|
|
Post by cowhunter on Jul 28, 2014 1:22:45 GMT -5
Luke brought to my attention an interesting lawsuit involving a Savage ML II Stainless barrel. The case is called Palatka v Savage Arms, Civil No 12-1475. The Plaintiff, Rodney Palatka, had the barrel of his stainless ML-II blow up, cutting off some fingers and part of his thumb. Before the case could go to trial, the judge held a "Doubert" hearing -- which is a hearing where the judge decides whether the experts are "expert" enough to help the jury. In certain types of cases, if you don't have good enough experts, the case is dismissed, which is what happened here. But then the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judge and said the experts were "expert" enough. This means that there will eventually be a trial. I think the Plaintiff will lose because a jury will decide that the real reason for the barrel blowing up was a "double-loading". But the experts had some interesting things to say. One was a Mechanical Engineering Professor from Michigan State. He testified that the hole drilled near the of the base of the barrel, and used for attaching things to the barrel like a rear sight, was drilled too deep and that this weakened the barrel. He said the hole had threads part way down, which was OK, but that the hole then proceeded to go farther in without threads.
A second expert was a materials expert, and also a professor at Michigan State University. He testified that the 10ML-II barrel was defective because the 416R stainless steel Savage used had too much sulfur -- quite a bit more than industry standards, which made the metal more easy to machine, but also caused it to be anisotropic, which means it will have different properties (and weaknesses) throughout the barrel. He testified that 416R steel is martensitic, meaning it is created through a quench and temper treatment. Martensitic metals are quite hard and so they are often given more machinability by adding sulfur, which combines with the manganese and creates little microscopic voids in the metal. However, too much sulfur creates metal that is too weak. Wood is anisotropic, since it splits readily along the grain of the wood. Metal can be caused to be anisotropic, and split in weak lines down the barrel, when too much sulfur is added. He said properly manufactured 416R has .13 percent sulfur, whereas Savage's steel had .17 percent sulfur. This sulfur caused intergranular fractures in the barrel.
The Plaintiffs had documented 10 other instances where the Savage Stainless barrels blew up. However, none of those had resulted in lawsuits, and the cause of those accidents was unknown (although Savage claimed they were all likely from double loading) so not one of the other incidents was allowed as evidence. Remember when Toby said there were many lawsuits against Savage? That is just not true. Also, note that none of the experts even commented on Toby's theory of gas cutting around the breach plug.
So the bottom line is that there is this one lawsuit that will still go on, but which I think will fail because it seems obvious that the real cause of the barrel failure was double loading. Nevertheless, if you do double load, which I think happens more than people would like to think, it sounds like Savage did not do the customer any favors by some of its manufacturing techniques. Ironically, Savage could have engineered its barrels for the foreseeable misuse of its guns by its customers by drilling holes clean through the receiver, and then plugging those holes with something that would give way if the gun was double loaded. That is how Swing Lock builds its guns -- with holes that blow out before the barrel would fail. From what I've read, if you double load a Pac Nor barrel, it does not explode but just "bulges". I don't know if that is because they are generally made more robust, or because the steel is more sturdy.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Jul 28, 2014 6:22:44 GMT -5
Bottom line
DON'T DOUBLE LOAD
|
|
|
|
Post by jims on Jul 28, 2014 8:07:53 GMT -5
Double loads or the wrong type of a very fast powder can both cause problems.
I often wondered if Savage got out of smokeless MLs because of a combination of relatively small sales versus centerfire, the much greater chance of a double load and trouble versus a centerfire reload. Also many centerfires are not reloaded but use factory cartridges so the risk of reloading failure is mostly with too fast a powder. All MLs of course are loaded by us.
