So please do a public service announcement and let us know who the 'smith was that put this out upon the unsuspecting public before someone else hurts themselves.
- Thread starter Vrybusy
- Start date
So please do a public service announcement and let us know who the 'smith was that put this out upon the unsuspecting public before someone else hurts themselves.
(sigh. not again)
You're right, Mo. Tell us about the "facts" of the first incident. There are at least 8 folks posting that they suspect rouge factory ammo or ammo overpressure is the cause, and the facts concerning the first incident. But you're right: that rifle should never be fired a second time, based upon the facts: bad ammo.
For what it's worth, I've offered six likely causes (not facts) in post#133, above. Once the breach is cleared and careful observations made, one of them will surface as the fact. My guess is it's the 6th likely cause I've listed. At that point, third parties (lawyers) need not apply.
This is what 300sniper has to say, and I think he probably nailed:
Last edited:
If there are at least 8 people suspecting ammo then there's at least 8 retards who have no fucking clue what they're looking at. This is a chamber support issue and firing it again would be the stupidest thing you could do.
just when you think you have seen/read it all...someone comes along and smokes your noodle all over again....shoot a rifle again after it has had a major failure and caused injury...that is some real gene pool shit right there.
i want my old hide back....
i want my old hide back....
This makes sense if we are just playing uneducated guessing game. The original picture show EXACTLY the cause of the failure, beyond any doubt. There are pictures in the thread that 100% confirm same cause and effect. Obviously, to some people this cause and effect is not clear, and they are entitled to their wrong opinion, just like I am entitled to completely disregard it.
Yay! Time to play devil's advocate.
Ahem. For clarification purposes Mr. Harvey, I suspect that you do not in fact expect a different result upon firing the rifle again. I suspect that you suggest this to prove that the rifle is in fact consistently malfunctioning and are attempting to prove that this is in fact not a "freak accident" unlikely to occur again. Am I, in fact, correct in ascertaining your intent.
Did that sound lawyery enough for you people?
Ahem. For clarification purposes Mr. Harvey, I suspect that you do not in fact expect a different result upon firing the rifle again. I suspect that you suggest this to prove that the rifle is in fact consistently malfunctioning and are attempting to prove that this is in fact not a "freak accident" unlikely to occur again. Am I, in fact, correct in ascertaining your intent.
Did that sound lawyery enough for you people?
That post just got you removed from my ignore list
Sorry for previous douchery.
Maybe I am misreading Harvey's explanation but isn't he saying that rifle should be first inspected, measured, and documented. Then if nothing is wrong from these inspections and measurements (which would mean, in this case, that the brass was supported) and there is no apparent cause to THEN and ONLY THEN test fire it again in a controlled environment?
I know that is a big "IF". Based on the pictures, I agree that this looks like an unsupported case. However if the barrel was installed/chambered correctly and the brass was fully supported, I can understand the curiosity and desire for more (safe and controlled) testing.
I know that is a big "IF". Based on the pictures, I agree that this looks like an unsupported case. However if the barrel was installed/chambered correctly and the brass was fully supported, I can understand the curiosity and desire for more (safe and controlled) testing.
Thank you, Rifleman, for reading the posts completely and in context.
The only instance the weapon would be discharged again (in a safe, distant, enclosed environment) would be to disprove other causes, including bad ammo and human error. And this would only occur in the woefully painful instance when "third parties" (read: lawyers) get involved, all pointing fingers.
It seems the OP's intent was to indeed get third parties involved, supported by other posters. My only point is (and remains) that forensic destructive testing (test firing) could become necessary to disprove one allegation, should empirical measurements not identify the actual cause.
But as the OP provides pics and more data, the smoke will clear, likely pointing to a short barrel tenon as suggested by 300Sniper.
Enough already?
Last edited:
Are you brain dead or something? It doesn't need to be shot again PERIOD. It needs to be disassembled and a few measurements taken. It is clear from the pics what caused this, you seem to be the only one who doesn't get it.
Hey Bubba. Didja see that ? Damn rifle nearly kilt me ! Whatta ya say we gets this thing clamped to your tailgate with sum vise grips and I got sum old para cord we can pull the trigger with from other side of your truck ...see if it does it again ?
Actually, it needs to be shot three more times, just be sure the failure is reproducible.
"Reproducibility is the ability of an entire experiment or study to be reproduced, either by the researcher or by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method and relies on ceteribus paribus. The result values are said to be commensurate if they are obtained (in distinct experimental trials) according to the same reproducible experimental description and procedure. The basic idea can be seen in Aristotle's dictum that there is no scientific knowledge of the individual, where the word used for individual in Greek had the connotation of the idiosyncratic, or wholly isolated occurrence. Thus all knowledge, all science, necessarily involves the formation of general concepts and the invocation of their corresponding symbols in language (cf. Turner).
Aristotle′s conception about the knowledge of the individual being considered unscientific is due to lack of the field of statistics in his time, so he could not appeal to statistical averaging of the individual.
Reproducibility also refers to the degree of agreement between measurements or observations conducted on replicate specimens in different locations by different people, as part of the precision of a test method.[1]
"
"Reproducibility is the ability of an entire experiment or study to be reproduced, either by the researcher or by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method and relies on ceteribus paribus. The result values are said to be commensurate if they are obtained (in distinct experimental trials) according to the same reproducible experimental description and procedure. The basic idea can be seen in Aristotle's dictum that there is no scientific knowledge of the individual, where the word used for individual in Greek had the connotation of the idiosyncratic, or wholly isolated occurrence. Thus all knowledge, all science, necessarily involves the formation of general concepts and the invocation of their corresponding symbols in language (cf. Turner).
Aristotle′s conception about the knowledge of the individual being considered unscientific is due to lack of the field of statistics in his time, so he could not appeal to statistical averaging of the individual.
Reproducibility also refers to the degree of agreement between measurements or observations conducted on replicate specimens in different locations by different people, as part of the precision of a test method.[1]
"
It was mentioned earlier if I considered firing the rifle again - No. I think we need to figure out the original malfunction before creating additional damage that might mask the original cause. Also, I do not have access to a properly controlled environment and apparatus to fire it again.
Just a comment about operator error. I agree that $hit happens and errors are made. But not this time. Although I wont get in to my training and experience too much, I can assure you that the bolt was completely closed prior to firing. I know because after I loaded the rifle, I did a once over to ensure that the safety was on, magazine was seated, and bolt was completely closed.
Just a comment about operator error. I agree that $hit happens and errors are made. But not this time. Although I wont get in to my training and experience too much, I can assure you that the bolt was completely closed prior to firing. I know because after I loaded the rifle, I did a once over to ensure that the safety was on, magazine was seated, and bolt was completely closed.
I was only kidding, folks. Just thought I would use the scientific method comically defend Harvey's post.
One thing we have to consider at this time is whether or not to let the manufacturer look at the gun by themselves. I hear arguments from both sides. One issue is that I don't believe they will warranty or cover any damage to the gun if someone else disassembles or works on it.
Would it be possible for you and your independent source to meet with the gunsmith to examine the rifle together, each taking measurements before moving to the next step of disassembly?
WTF!!! JEZUS, DON'T DO THAT! The action could be cracked…or the barrel…etc…etc.. Seriously Harvey you should not be commenting here, Holy shit! So let me guess the OP needs to put the gun in a vice and pull the trigger with a piece of string or his own finger? No common sense, I'm sorry if I'm being rude but fuck! So the gun blows up and the manufacture says ops sorry you fucked up by shooting it again after knowing it was damaged, your fault.
Take it to an independent gun smith and have it evaluated, have them measure the new cartridge that came out, do a head space check, all the other things that need to be evaluated. If you send it back to the manufacturer before you get it looked at independently they can cover their tracks. And don't tell people who it is just yet, you don't know what kind of legal actions your going to have to take or what they will do. Play it safe and think about things before listening to anyone, including us obviously.
let us know what you find out when it's definitive.
Last edited:
Holy fuck, you had me going. I was getting ready to get a plane ticket to Utah to go choke someone out. Thanks for clearing that up.
This unfortunate thing can play out two ways.
Thank the Lord, Vrybusy, you haven't sustained horrible injuries, especially to your eyes. Best case, the two of you (you and the builder) could work it out. The builder can grovel profusely, fix the rifle, and all go on with life.
But if one goes down a path with a "third party", that path is fraught with legal consequence, including proving harm and maintaining chain of custody of the firearm. Yes, a pause for counsel is in order.
In any event, Vrybusy, we're all just glad your not seriously hurt. Hope this thing works out for you as it should.
Regards.
I almost went down the same path of destruction. There is no inference nor speculation here on my part that this is what the situation was with the OP's rifle, but I would most likely have blown the brass like that 260 had I used some multiple fired brass with full power loads.
I had a 308 M1 built using one of my Shilen Select blanks. The smith had built some M1s for others before, contouring and chambering barrels from blanks. Maybe I was lucky I fired the first rounds using new unfired IMI Match brass. Those IMI were tough. I used the short line loads to get some rough zero before I went to a full course match. When I shot the 600 yards, with my 175 grain loads still using virgin brass, I noticed the spent brass that hit my stool were funny looking. Sort like belted 308s. I stop shooting, I figure something was not right.
When I got home and checked the rifle I notice the chamfer or a small cone in the chamber, which is NOT normal for gas guns to have a cone shaped like you would in a bench gun with a cone bolt face, appeared to be cut way too deep. Called the smith, he said that is the way he chambers the 308 gas guns. I did not pursue any more discussion with him, I sent the rifle to be re-barreled by a gentleman in Santee, CA and I asked him to return the old barrel with the rifle when done.
Here are a couple of pictures to compare on how much support there is in a standard 308 gas gun barrel compared to what this blacksmith did. These pictures were taken recently when I was asked to show them.
I had a 308 M1 built using one of my Shilen Select blanks. The smith had built some M1s for others before, contouring and chambering barrels from blanks. Maybe I was lucky I fired the first rounds using new unfired IMI Match brass. Those IMI were tough. I used the short line loads to get some rough zero before I went to a full course match. When I shot the 600 yards, with my 175 grain loads still using virgin brass, I noticed the spent brass that hit my stool were funny looking. Sort like belted 308s. I stop shooting, I figure something was not right.
When I got home and checked the rifle I notice the chamfer or a small cone in the chamber, which is NOT normal for gas guns to have a cone shaped like you would in a bench gun with a cone bolt face, appeared to be cut way too deep. Called the smith, he said that is the way he chambers the 308 gas guns. I did not pursue any more discussion with him, I sent the rifle to be re-barreled by a gentleman in Santee, CA and I asked him to return the old barrel with the rifle when done.
Here are a couple of pictures to compare on how much support there is in a standard 308 gas gun barrel compared to what this blacksmith did. These pictures were taken recently when I was asked to show them.
Then this would be followed by the famous quote that precedes every accident "Hey guys, watch this!!"
Thank you for agreeing not to fire it again.
If anyone was insinuating operator error, they are in error. We would file them right between "idiots" and "numbskulls". Your posts are clear and we appreciate your sharing of this unfortunate event.
Would sending the gun to the manufacturer preclude a firm diagnosis by a third party? Does concern over nullifying the warranty outweigh the benefit of another course of action? I feel for you in having to make these decisions.
This depends on your intended end game.
If you just want your rifle fixed/made right, then send it to the builder.
If you want to pursue damages from sustained injury and medical bills, then do the third party thing. Seems like said third party would need some good credentials if their findings are to hold sway to a judge, though.
I'm guessing your key concern is getting the premium custom rifle you paid for. So I'm guessing your reservation in sending directly to the builder is them saying "bad ammo" and dismissing you. It's a risk, but probably the best bet. Even if they dismiss you and sent back the broken rifle and you chalk it up as a100% loss of, say, $5000, that's less than you'll spend putting an attorney on retainer.
I'm willing to bet, that if the builder dismisses/fucks you, SEVERAL premium builders would step up and offer to rebuild/refurbish your rifle at a deeply discounted price.
81STFACP, that's a pretty big difference for sure!
NSO123, that's a good point about putting the two parties together - Not sure if that can or will happen, but I'll be sure to pass that on - Thanks!
Moses, I'm not sure if nullifying the warranty outweighs anything else, like you said, it's a difficult decision. I know you understand the effect that it could have depending on the path to be taken now or later. My ultimate goal is to prevent this from happening to anyone else in the future. I'm very fortunate to have the opportunity to continue shooting and doing what I love. A few centimeters one way or the other and things might have been very different for me and my family.
I have not had any correspondence with the gun manufacturer. However, I anticipate that they will be contacted in the very near future. I certainly want to work towards a diagnosis and get some closure on this. If it is in fact a defect with the gun, I hope to be able to obtain enough information that everyone would be able to use for themselves no matter what manufacturer, etc... to prevent anything similar from happening in the future.
NSO123, that's a good point about putting the two parties together - Not sure if that can or will happen, but I'll be sure to pass that on - Thanks!
Moses, I'm not sure if nullifying the warranty outweighs anything else, like you said, it's a difficult decision. I know you understand the effect that it could have depending on the path to be taken now or later. My ultimate goal is to prevent this from happening to anyone else in the future. I'm very fortunate to have the opportunity to continue shooting and doing what I love. A few centimeters one way or the other and things might have been very different for me and my family.
I have not had any correspondence with the gun manufacturer. However, I anticipate that they will be contacted in the very near future. I certainly want to work towards a diagnosis and get some closure on this. If it is in fact a defect with the gun, I hope to be able to obtain enough information that everyone would be able to use for themselves no matter what manufacturer, etc... to prevent anything similar from happening in the future.
1st: Thank God you weren’t hurt any worse than you were.
2nd: Several people have stated the obvious problem was non supported case between the bolt and the barrel. This would be fairly easy to prove with a few measurements. The easiest way without disassembling or altering the rifle is to buy some ReproRubber from MSC. Mix the fast drying rubber and place a dab on the bolt face. You want enough that it will be squished out between the barrel and the bolt face but not so much that it fills the whole lug area. You may want to put some tissue in the case so it doesn’t go up the barrel. Let it cure for 15 minutes then open the bolt and with a cleaning rod to assist eject the cast rubber. If the barrel job was done correctly there should be only .005 – .010 thickness of rubber that squished out between the bolt head and barrel. I believe you will find something much greater than that in your rifle. If what I have surmised is true the builder could of easily prevented this with a simple test firing as several have stated.
3rd: As far as a legal case I believe most cases are based on damages and the rifle would be the least of my concerns. If that was all that was damaged I am sure the builder will want to take care of that as quickly as possible and there would be no damages other than medical cost which I would think the builder would happily cover also as he is getting off light. I would pray that this is the case and that there are no permanent injuries that could require a lawyer.
2nd: Several people have stated the obvious problem was non supported case between the bolt and the barrel. This would be fairly easy to prove with a few measurements. The easiest way without disassembling or altering the rifle is to buy some ReproRubber from MSC. Mix the fast drying rubber and place a dab on the bolt face. You want enough that it will be squished out between the barrel and the bolt face but not so much that it fills the whole lug area. You may want to put some tissue in the case so it doesn’t go up the barrel. Let it cure for 15 minutes then open the bolt and with a cleaning rod to assist eject the cast rubber. If the barrel job was done correctly there should be only .005 – .010 thickness of rubber that squished out between the bolt head and barrel. I believe you will find something much greater than that in your rifle. If what I have surmised is true the builder could of easily prevented this with a simple test firing as several have stated.
3rd: As far as a legal case I believe most cases are based on damages and the rifle would be the least of my concerns. If that was all that was damaged I am sure the builder will want to take care of that as quickly as possible and there would be no damages other than medical cost which I would think the builder would happily cover also as he is getting off light. I would pray that this is the case and that there are no permanent injuries that could require a lawyer.
Last edited:
I'm wid ya Billy Ray, led's finish dis case of Pearl first.
Whoever said 'shoot it again', I hope you meant as in behind a barrier pulling a 40 foot string.
Otherwise your advice is right along the same lines as playing Russian roulette.
Otherwise your advice is right along the same lines as playing Russian roulette.
Yep - or even a non-obscure one like .338LM @ over 5.00 a round (but I did it anyway). Obviously on a wildcat you have no other choice, unless the builder will test fire it for you.
I love Brussel sprouts.
I'm not sure which is more amazing, that a builder let a rifle like that out of his shop without test firing it and noticing the obvious...or how many people in this thread are incapable of seeing the logic in Harvey's explanation of testing priorities because they can't get past the "ZOMG IT GONNA ASSPLODE" aspect of the concept.
Dude, you should offer up your services to do that. Two birds one stone. Can't wait to see the youtube video of that.
From what I have read and the pics tells me that Vrybusy is no dummy, might of put a few more rounds down range then a lot
of us.
With being said if I were in his shoes, I would be talking to a lawyer before I move on this and I have meet very
few lawyers that I like.
of us.
With being said if I were in his shoes, I would be talking to a lawyer before I move on this and I have meet very
few lawyers that I like.
Finally! A post with a clue on the gunsmithing, legal and common sense issues! AJ, your post makes it quite clear why people I truly respect are such proponents of your work.
I'm just amazed that knuckleheads such as Harvey (and now, perhaps yourself) would suggest that firing a second round in a rifle that: 1) has already sent one person to the hospital; and 2) has obvious mechanical damage that would preclude the firing of any additional rounds (note that the original post included statements such as "the bolt will not cycle fully to the rear").
Nothing new will be learned from blowing up the gun again. It was a dumb suggestion, and this thread would have been much better if the person who made it would have retracted the comment instead of digging deeper.
Whoever said shoot it again, should be forced to shoot it. Let Darwin work his magic.
OP, contact your smith, he will want to know there is a problem.
I agree with contacting the builder. If I was going to trust a smith enough to build me an expensive rifle , I would hope he would step up and make it right.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
It is not a good idea to recommend a risky procedure on the Internet. The OP is not stupid as well as the invisible rabbit. Common sense and patience prevails. The OP needs to live fire that weapon like he needs a bag on his hip.
Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2
OP, from my perspective the decision on how you approach the builder would depend on how your past dealings went while he was doing the build. If you got a "warm fuzzy" from him during the process and feel like he'd man-up on a mistake then that comes into play. If your contact was limited, he was arrogant, distant, uncommunicative, etc, then that would also factor in to what your next move would be.
It seems to me that you're rapidly approaching the decision-making time as to which direction you want this to take: getting all your ducks in a row for litigation; or trying to reach a gentlemens' understanding.
Only YOU and your loved ones can decide which avenue is appropriate.
It seems to me that you're rapidly approaching the decision-making time as to which direction you want this to take: getting all your ducks in a row for litigation; or trying to reach a gentlemens' understanding.
Only YOU and your loved ones can decide which avenue is appropriate.
Yep. Just from a safety standpoint to make them aware that there is an issue with their product.
Someone posted earlier that we need to get off the litigation aspect of this and remain focused on the pragmatics of the weapon's failure. Indeed. So just pause for a sec and reset any expectations of some kind of lawsuit.
I think we're all glad that Vrybusy wasn't hurt seriously, especially his eyes. But the truth of the matter is that no attorney is going to take a case on retainer (read: big dollars) unless serious and permanent harm has occurred. Not to downplay Vrybusy's experience or injury, and again we're glad he's not been seriously harmed, but that's just how it is.
Any thought of litigation would likely require upfront expenditures to an attorney, and then agreement to an hourly fee structure to pursue action against the rifle builder.
So we (the OP in this case) need to ask ourselves what we are trying to accomplish and what are the expectations, knowing that there would be an investment of several thousand dollars to bring a lawyer on board. If it is to pursue and prove serious and permanent harm (read: big dollars) that's one thing. That, given the extent of the injury, would seem a real stretch and gamble. Any settlement might be offset greatly by legal fees.
On the other hand, if the expectation is to simply be made whole by the rifle builder, the outcome is fairly certain. The builder should be made to grovel profusely, fix the firearm and take care of any costs incurred by the OP, without the involvement of a steenkin lawyer. Assuming the builder has any sense, this is easily doable to the satisfaction of the two parties.
I think we still all want to see more pics and measurements of the rifle chamber to see exactly what caused the CF. How did the case end up unsupported - either by chambering to 'another' .308 caliber besides WIN, or by negligent head spacing? If the pics and measurements are inconclusive, then what?
I'm fairly certain you completely missed the point. I was NOT advocating legal recourse, but the ONLY reason to have NOT informed the builder of the problem by now is the documentation of "fault" and preventing the original smith from "covering his tracks".
YOU are the guy that recommended that the OP blow up his rifle, AGAIN, for the purpose of establishing fault in court.
If the OP has no eye towards a legal battle, then he needs to talk to the builder, NOW. If he's going to go the legal route, then nothing we say matters because his attorney is going to tell him what to do next, and likely advise him to quit posting anything on this forum.
**I went back and edited my language because I remembered that Harvey stated he had "60yrs behind a trigger", which makes him a bit older than me. Although I'm not young anymore, I've always made it a point to respect those older than me where I can. I hope to be "old" one day myself, and I apologize for being a dick in my reply.
Last edited:
I’d say Graham’s #1 rule is a good reason to discontinue legal discussion...
Only here I don’t think the OP is... yet a select few posters feel compelled too.
Only here I don’t think the OP is... yet a select few posters feel compelled too.
If the Builder pisses it off as the Owners fault then I would see no reason not to have a Third party look at the Rifle with Litigation in mind.
If the OP just wants his Rifle rebuilt document the failure and then send it back to the builder and see what comes of it.
Id notify the builder and let them know that you want another smith to look at it first to document it, discuss it with them first. Its obviously a Stiller action you might just send it to Stiller and let them look it over that would probably be best for you. Good Luck glad you were not injured badly.
You can drop a round of ammo in the chamber with the bolt removed and see if its lacking case support thats easy and safe. Just use a resized case if your a reloader.
You can drop a round of ammo in the chamber with the bolt removed and see if its lacking case support thats easy and safe. Just use a resized case if your a reloader.
Last edited:
