Home Main Category General Firearms

Embrace The Truth - Catastrophic Gun Failure

17891012

Replies

  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    BigDanS wrote: »

    Brian lost an eye. He blames it on the gun design and most of you feel it was his reloading, and I am pretty sure it is somewhere in between. Maybe even 60/40... who knows.

    Instead of vilifying the guy, maybe just say welcome.

    D


    You know this how? His proof of this is a picture of someone in a sleeping bag with their face covered. If something like this happened to anyone here, they would have a catalog of pictures of the firearm and the injury from every angle and detail and have it stored on their computer and probably burned on a couple of discs. The claim that his lawyer has all the pictures and he doesn't remember the details because it was a couple of years ago doesn't lend much credibility to his story. Apparently you buy into it though so all his BS wasn't in vain.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    Did anyone find this site and it's TBOSS feature.

    Is this the same action?

    http://www.bellmtcs.com/store/index.php?cid=174

    " the barrel is milled away exposing about 1/8" of case head and the extraction groove. You can then get ahold of the case head to pull it out, or if hung up on the extractor, the extractor can be nudged down either with the same hand in one motion or with the free hand and the case easily withdrawn from the chamber.
    The vertical scalloped cuts on each side of the chamber give freer, quicker access, especially with gloved hands"


    TBOSS%20close%20end.JPG

    TBOSS%20simple.JPG

    Shell-Access_1.gif

    .375 H&H......62,000 psi.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,914 Senior Member
    I wish I knew if someone at T/C has seen this thread......
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    I wish I knew if someone at T/C has seen this thread......

    Give them a ring.

    You want I should?

    It may come better from me, the posh accent and all. :wink:
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    Give them a ring.

    You want I should?

    It may come better from me, the posh accent and all. :wink:

    There's always the keyboard contact available. I even looked it up so you can just click and type away. You're welcome! :tooth:

    http://www.tcarms.com/contact
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    .... You're welcome! :tooth:

    Most kind.

    Job Jobbed. :up:
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    I even looked it up so you can just click and type away.

    http://www.tcarms.com/contact

    Bum steer.



    media needs to know who you are before it will accept your message
    xxxxxxxxxxx Office 365 media
    Sender Action Required


    Sender not recognized


    How to Fix It
    Contact the recipient (by phone or instant messaging, for example) and tell them to ask their email admin (or group owner) to configure the recipient address to accept messages from you.


    Was this helpful? Send feedback.

    ________________________________________

    More Info for Email Admins
    This error occurs when the recipient address (mailbox, user, or group) is configured to reject email from anonymous users.

    To fix the issue, the recipient's email admin or the group owner must either add the sender's address to the allow list for the recipient email address or turn off the recipient's setting that rejects email from anonymous senders.

    This issue usually can only be fixed by the recipient's email admin or the group owner.

    For more information, see NDR Response Code 5.7.12 in Exchange Online and Office 365.

    Original Message Details
    Created Date: 6/8/2015 10:35:04 PM
    Sender Address: xxxxxxxxx
    Recipient Address: [email protected]
    Subject: Thompson / Center Arms Found at Fault in Catastrophic Gun Failure


    Error Details
    Reported error: 550 5.7.12 RESOLVER.RST.SenderNotAuthenticated; Delivery restriction check failed as sender not authenticated
    DSN generated by: BY1PR0701MB1740.namprd07.prod.outlook.com





    Or too posh to push. :tooth:
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    Do the "Media Contact" at the bottom of the page. It's E-mail. Your troubles in contacting them may be due to you being 'across the pond', as it were. Some of them there Yankees still got their noses out of joint over that 'misunderstanding' in the 1770s. We'uns down South don't understand them either. But when they come down for vacations, their money is good, so there's that.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Brian WardBrian Ward Member Posts: 60 Member
    Guys,
    I said my final piece on this thread. But I was contacted by Jack Belk (Author of UnSafe by Design: Forensic Gunsmithing and Firearms Investigations) and I put him in contact with my Gun Expert. I thought his assessment was pertinent and want to share it.

    Thanks,

    Brian Ward

    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.”
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Lot of different opinions on Jack Belk out there. A good gunsmith and past president of the Gunmakers Guild at one time, but expert witness for the plaintiffs suits against firearms manufacturers.

    Interesting reading.

    http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/6203499/1
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    Here we go again. The Encore has an extractor, not an ejector. If the rifle had come open during firing the shell casing would not have left the chamber. It has to be manually removed.

    Physics: the bullet has left the barrel long before the action can mechanically open from recoil, if the rifle action did open. By the time the action has opened enough for the case to clear the standing breech, there is no pressure left in the barrel to eject the case violently backwards.