Perhaps too many concerns for the dollars generated as compared to their perceived risks. Just guessing.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowhunter on Jul 28, 2014 12:34:29 GMT -5
Bigmoose has it right. The question is whether a witness mark is the only way to avoid double loading? When we first started muzzleloading, we recognized that we were sometimes scatter-brained, so before loading we would put the barrel up to the light and look for light coming from the fleme channel. We would each say "I've got hole", meaning there was nothing in the barrel. Why not use a ramrod with a witness mark before loading, just to prove that the gun is unloaded? Maybe that could be done in cases where there is any doubt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Jul 28, 2014 16:44:54 GMT -5
When you get done firing a load at the range, do you put your range rod down the bore to make sure it is not loaded?  ? Probably not! since you just fired it and you know it is empty, right? So then, you proceed to start loading your next shot.............You put in the powder, then the wad and then the bullet and seat and remove your rod. Next, prior to moving your rifle to the rest, a buddy shouts something to you which in turn results in a length conversation...........NOT thinking, you inadvertently stuff another wad and bullet down the bore because you "FORGOT" you already did that step. Next you put the rifle on the rest and proceed to get whacked in the eye by your scope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So much for the witness mark! Fece' Occurs and we have to accept the responsibility for our actions. If someone comes in the range or starts talking while I am loading I just totally ignore them or tell them I am busy loading. Be rude! Richard |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 17:22:19 GMT -5
I will state once again, smokeless muzzleloaders are not for the masses, I will go as far as saying that any muzzleloader made is inherently more dangerous than a center fire simply because we the shooter are in control of what gets shoved down the bore. Stuff happens and the more distractions one has when shooting the more likely a snafu..
I try to make it a practice to shoot alone or with only one other person..
with the challenge coming up we will have to be on our toes with several shooters on the line at a time.. on our toes big time!
|
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on Jul 28, 2014 19:56:25 GMT -5
"load in the bubble"//shoot in the bubble!
|
|
|
|
Post by bestill on Jul 28, 2014 20:38:26 GMT -5
Throw a thought out there . I shot tournaments and have built a rack that holds powder vials and wads and bullets and primers in sequence so i dont make a mistake loading then after shot i put empty vial back in rack with spent primer. Helps reduce confusion .
|
|
|
|
Post by 13point on Jul 28, 2014 20:41:53 GMT -5
Not to go into details. I've worked in an engineering lab for 20 years now. If this makes it to court, I doubt that any of these material details will mean anything. A jury will not have a clue what any expert is saying. It will come down to them seeing the poor guy missing fingers. I'm sure Savage has material experts with test data out the rear, or I hope they would. If they can prove it was double loaded it might lessen the blow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 21:33:53 GMT -5
I think they are going to have a hard time proving without reasonable doubt that a loading mistake was or was not made. There's a good chance even the injured party doesn't know for sure. The savage manual is filled with every warning they should ever need to cover their arse. It will be interesting to see, if savage loses no other major manufacturer will ever attempt a smokeless again. IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by bteague on Jul 28, 2014 21:52:32 GMT -5
Savage will settle before it ever goes to trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Jul 29, 2014 7:56:24 GMT -5
The thing with "expert" testimony is you can find a expert to say anything you want. Seen that,,,,
Rumor has it one of the main reasons the 10ML was dropped by Savage was this exact reason. Guys will double load and blow one up and then put Savage as the bad guy selling defective guns. So to avoid any negative press they just dropped the line.
With the legal staff of ATK/Federal behind them it may never go to trial.
If you ever have read Remington's quarterly or yearly statements they always go into the liability issues and talk about lawsuits that crop up from time to time. They do not go into much detail though about the number or the suits pending.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrbuck on Jul 29, 2014 10:13:10 GMT -5
It is very true that smokeless muzzleloading is not for the masses . I will only put out three vials of the powder being tested and three saboted bullets at a time . And I only have one brand of primers on the bench at a time .
I know of a group of stainless Savage MLII owners from Cape May County that I have hunted with several
times in North Carolina . Several said they had the screw holding the rear sight on the barrel bulge
out . If I recall they shot the 325gr. Hornady bullet and 4759 powder . The exact charge I don't know
but I thought that was a bit too fast burning a powder for that bullet . They said Savage replaced the
barrels at no charge .
|
|
|
|
Post by cowhunter on Jul 29, 2014 11:52:13 GMT -5
I should mention that this whole case was an appeal about the lower/trial court dismissing the whole lawsuit because the experts were not scientific/believable/helpful to a jury. So none of Savages' expert testimony was discussed. I'm not surprised there are not more lawsuits. You can see how tough and expensive it can be to get to a jury. I'll bet this law firm won't do more cases. If people were killed it might be different, but muzzleloader explosions have not killed anyone. Rossman40 is right about experts, although judges regulate who can be an expert now. Who was it that said "an expert is a man from out of town".
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Aug 2, 2014 11:51:09 GMT -5
Rossman is 100 percent right, When you pay an expert for his opinion, you have nothing, it becomes a case of duelling
experts. If you can run 10000 shoots thru a barrel with zero problems, and a gent blows his in a couple of hundred, what does that say.
again don't doule load
|
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Aug 2, 2014 12:45:13 GMT -5
I think that expert definition goes to Mark Twain, "an ordinary fellow from another town".
Will Rogers said a expert was "A man fifty miles from home with a briefcase".
A nobel prize winner once said a expert was "A person that has made every possible mistake within his or her field".
|
|
|
|
Post by mike.dawson on Aug 3, 2014 9:45:31 GMT -5
Hi Guys, long time; You do not have to prove reasonable doubt in a civil trial. Just convince a majority of either a 6 or 12 person jury the maker was negligent in the manufacturing process. Ken is right it will be settled and a confidential agreement will be signed by both parties and no one will never know the dollar amount.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowhunter on Aug 3, 2014 12:24:32 GMT -5
I hate attorneys as much as anyone, but sometimes the experts they hire are legitimate and discover interesting things. Mrbuck says there is a report of Savage barrels bulging at the very hole that is the subject of the suit. Has anyone heard of that problem? Does anyone know of an instance of double loading a Savage that then just bulged?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 12:31:00 GMT -5
yes I have seen two barrels bulged myself, not noticeable to the eye but you could sure feel it when you pushed the bullet down. both from a double load situation, both factory .50s SS..
|
|
|
|
Post by 10ga on Aug 3, 2014 15:17:03 GMT -5
Same for me as Hillbill above. Know of 2 barrels bulged, both factory 50 cal, 1 SS and 1 CM. Both were admitted mistakenly double loaded. Both were not obvious bulges but easily detectable from the sabot/bullet "drop" when at a certain point when loading. Visual inspection of the area by magnified boresight showed the bulge and peened lands at the location of the bullet drop. Both barrels have been visually inspected by myself personally and bulge confirmed. Bulge was not visible through ordinary visual inspection of exterior of barrel. 10
|
|
|
|
Post by fishhawk on Aug 3, 2014 20:22:39 GMT -5
I hate attorneys as much as anyone, but sometimes the experts they hire are legitimate and discover interesting things. Mrbuck says there is a report of Savage barrels bulging at the very hole that is the subject of the suit. Has anyone heard of that problem? Does anyone know of an instance of double loading a Savage that then just bulged? Phil, isn't that as bad as you going shark fishing? |
|
|
|
Post by edge on Aug 3, 2014 21:08:46 GMT -5
Metal fails at the weakest area, and a site hole is a weak area.
Most factory barrels seem to bulge in the area of the site hole.
IMO, the barrels that come apart tend to start end at the BP snout/site hole as the mid point.
I do not know if I ever saw a non Savage barrel come apart, one without the site hole!
The barrel I designed as a replacement is very overbuilt and if it is on a CF action with the short BP then the barrel is much thicker than the Savage standard, by at least 50%.
The RB barrel that used his 5/8 BP would be even thicker and should be about as bulletproof as you can get.
edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on Jun 29, 2015 10:56:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by epanzella on Jun 29, 2015 11:38:04 GMT -5
My son bulged his Savage 50 barrel by shooting his ramrod downrange with a fairly hot load. (325 gr ftx @ 2300fps) Now he keeps a coffee can cover on his range ramrod that blocks his sight picture if the rod is still in the bore. Hell of a proof load.
|
|
|
|
Post by cuda on Jun 29, 2015 17:20:53 GMT -5
I did not see anywhere what powder or bullet that was used when the gun blew. They could have used way to much powder and then blame the barrel. There was no mention of what they had loaded at the time of the blow up.
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on Jun 29, 2015 17:53:25 GMT -5
There were many blow ups that Savage concealed from the Court and that is why they got the judgement.
If you read the case I would bet the ranch that this happened on the "first shot"!
This was a borrowed rifle and the guy took it to the range to sight it in and it was most likely loaded from the owner and the guy loaded it when he got to the range...but he will swear he didn't is my guess.
edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by 12ptdroptine on Jun 29, 2015 21:22:20 GMT -5
I have been distracted a few times at the range and double loaded. BUT never fired those loads. Witness mark saved me each time. Now.I have a little.blaxk plastic basket that contains my load. I only bring 1 bullet 1 sabot 1 primer 1 booster charge and 1 main charge 1 wad along with short starter and funnel. I check all of the contents each time before I load and after. USE THE WITNESS MARK . Since I started this I havent had any more mishaps. I just need to comeup with a better witness mark. Right,now I use black tape . If there is any gray showing...then we have a problem
Be safe
Drop
|
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Jun 30, 2015 12:58:24 GMT -5
My number one rule in the courtroom,, never piss-off the judge and basically lying to him isn't the best.
The number of failures kinda alarms me but you also have to factor in how many were due to loading mistakes. I'm not worried with my SS barrel, I would say over the years and hundreds of shots I've kinda proofed it. But it will quicken a conversion to an aftermarket.
A few thousandths on the rear sight hole isn't a big deal IMO. It isn't the cause but more like during the pressure burst it is going to find the weakest spot.
The high sulphur content kinda worries me. If the supplier provided sub-standard steel and then Savage found out about it why wasn't something said. True it might not effect a .223 or even a .30 but when you step up to a .50... This is almost as bad as the Sako/Tikka barrel screw up a few years ago in which they denied anything was wrong on their side for several weeks. Getting barrel quality SS in this country has always been a problem.
Looks like Joe DeGrande is falling on his sword for the company.
I wonder if the lawyers are from Savage or ATK. If that's the best legal team they can come up with they need some new ones. They should have went with a gag order to keep this as quiet as possible.
Overall it is a look behind the scenes.
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on Jun 30, 2015 14:20:42 GMT -5
SNIP. They should have went with a gag order to keep this as quiet as possible. SNIP. It appears as though there was a gag in place, but the gag was removed as part of the judgement...presumably due to the "bad faith" on the part of Savage. That was near the bottom of the order. edge. |
|
|
|
Post by Typical171 on Jun 30, 2015 17:09:58 GMT -5
A few thousandths on the rear sight hole isn't a big deal IMO. It isn't the cause but more like during the pressure burst it is going to find the weakest spot. Yeah, I didn't buy into the .007 out of spec thing on the hole depth either. Im not saying the hole itself isn't the/a problem but its not the cause for the barrel to be safe in spec. or a failure .007 out of spec. |
|
? Probably not! since you just fired it and you know it is empty, right? So then, you proceed to start loading your next shot.............You put in the powder, then the wad and then the bullet and seat and remove your rod. Next, prior to moving your rifle to the rest, a buddy shouts something to you which in turn results in a length conversation...........NOT thinking, you inadvertently stuff another wad and bullet down the bore because you "FORGOT" you already did that step. Next you put the rifle on the rest and proceed to get whacked in the eye by your scope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So much for the witness mark! Fece' Occurs and we have to accept the responsibility for our actions.
