming.

Well, he kinda did. Here's the thing...if you say "I want X", without saying why, it leaves the why as a valid question for the reader. "I want to tell people my gun blew up." OK, why do you want to do that? Are you bragging? Warning your readers against doing something stupid? Warning people against using a particular gun? Trying to get people to stop buying those guns? What is the truth he is telling us to embrace?

Again... he didn't tell anyone to stop using it. He wasn't being an alarmist. All of those accusations of that are pretty much fabricated.

This thread is like a witch hunt.

I don't think fabricated is the right word. Since he didn't state his motivation at first, and his actions haven't matched his stated motivation, people are speculating. Actually some of us are just asking. I haven't found the answers particularly plausible though. An answer can be completely honest and still implausible.

It isn't a witch hunt so much as frustration at having to ask for details that should have been included in the first post.

 

[barnbwt]

"He didn't write in it an alarmist way"
Embrace the Truth - Catastrophic Gun Failure
"It blew apart because of a defect in its design"
Uh-huh.

"he didn't tell anyone to stop using it. He wasn't being an alarmist"
Like I said, he just tossed out a scant few bread crumbs begging numerous questions about the safety of T/C's design and let us do the rest. Because doing anything more than that could very easily land him in hot water if civil litigation is ongoing or a future possibility. I'm sure the OP knows this, hence why getting anything substantial has been like pulling teeth.

TCB

 

[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.

 

[silicosys4]

After six pages, we still don't know what happened.
The picture doesn't match the catastrophic failure described, and I have trouble connecting the facts as given by the OP to the conclusion that there is some sort of widespread, unaddressed defect in the guns.
If this was as serious as the OP suggests, why is this the first time an example comes up, and where is T/C's analysis of the event?
This drive by hysteria is a little unnerving, as I have a friend shooting that exact same gun/caliber.

OP, what were your injuries the result of?

The stock hitting your face?
Brass fragments hitting your face?
High pressure gasses hitting your face?
The scope hitting your face?

What broke the stock?

Impact with the ground?
Excessive recoil?
High pressure gasses from the chamber?

What did the brass look like afterwards?

People are going to want these kind of details when you post a thread such as this, where the stakes are apparently very high.

 

[danez71]

After six pages, we still don't know what happened.
The picture doesn't match the catastrophic failure described, and I have trouble connecting the facts as given by the OP to the conclusion that there is some sort of widespread, unaddressed defect in the guns.
If this was as serious as the OP suggests, why is this the first time an example comes up, and where is T/C's analysis of the event?
This drive by hysteria is a little unnerving, as I have a friend shooting that exact same gun/caliber.

OP, what were your injuries the result of?

The stock hitting your face?
Brass fragments hitting your face?
High pressure gasses hitting your face?
The scope hitting your face?

What broke the stock?

Impact with the ground?
Excessive recoil?
High pressure gasses from the chamber?

What did the brass look like afterwards?

People are going to want these kind of details when you post a thread such as this, where the stakes are apparently very high.

All of those questions I made bold.... he already answered. He doesn't know. Did you read that part?

The part I made red..... someone else already posted something about. Its been documented before. Apparently its not a new issue. Did you read that part either?

http://www.lasc.us/BellmFiresFliesOpen.htm

The locking bolts do not engage into the frame's "locking table" very far, and from what I have seen over the years, if they only engage just enough to release the hammer block safety and permit the frame to fire, this minimal engagement will wear and thus round the forward edge of the locking table. Once the locking table is rounded, it will be more prone unlocking when fired. If after what follows here has been addressed, a barrel or barrels still fly open, then send the frame back to TC for inspection and probably replacement.

This minimal engagement will be caused either by the height of the locking bolts being too high for the given frame or it will be caused, as you noted, by cases sticking out of the chamber too far due to not being sized correctly. (This is one reason why I harp on the subject of size die adjustment and highly discourage neck sizing for these break open guns. Continued firing of rounds that interfere with lock up can cause undue wear on the locking table.)

The cure is to either get a set of undersize locking bolts from TC or learn how to adjust a size die to get the correct headspace <snip>

The part I made blue.... then maybe do you buddy a favor and let him know about this and how IT ISNT A NEW OR EXTREMELY RARE failure.

Ahhhh... you probably wont read that either.

 

[danez71]

But that's the problem in a nutshell. The idea that the issue is headspace related wasn't part of the OP, and wasn't something Ward revealed willingly. The only thing he released unprompted was a personal statement that he had won a lawsuit and felt there was a design defect. He didn't say check your headspace or anything of that sort. The info he provided could only be reseached one way: to try to find info on the court case. He pointed out it is public record, butunless you happen to be in Michigan and have a couple thousand dollars to waste on public records copy fees, that's really not an answer.





A design defect is a defect in the very idea of something, meaning every instance has the defect. There are only two ways to address design defects: replace the item, or modify it, to remove the defect. In either case, it is implicit that you must stop using the defective design if you wish to avoid the potential harm. So... yes he did.



Well, he kinda did. Here's the thing...if you say "I want X", without saying why, it leaves the why as a valid question for the reader. "I want to tell people my gun blew up." OK, why do you want to do that? Are you bragging? Warning your readers against doing something stupid? Warning people against using a particular gun? Trying to get people to stop buying those guns? What is the truth he is telling us to embrace?



I don't think fabricated is the right word. Since he didn't state his motivation at first, and his actions haven't matched his stated motivation, people are speculating. Actually some of us are just asking. I haven't found the answers particularly plausible though. An answer can be completely honest and still implausible.

It isn't a witch hunt so much as frustration at having to ask for details that should have been included in the first post.

Granted the 1st OP had little no details. But how long do you want the post to be? A wall of text? As noted, theres thousands of pages worth of reading.

ANd he has been answering questions... albeit slow. But he admitted he's trying to answer a lot of questions from various sources. Does he need to apologize for not providing you info at the speed that you prefer? Really? That's what justifies his treatment?

Regarding the questions I made bold.

OK, why do you want to do that? - He answered that in the OP
Are you bragging? - He blacked out the award amount in the OP or very early on.
Warning your readers against doing something stupid? - (kind of a left field question)
Warning people against using a particular gun? - Yeeeaaahh. Did you read the OP? He did name a specific gun.
Trying to get people to stop buying those guns? - Nope. He did say that.
What is the truth he is telling us to embrace - That the gun is flawed and he won a court case proving it.


Regarding fabricating... Yes. Fabricating. He blocked out the amount and that other poster says that the OP bragged or whatever he said exactly. Please read.

It is absolutely amazing how many people here are making such backhanded comments when they are clearly not reading or understanding or possibly imagining.

 

[barnbwt]

"He doesn't know"
Except he keeps making a claim of a "design defect" which suggests something very specific and very explainable. If he cannot do either, he should not make the claim, and say that he was awarded damages from T/C for an unexplained catastrophic failure of his Encore. It seems like that is closer to the truth at this point, not that it would bring fewer questions from us. Only T/C has the authority to kick off a recall based solely on their say-so, so I'm afraid we'll need more supporting facts from the OP before deciding to stop shooting the Encores.

We don't care that the OP won damages, though we lament his misfortune. His damages do nothing for us in and of themselves. The sole value in the OP's tale lies in the details of its occurrence. If they cannot be relayed, what are we supposed to take away? That we shouldn't fire the OP's particular gun, since it was found to be defective? My hypothetical T/C Encore in 300WM hasn't been adjudicated defective, so why should I not shoot it? Because someone blew it up with handloads? The Judge didn't order a recall, after all, and he was in the best position to call for one were it warranted by an inherent design flaw.

"This minimal engagement will be caused either by the height of the locking bolts being too high for the given frame or it will be caused, as you noted, by cases sticking out of the chamber too far due to not being sized correctly."
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop the bus. You're saying that wedging the breech open with improperly sized rounds can cause a case head failure before disturbing the action enough to keep the hammer from dropping? That's exactly the case with practically every locked-breech action out there with a crisp trigger, which is why hand loaders pay such close attention to things like head space in the first place. Very many bolt rifle actions allow the striker to fall slightly out of battery (K31 comes to mind first) and very many hammer fired or autoloading designs do as well.

The wear issue is unique to the T/C, but hardly unique to break actions; most old or cheap SxS or O/U shotguns have the latch lever all the way to the center or past, which means the action is no longer being tensioned closed, and the barrel has become loose. It's an issue savvy users would be aware of and take steps to mitigate the danger (tracking breech slack with feeler gauges, or even just making a note of how much the cases are getting set back during sizing). The OP made no mention of the gun shooting itself loose before exploding, just that it "blew up" after 300 rounds of (an extremely powerful) ammunition.

All this said, I find myself more interested in the Lone Eagle/Competitor than the Thompson Center at this point

TCB

 

[silicosys4]

All of those questions I made bold.... he already answered. He doesn't know. Did you read that part?

The part I made red..... someone else already posted something about. Its been documented before. Apparently its not a new issue. Did you read that part either?

http://www.lasc.us/BellmFiresFliesOpen.htm




The part I made blue.... then maybe do you buddy a favor and let him know about this and how IT ISNT A NEW OR EXTREMELY RARE failure.

Ahhhh... you probably wont read that either.

That's a pretty good guess at what happened, too bad the OP isn't providing that info and it is indeed just a guess at what happened.
It's so much fun trying to piece together what happened and what the issue actually was over the course of what, six pages of speculation and unanswered questions??:banghead:

That's usually not how a public safety announcement works

Pulling teeth indeed.

 

[danez71]

Except he keeps making a claim of a "design defect" which suggests something very specific and very explainable. If he cannot do either, he should not make the claim, and say that he was awarded damages from T/C for an unexplained catastrophic failure of his Encore. .

Again, he's slowly providing more info. You're posts are making me wonder if you reading any of his posts or just everyone elses?

"This minimal engagement will be caused either by the height of the locking bolts being too high for the given frame or it will be caused, as you noted, by cases sticking out of the chamber too far due to not being sized correctly."
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop the bus. You're saying that wedging the breech open with improperly sized rounds can cause a case head failure before disturbing the action enough to keep the hammer from dropping? That's exactly the case with practically every locked-breech action out there with a crisp trigger, which is why hand loaders pay such close attention to things like head space in the first place. Very many bolt rifle actions allow the striker to fall slightly out of battery (K31 comes to mind first) and very many hammer fired or autoloading designs do as well.

The wear issue is unique to the T/C, but hardly unique to break actions; most old or cheap SxS or O/U shotguns have the latch lever all the way to the center or past, which means the action is no longer being tensioned closed, and the barrel has become loose. It's an issue savvy users would be aware of and take steps to mitigate the danger (tracking breech slack with feeler gauges, or even just making a note of how much the cases are getting set back during sizing). The OP made no mention of the gun shooting itself loose before exploding, just that it "blew up" after 300 rounds of (an extremely powerful) ammunition.


All this said, I find myself more interested in the Lone Eagle/Competitor than the Thompson Center at this point

Well that sounds more like you agree that's its possible, now.

 

[danez71]

That's a pretty good guess at what happened, too bad the OP isn't providing that info and it is indeed just a guess at what happened.
It's so much fun trying to piece together what happened and what the issue actually was over the course of what, six pages of speculation and unanswered questions??:banghead:
That's usually not how a public safety announcement works

Pulling teeth indeed.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Ed Ames]

Granted the 1st OP had little no details. But how long do you want the post to be? A wall of text? As noted, theres thousands of pages worth of reading.

He could have left off most of his first post without decreasing the information it contained. So cut that in half and add back a paragraph on what he thinks the problem is, and avoid all this angst.

ANd he has been answering questions... albeit slow. But he admitted he's trying to answer a lot of questions for various sources. Does he need to apologize for not providing you info at the speed that you prefer? Really? That's what justifies his treatment?

"Slowly" is completely the wrong word. The correct word appears to be "unwillingly". E. g. when Sam asked, "What is the failure mechanism?" And he twice answered with only, "yes." That was not a yes/no question, and "yes" didn't answer the question. If anything he was answering too fast.

OK, why do you want to do that? - He answered that in the OP

Nope. Re-read the OP.

Are you bragging? - He blacked out the award amount in the OP or very early on.

I thought he blacked out the award amount because it was very low. If there was a serious design defect the company knew about and all of that, juries regularly hand out millions.

Warning your readers against doing something stupid? - (kind of a left field question)

Not around here it isn't. We've had members post about shooting themselves and other stupid things, as public service announcements. "I did something really dumb that I never thought i could ever do, and if I can so can you so be careful!" posts are a part of THR culture.

Warning people against using a particular gun? - Yeeeaaahh. Did you read the OP? He did name a specific gun.

What is its serial number?

Trying to get people to stop buying those guns? - Nope. He did say that.

He didn't say a lot of things that he obviously knew.

What is the truth he is telling us to embrace - That the gun is flawed and he won a court case proving it.

I asked him before and he gave a non- answer, so I'll ask you: What do I, or any other shooter, get from this except higher gun prices? Why should we be happy about this? Why should we root for you, against our own financial interests? Because if he can't answer that, it seems very strange that he would come to gun forums advertising that he is responsible for a slight raise in prices.

Regarding fabricating... Yes. Fabricating. He blocked out the amount and that other poster says that the OP bragged or whatever he said exactly. Please read.

He sorta blocked the amounts. i could read them, which is why I posted them...but I didn't mean brag about the award. I meant there are people who would brag about blowing up a gun.

It is absolutely amazing how many people here are making such backhanded comments when they are clearly not reading or understanding or possibly imagining.

Or maybe they do understand and simply disagree with you.

 

[barnbwt]

"Well that sounds more like you agree that's its possible, now."
Always the folks stating others aren't reading that seem to lack comprehension themselves. I've tried divining pertinent information from the OP's posts, and there just isn't much there; certainly not enough to narrow down the field of possible failure modes. We've all basically just been listing them off as the OP chimes in to say "I'm not an engineer." Well, I am an engineer and I want to find out what the heck happened with this gun so we can keep it from happening to anyone else. A 60% judgement at any value cannot help me do that. An undetailed photo with no visible action damage cannot help me do that.

Take a look at the Chiappa Rhino breechplate failure thread in Revolvers to see what detailed photos can help us figure out (it was brittle fatigue failure likely brought on by a flaw in the metal and some rather unfortunate production choices by Chiappa; hard to tell which was more at fault, but if it's the latter, owners should be wary of high round counts and hot loads, and inspect their gun for cracks in the firing pin area --That's a PSA useful to owners)

Knowing the cartridge load (as helpfully provided at like page three or so) could give us some idea, but it's mainly the presence of hand loads in the equation, simply because nine times out of ten, handloads+kaboom=faulty handloads*

*That's not to say the result here was acceptable just because handloads created an unsafe condition; perhaps the gun could be made to fail in a more controlled manner.

But we need to know how the gun failed subsequently to make that determination. If nothing but the stock broke, it's weak sauce to say the gun is inherently flawed, seeing how darn modular the things are; better to say that particular stock design was flawed. Because the 'kaboom' aspect of this has us chasing metal structural parts. If the action itself held together, we need to know that (we can only guess that with the information provided). Seeing what is left of the brass casing is crucial to determining failure mode, but it is lacking as of yet. That brass is the "black box" needed to attribute blame to pitot tubes or pilot error or space aliens.

From the link Danez71 provided;
"(This is one reason why I harp on the subject of size die adjustment and highly discourage neck sizing for these break open guns. Continued firing of rounds that interfere with lock up can cause undue wear on the locking table.)"
"A barrel flying open is NOT a good thing, and definitely not something to permit continuing to happen, but it is not normally a severe hazard either. I have had it happen a number of times, once while being filmed for television even. Talk about embarrassing."
Operator error? Although, the tone of the article seems to suggest 'barrels flying open' as more of a nuisance than a life-altering tragedy, so I somewhat doubt the same thing occurred to our unfortunate OP.

TCB

 

[danez71]

He could have left off most of his first post without decreasing the information it contained. So cut that in half and add back a paragraph on what he thinks the problem is, and avoid all this angst.

So were back again to that he didn't write it how you like. Well, too bad. Don't read it and move on. You don't always get what you want and how you want it. The post was a free PSA. Take it or leave it.

"Slowly" is completely the wrong word. The correct word appears to be "unwillingly". E. g. when Sam asked, "What is the failure mechanism?" And he twice answered with only, "yes." That was not a yes/no question, and "yes" didn't answer the question. If anything he was answering too fast.

It was 2 yes/no's with an explanation. He provided 2 yes/no and no explanation. Ask more questions or not. Accept his time frame for when he replies or not. He's doesn't need to be on your schedule.

Nope. Re-read the OP.

I did. You obviously didn't or don't rememeber or are selectively reading. His reply in the OP

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.

He clearly gave that info in the OP. Why cant you comprehend that? Those 2 sentences are pretty easy to read.

I thought he blacked out the award amount because it was very low. If there was a serious design defect the company knew about and all of that, juries regularly hand out millions.

And juries regularly hand out ZERO. Whats your point? That because they only awarded $800k it wasn't valid? There is no legitimate point in your comment.

Not around here it isn't. We've had members post about shooting themselves and other stupid things, as public service announcements. "I did something really dumb that I never thought i could ever do, and if I can so can you so be careful!" posts are a part of THR culture.

That's you reading into his post or something. He didn't bring up 'doing anything stupid'. This is getting close to the fabricating comment I made.

What is its serial number?

Did you ask him? Do you post up the Serial Numbers to your gun? Does not knowing the serial number make it 'not happen'.

I asked him before and he gave a non- answer, so I'll ask you: What do I, or any other shooter, get from this except higher gun prices?

Really? You're really asking that?
How about a safer gun that the anti's don't use an en example why they should all be banned. OR.. a safer gun that might not do what it did.

C'mon man... this is obvious stuff. Are just wanting to argue?

Why should we be happy about this? Why should we root for you, against our own financial interests? Because if he can't answer that, it seems very strange that he would come to gun forums advertising that he is responsible for a slight raise in prices.

So you view guns as a financial interest. You've established that now.

Maybe start thinking of them as their intended purpose and you might understand a little better the intent of the OP

But because you cant/wont understand, you make a giant leap of absurdity to " it seems very strange that he would come to gun forums advertising that he is responsible for a slight raise in prices"

Where/How do you come up with this?

He sorta blocked the amounts. i could read them, which is why I posted them...but I didn't mean brag about the award. I meant there are people who would brag about blowing up a gun.

Ok. There are some that do. He didn't though.

Or maybe they do understand and simply disagree with you

Being that I've given some specific examples of them either not reading or imagining things.... Youre wrong. Youre not reading or are selectively reading his post. You've now come to the point you just want to nit pick and argue.

Its probably time you realize you don't always get what you want. Take it for whats its worth, or not, and move on.

 

[danez71]

"Well that sounds more like you agree that's its possible, now."
Always the folks stating others aren't reading that seem to lack comprehension themselves. I've tried divining pertinent information from the OP's posts, and there just isn't much there; certainly not enough to narrow down the field of possible failure modes. We've all basically just been listing them off as the OP chimes in to say "I'm not an engineer." Well, I am an engineer and I want to find out what the heck happened with this gun so we can keep it from happening to anyone else. A 60% judgement at any value cannot help me do that. An undetailed photo with no visible action damage cannot help me do that.

It would be much easier if you learned to use the quote feature.

Well considering Ive listed a few specific examples of YOU NOT READING or comprehending, your comment kinda proves my point.\

If your an engineer and you want to find out what happened, you don't act like it. You've been one of the dismissive ones.

Now suddenly you want to help mankind.

Well, rather than try sit at the key board and gripe at the OP.....

Why don't you go do something productive like measure some head space like he indicated was associate with the problem.

Instead, you choose to either make stuff up or not understand the definition of the word 'slander' and falsely accuse the OP of slander.

Ive provided examples already for the reading/comprehending forum members.

 

[Robert]

Well since this is just going around in circles and we are just arguing and arguments this is done. For good this time.