    The bolt that holds the rifle closed is under considerable spring pressure to keep it forced into its recess in the receiver. It would take some violent recoil to force the bolt forward against spring pressure to allow the action to open, and one should remember that at the instant of firing, the thrust of the case against the standing breech is forcing the bolt against the upper surface of its locking surface and in doing so applies a very high frictional force to be overcome by the inertia effect. Heavy spring force forcing the bolt backwards into the battery position, and frictional forces both keep the bolt in "battery".

    This does not preclude someone during firing from wrapping a finger or two against the trigger guard finger piece used to break the action open.

    The facts your expert left out are more telling that what he included.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 21,068 Senior Member
    knitepoet wrote: »
    Anyone want to place odds on this statement being yet another "untruth"???
    3 days.... HONESTLY nearly 2 days longer than I expected
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • NJSOGNJSOG Member Posts: 101 Member
    Does anyone else smell .


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    kittenlovethisthreadzh8.jpg

    Sayin'.......................:tooth:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • KSU FirefighterKSU Firefighter Senior Member Posts: 3,249 Senior Member
    This thread is like watching a fat guy fall down three flights of stairs, you don't want to watch, but you can't stop watching. You don't want to laugh, but you just can't help yourself.
    The fire service needs a "culture of extinguishment not safety" Ray McCormack FDNY
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    After googling "Jack Belk" and following a bunch of links around, It appears that although an accomplished gunsmith, he now derives over half of his income as a paid "expert witness" and his specialty is testifying against gun manufacturers like Remington, Winchester, Thompson Center, and Beretta.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    What's the possibility the OP could visit my neighborhood? Several of my neighbors have hundreds of acres he could talk to, and save them a fortune in fertilizer. I'd normally suggest he could come talk to my garden, but an area that small would get buried several feet deep in BS. There can definitely be "too much of a good thing"!
    Jerry
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    kittenlovethisthreadzh8.jpg

    Sayin'.......................:tooth:

    Yeah but that thread is a Yarn, jus' sayin'............:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    This thread is like watching a fat guy fall down three flights of stairs, you don't want to watch, but you can't stop watching. You don't want to laugh, but you just can't help yourself.

    Lord save me, but this reminded me of an event my boss and I witnessed some years ago...

    He and I were making a flight connection at Atlanta International (Atlanta Inconvenient) and after riding the little underground tram, we went up to our departure terminal. From the sub-basement to that level, there's this very long escalator, like 3 floors high. We rode up, and just as we were stepping off, we heard behind us, "Oh! Hep me! Jesus!" and the person behind us was this enormous fat woman. She was waving her arms to get her balance and starting to lean backward, having gotten off kilter. As she was balanced there, behind her was this regular businessman, and the look of sheer panic on his face, seeing this huge fat woman starting to careen toward him, was unforgettable.

    Well, she lost her balance and tumbled back, and her big fat body just took out the whole bunch of people -- like a bowling ball -- and cleared out the escalator steps totally. There were no serious injuries, just some bruising, but there was this heap of humanity at the bottom, all groaning.

    My boss and I stood there a moment, thanking our lucky stars that we'd been just ahead of the woman than behind her, and then we ducked into the nearest men's john, where we broke out into riotous laughter. We couldn't help ourselves. I know that will go down in our big book of sins but so be it.
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,396 Senior Member
    Ya know, I wouldnt have a problem with the OP if his suit had been about a poorly designed stock, because thats what failed. The unlocking part has nothing to do with it and since he loaded hot, it is his fault. Just like a rear end collision, it the guy in front of you throws out the anchor on a blind hill to make a left turn under a no left turn sign, it is your fault if you hit him. ANY overloaded cartridge, even if it seems safe, that cause a problem is your fault, period.

    The stock DID break, so TC is at fault. I dont think it should have broken like that even with hot loads.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • Brian WardBrian Ward Member Posts: 60 Member
    knitepoet wrote: »
    3 days.... HONESTLY nearly 2 days longer than I expected

    No untruth really…..I was done with this. Do you think I like being spoken of derogatorily by the majority of you guys?

    But Jack posted this and I thought it was important, so here we are.
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    I don't think the post is titled correctly, It should have been;
    "Catastrophic owner failure" ,
    personally, if I were to need a hunting rifle in such a caliber, I would chose a bolt action Mauser of some type, or a Remington or Savage etc.... not some lightweight single shot rifle, and when hand loading , follow all safety precautions, finally it seems it was the stock that broke due to excessive recoil, the injuries were due to excessive recoil and lack of safety equipment, an over loaded hand load.......

    Not saying it is not a good product, it does have a use when used within its limited design parameters, it is when a person uses no wisdom, and exceeds the designed usage that folly occurs and the result is what you see here....... It always seemed to me that any caliber more potent than .30-06 is more recoil than I care for in such a light firearm, and the margin of safety much more slim than what is afforded by a stout Mauser action.... where the metal is much thicker and harder, tempered etc..... as opposed to the easily machined surfaces of a single shot rifle...
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • LMLarsenLMLarsen Senior Member Posts: 8,337 Senior Member
    Brian Ward wrote: »
    No untruth really…..I was done with this. Do you think I like being spoken of derogatorily by the majority of you guys?

    But Jack posted this and I thought it was important, so here we are.

    Who the hell is Jack?

    Usually when a newbie joins a forum to BWMC about a manufacturer, he's booted pretty quickly, especially if he persists with vague "answers" to repeated valid questions. I am amazed that this thread and the OP are still here, even given the entertainment value.

    And please, Brian Ward, if your only answer to my statement here is "it's all public, look it up", I'll tell you again: the burden is on you here; if it's public, post it and maybe - just maybe - clear some of this nonsense up.
    “A gun is a tool, no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”

    NRA Endowment Member
  • HvyMaxHvyMax Senior Member Posts: 1,786 Senior Member
    Maybe you should try sharing some of the stuff that didn't blow up? At this point all we know about you is that you blew up your gun.
    Wal Mart where the discriminating white trash shop.
    Paddle faster!!! I hear banjos.
    Reason for editing: correcting my auto correct
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    Another question that has bugged me to no end about this 'yarn' concerns the rifle, again. Some part of that rifle impacted Mr. Ward's face with enough force to bloody his face badly and damage his eye so bad that he lost sight in that eye. In doing so, whatever part of the rifle/scope that did so would have some imbedded tissue and blood residue on it. Yet there is nothing pointed out by Mr. Ward in this 13 pages pointing to what part of the rifle caused the injury. The evidence would be plain on the rifle, unless there was some 'after action' cleaning to remove said evidence of impact.

    And his 'expert' said the rifle could unlock under recoil and eject the case. That isn't physically possible since the Encore has an EXTRACTOR, not an EJECTOR. I'm beginning to smell something akin to a box of squid left in a closed 5 gallon bucket for a few weeks in the hot sun that has been inadvertently opened.

    So far, I've got way more questions than answers from this fiasco.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    You're forgetting that this new professional "expert witness" is suggesting that the action blew open, the case ejected, the stock broke and some part of the rifle smacked the op with enough blunt force to destroy his eye, then the action slapped shut again. This is what the op has been trying to convince everybody of and now he has a "professional" to agree with him and give all his BS some validation.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 12,621 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Another question that has bugged me to no end about this 'yarn' concerns the rifle, again. Some part of that rifle impacted Mr. Ward's face with enough force to bloody his face badly and damage his eye so bad that he lost sight in that eye. In doing so, whatever part of the rifle/scope that did so would have some imbedded tissue and blood residue on it. Yet there is nothing pointed out by Mr. Ward in this 13 pages pointing to what part of the rifle caused the injury. The evidence would be plain on the rifle, unless there was some 'after action' cleaning to remove said evidence of impact.

    And his 'expert' said the rifle could unlock under recoil and eject the case. That isn't physically possible since the Encore has an EXTRACTOR, not an EJECTOR. I'm beginning to smell something akin to a box of squid left in a closed 5 gallon bucket for a few weeks in the hot sun that has been inadvertently opened.

    So far, I've got way more questions than answers from this fiasco.

    Not necessarily. Even if I cut my thumb with a knife, it still takes a moment to start the bleed, unless you nail an artery or vein directly, then you may get a bit of an initial squirt.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • Farm Boy DeuceFarm Boy Deuce Senior Member Posts: 6,083 Senior Member
    CHIRO1989 wrote: »
    Not necessarily. Even if I cut my thumb with a knife, it still takes a moment to start the bleed, unless you nail an artery or vein directly, then you may get a bit of an initial squirt.

    Blunt force trauma tends to at least take hide off. With the force involved in this steaming pile I would bet there was at least a little matter left on whatever part of the gun hit the OP.
    I am afraid we forget sometime that the basic and simple things brings us the most pleasure.
    Dad 5-31-13
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 12,621 Senior Member
    Blunt force trauma tends to at least take hide off. With the force involved in this steaming pile I would bet there was at least a little matter left on whatever part of the gun hit the OP.

    JBOhio can confirm or deny this;), I don't recall that he had to clean his scope when he opened up his noggin.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement