PDA

View Full Version : freak muzzleloader loading accident


adam0bomb
February 21, 2009, 02:17 AM
on November 29th 2008 i had a severe muzzleloader accident.i was sighting in my knight wolverine with a new 209 primer conversion kit.i was using pryrodex pellets with regular 50 cal lead balls.on my third reload i did the normal loadup with at least 5 min waiting time between shots(walking 60 yards too the target too see shot placements).....i loaded 2 50 gram blackpowder pellets..then patch with bore butter after putting the ball in with the starter i then used my rod to push the ball down to the charge area.as soon as i reach the powder the gun imediatly fired,sending part of the rod and the ball through my right hand horizontaly and clipping my left middle finger and flying past my face leaving powder burn on my neck and chin.i now have very minimal use of my dominate right hand and severely damaged left middle finger after going to the hospital i learned from the police and gathered friends and 2 witnesses that were there,that the gun was on safty both action and lever and that the breach was still open.was the cause of this the new 209 kit and possibly not engineered well enough for this gun?or possibly a freak accident?i have used muzzle loading guns and this particular gun since i was at least 10 years old.

sourdough44
February 21, 2009, 06:21 AM
Very sorry to hear about the mishap. Of course a fresh primer was not in the gun while loading? It sounds like a hot ember may of been present but it was a long time & if the pellets were loaded 1st they should of went off sooner. With reguard to a hot ember, I wonder if it's more likely with a chunk of a powder pellet over loose? I think about this & try to wait a little before reloading. Last Fall though I did take 2 anterless deer in the last 10min of shooting time with a speed load in the middle.

Anyhow, that is pretty unusual. I've shot M-L's for a long time & never had one go off while loading.

TheNatureBoy
February 21, 2009, 07:48 AM
Glad you are alive Adam O!

James R. Burke
February 21, 2009, 09:56 AM
Seems like a long time for a hot amber to be in there. Two friends of mine were getting done hunting they were putting there guns in the cases when one went off hitting the other hunter. The gun was not capped. They figure some sort of static set it off. The one that got hit sued the gun maker, and won.

adam0bomb
February 21, 2009, 12:00 PM
yes thank you i am very blessed to be alive.i can still feel that rush of the bullet whipping past my head.my two friends were standing right next to me when it happened so thank god they were not in the way.it could have been so much worse so many different ways.anyone who has loaded a muzzleloader knows you some times put yer whole body or torso right over the barrel!please think about what body parts you have in the way of that barrel!lol one friend insists on loading his gun by pushing the ramrod against a tree.having that muzzleloader go off like it did while loading it the same way since i had it new was just a bummer.i loved that gun and have shot countless deer with it including my very first when i was 10.some people ive talked to suggest the ember was some how trapped in the threads of the breach.

i have also considered suing the maker of the 209 conversion kit...what if this is a poorly engineered product?i have shot this gun since new with the previous no11 caps for years.the night before the accident i totally disassembled the gun and throughly cleaned it then installed the new 209 kit.next day after just 2 shots it did this.did i do something wrong?should i have swabbed between shots..yes i should have.but whoops i forgot.my friend sits there with his muzzleloader and loads it while smoke is still rolling out the barrel.ya hes dumb but he does this all the time.

Pahoo
February 21, 2009, 01:10 PM
adam0bomb
I too am sorry for your accident and I understand that a simular accident happened in easter Illinois. I am a Hunter Safety Instructor and assist at the M/L station. We always review safety rules particular to M/L's. During our class time I like to mention actual accidents like yours. Please do not feel offended if I mention yours. Years ago, at Freindship, there was a simular accident and it was caused by an ember from loose B/P. In the Illinoise accident, I understand that the fella had a fresh primer installed before he loaded his main charge. I'm still trying to find out more about this accident.

I would like more details on your accident and will PM you. I am not finding any problem with your shot string, loading sequence and safety procedures. We teach a whole bunch of kids and some adults and we have a great day. Natrually I would like to eliminate anything that might hurt them. Personally, your accident really hits home and troubles me.

We also conduct Spring Workshops in our districts and review the previous hunting season's accidents. As long as I can recal,, we have never had a M/L incident and perhaps we might take this for granted. Again, I am sorry for your accident and wish you well.


Be Safe !!!

Don H
February 21, 2009, 03:34 PM
adam0bomb,

Why do you think the conversion kit may have caused to accident?

Stevie-Ray
February 21, 2009, 04:35 PM
Adam, I always wanted a CVA Pennsylvania Long Rifle. I never got it because of two things. One, I promised the wife I would never have black powder in the house or garage, and two, I really never was comfortable with the idea of loading a BP rifle. I am rather prone to static charge, and I'm afraid I'd have to be barefoot most of the time to feel a little safer. If I ever got that rifle, I'm afraid it would remain a wall-hanger. I know it wasn't your intent, but thanks for reinforcing my decision not to participate in BP. I'm certainly happy you weren't injured far more than you were and I hope you continue to improve. Good luck, man.

john1911
February 21, 2009, 05:37 PM
have also considered suing the maker of the 209 conversion kit...

Why? You screwed up. Man up and admit it and quit looking to blame someone else.

Your post are very difficult to read.

armedandsafe
February 21, 2009, 06:39 PM
I was taught a couple of generations (or more) ago to blow down the barrel of the gun before pouring powder. Sparks can linger a long time. a little extra air will burn them out pretty quickly.

If the patch leaves a thread or such in the bore, that can smolder for minutes.

Addressing the static electricity question, I offer this link:

http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/sparks/sparks.html

Pops

adam0bomb
February 21, 2009, 06:55 PM
Quote:
have also considered suing the maker of the 209 conversion kit...
Why? You screwed up. Man up and admit it and quit looking to blame someone else.

Your post are very difficult to read.

-and how did i "screw up"?
seems like there are plenty of people on here that can read my post.you dont have to comment if you cant even read or understand my post.

B.N.Real
February 21, 2009, 09:57 PM
adamObomb,glad to see you posting here.

What you went through is one of the reasons I never got into blackpowder shooting.

You could get the use back in your right hand but it could take a year or two for the nerves to grow back right.

I went through that when a van hit me as I was riding a ten speed bike.

Sounds to me like you waited and did what you had to do but wow-what a warning to all of us here to be ready for the worst even when doing things we've done hundreds of times.

Gbro
February 21, 2009, 10:44 PM
Adam,
I to am a firearms safety instructor and an avid muzzle loader hunter.
My condolences to you on this incident. I will pray for a huge recovery for you.
I know what you mean by others loading while barrel is still smoking. I confess that I to have done that. I have always believed the powder would flash immediately if a hot ember was still present. Your experience/accident is an eye opener to all of us.
I use B/P only but have experimented with powder pellets. There is a remarkable difference in burn rate for uncompressed B/P substitutes.
How this would relate to your accident, I don't know but everything has to be looked at.
If your recollection, and that of the others confirms your time element at anywhere near what you posted, there is just no way to establish a reasonable waiting period between loadings.
I am with armerandsafe in the static charge, however everything is not always equal in this kind of situation.
I do firmly believe this accident has an explainable cause and with the right minds at work you will get an answer. That being said, the only reasonable way would be in a legal action. Money talks!

Thank you for sharing your accident with us.

Greg

OldMarksman
February 21, 2009, 10:47 PM
What you went through is one of the reasons I never got into blackpowder shooting.

I got out of it for these reasons:


The risk of what happened to the OP
The difficulty of unloading without firing if need be
The fact that the gun being loaded is not patently obvious
The explosiveness of the powder



All that is personal. If you want to engage in this proceed, but be aware of the risks.

A couple of my favorite guns of all time: a hand built Hawken percussion replica and a flintlock rifle built in Williamsburg, VA in 1980 that I did not fire. Beautiful, with terrific balance. I couldn't afford either one.

In general, though, I prefer to stay away from guns that have to be fed through the muzzle with black powder.

troy_mclure
February 21, 2009, 11:38 PM
The explosiveness of the powder

smokeless powder burns tons faster than black.

i converted to 209 on my wolverine this spring, ive shot 94 shots thru it so far. i use pellets and sabots, not loose powder.

the main reason i converted was to use triple 7, and a more reliable ignition.

ive reloaded within seconds of previous shots. no probs.

it could be a bit of your patch was left burning.

HAMMER1DOWN
February 22, 2009, 12:28 AM
Troy.. why don't you take and pour a little pile of black powder on the ground and also a little pile of the fastest burning smokeless and light them at the same time.. the black poder is gonna go up in a hurry and the smokeless will burn for alot longer than the BP will. Black powder is the fastest burning powder that i am aware of.
Hammer out

Pahoo
February 22, 2009, 12:00 PM
I was taught a couple of generations (or more) ago to blow down the barrel of the gun before pouring powder. Sparks can linger a long time. a little extra air will burn them out pretty quickly.

I use to do this during my Buckskinner days and no longer do it, as it simply not safe. I know there are folks out there that still do it, for various reasons. This is what I call "Personal Technique" and we all follow our own ways. A prefered way is to put you hammer or striker in the cocked of half cacked position and place your ramrod down the barral and pump it up and down three or four time. This will extinguish any embers and allow you to observe the smoke coming out of the vent of your nipple. It's called muzzle-loading not muzzle-blowing. :rolleyes:


Always Be Safe !!!

45guy
February 22, 2009, 12:49 PM
I have been a muzzle loader for 40 years and never had this happen. I use only black powder, never pyrodex or others. Pyrodex can be quirky and there have been a number of strange accidents with it.

Swabing the bore with a slightly damp patch and one or two pases between shots should do it. Do not have a cap on nipple and have hammer on 1/2 cock ( or bolt open ) so air will vent and blow out any embers.

Also place a t-spoon of Downy in a quart spray bottle, fill with water and very lightly spritz everything ( including your clothing ), this will stop static all day.

Gbro
February 22, 2009, 02:51 PM
Troy.. why don't you take and pour a little pile of black powder on the ground and also a little pile of the fastest burning smokeless and light them at the same time.. the black poder is gonna go up in a hurry and the smokeless will burn for alot longer than the BP will. Black powder is the fastest burning powder that i am aware of.Hammer out

In the open air you are correct, inside the barrel of your gun and it is the slowest and lowest pressure powder you can find.

I want to comment on this from my previous post,
I am with armerandsafe in the static charge
The tests with static electrisity was for Black Powder. I do not know of any tests with B/P substatutes.

Csspecs
February 22, 2009, 08:37 PM
Ok I don't see it mentioned but was the .209 struck? I'm guessing that would be hard to find out.

Either way I can't see the primer conversion being the problem. Seems like you had some fouling of grease or other matter in the breach and it was enough to touch off the powder.

I remember my hunter safety class had a how to load a muzzle loader, the instructor had some sort of grip that was supposed to keep your hand away from the muzzle a bit. Also said never to but your hand over the ramrod, of course trying to get the bullet to seat that last little bit can be a bear.

adam0bomb
February 23, 2009, 12:11 AM
no 209primer was not struck.

bcarver
February 23, 2009, 01:15 AM
sorry about your injuries, Hope it rehabs well.
Question: was a fresh primer on the weapon?
If you put the primer on first it could have been your fault.
but only if primer went off

I blow air down the barrel and it is safe as long as the gun is not loaded.
Shoot, cock gun, remove primer/cap, blow.
It does look dangerous but unless you load it and forget you did it would not be dangerous.
How could that be unsafe.
The extra air helps burn the embers. patches make this problem worse as threads might lodge in bore and smolder.
The ember theory seems most likely.
as you were pushing the ball down the barrel it may have pushed an ember down to the charge

JKHolman
February 23, 2009, 07:29 AM
Adam0bomb,
thank goodness you are alive. As to your injuries, physical therapy works wonders. Thank you for sharing your story as a reminder for all to be careful with not only firearms, but all instruments. I, too, fire black powder, and realize the dangers inherent to the craft. It is stories like yours that remind me to always do things by the numbers. This is another reason to make sure the firing piece is always pointed in a safe direction. In that you were loading your firearm, it was necessary to involve your appendages in the line of fire, yet you were careful to have your head (which is still attached to your body) and your friends out of the line of fire. You were being safe under the circumstances (reloading). You did right. Ignore those that judge you unfairly. Life will judge (teach) them on this sooner than they think./// Less than two months back a friend and I were firing his Stag AR-15 (a really beautiful rifle). Having passed the rifle to me, he went to the bench to load a new magazine. I kept the rifle pointing downrange as is my natural inclination. Thinking the ammunition expended, I pulled the trigger to confirm that the chamber was empty. Much to my surprise, the rifle discharged, BUT in a safe direction. AND that is why we always do things by the numbers, so when there is a mishap, it is not fatal. Good luck to you, Adam0bomb.

- JKHolman

rem870hunter
February 23, 2009, 02:48 PM
sorry to hear, really sucks that it happened.

they can be dangerous, but if exercising caution they can be fine and fun to shoot. if there was not a primer in/on the nipple or an ember still burning in the breach. the chances of it going off are very slim. i've shot load after load and never had anything even close to that. never had the powder light after pouring it down the muzzle. i wait maybe 10 seconds between shots.

not really sure how it would not have happened to those who shot them centuries ago. afterall "a good man can fire three aimed shots in a minute". i fired 5 once. i'm not trying that again.

juicyhog
March 12, 2009, 07:48 PM
Same thing happened to me with a knight wolverine muzzle loader using 209 primers. I shot the gun, put the safeties on, and pried off the used primer. I reloaded after a couple minutes and when I rammed the ball home the gun went off. I am lucky to be alive and the doctors were able to fix my hand, wrist and arm which were foolishly in the line of fire.

Gbro
March 12, 2009, 08:10 PM
Sorry to hear about your accident.
Not many of us that shoot muzzle stuffer's haven't had body parts in the way.
I have sent you a P.M.

ElectricHellfire
March 12, 2009, 08:54 PM
Wow. Sorry to hear about your injury. Not really sure about what happened as the only black power rifle I own is a Hawken and not an in-line. Never seen anything like that happen personally although I've heard of them.

jrinne0430
March 13, 2009, 09:10 AM
Wow :eek:that is scary and sorry to hear about your injuries. The incident you described is one of my greatest fears when muzzle loading. I always blow the barrel out between shots and it takes me about 1 min+/- before I am ready to load the next (I am very slow with filling the powder measure). No telling what caused your to fire.

ilbob
March 13, 2009, 09:27 AM
Seems like a long time for a hot amber to be in there. Two friends of mine were getting done hunting they were putting there guns in the cases when one went off hitting the other hunter. The gun was not capped. They figure some sort of static set it off. The one that got hit sued the gun maker, and won.
I am trying to figure out just how static electricity could build up inside the steel barrel of a firearm?

Even if the charge was actually on the person doing the relaoding, if he/she was touching the barrel there would be no place for the static to discharge to.

I vote for the ember theory, even though it sounds crazy that it could still exist after all that time.

Pahoo
March 13, 2009, 10:00 AM
I always blow the barrel out between shots

Basic safe gun handling rule #1 and perhaps the most important one, is to:
"Never point the muzzle of a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy".

Rather that blowing down the muzzle,
"Pump the Ramrod". Open you bolt or cock the hammer and insert your rod and pump it about four times or until you don't see anymore smoke out of your vent. Please keep some of your favorite boby parts out of the way!!! :eek:



Be Safe !!!

Lavid2002
March 13, 2009, 10:17 AM
*big breath in......*.........! *gasp*......Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures Pictures
:P Do it!

jrinne0430
March 13, 2009, 10:22 AM
I guess I should have been more specific. I use the CO2 device (sold by Cabela's) as my blowing method between shots.

vranasaurus
March 13, 2009, 10:46 AM
Why? You screwed up. Man up and admit it and quit looking to blame someone else.

How exactly did he screw up?

If there is a flaw in the product that can cause this malfunction the manufacturer should certainly be sued. I am not saying there is but it should certainly be looked into.

Pahoo
March 13, 2009, 11:03 AM
I use the CO2 device (sold by Cabela's) as my blowing method between shots.
Good option to blowing down the barrel, EH ??? ..... :D

Be Safe !!!

crazybuck
March 13, 2009, 11:13 AM
It seems strange that the pellets didn't ignite when they hit the breech plug before seating the bullet. Thank God it wasn't any worse than that, even though it was bad.

Bryce
March 13, 2009, 07:58 PM
Well I am glad you are both alive. I think JuicyHog may have understated the severity of his injuries, as i was there to witness it first hand. I also witnessed his heroic march 3/4 of a mile back to the truck, with his blown up arm hanging at his side.
I shoot muzzle loaders. I have never cared for the inlines. I have rammed charges home with no cool down, time and time again.
You can say "be carful". You can give advice. You can say "they screwed up!"
I say their number was up. All of us grubby soot covered shooters, should be thankful, that it wasnt our own number that was up.

adam0bomb
March 15, 2009, 01:23 AM
Same thing happened to me with a knight wolverine muzzle loader using 209 primers. I shot the gun, put the safeties on, and pried off the used primer. I reloaded after a couple minutes and when I rammed the ball home the gun went off. I am lucky to be alive and the doctors were able to fix my hand, wrist and arm which were foolishly in the line of fire.

Thank you for your post juicyhog! Glad to see so many people positively responding and offering so many good safety tips and suggestions!!

I’m interested to see if anyone else out there has heard or experienced an accident like these.

Ben Towe
March 15, 2009, 01:46 AM
Sorry to hear about the accident, hope you regain use of everything.

A note about blackpowder and pellets:

Blackpowder is classed as an explosive and not a propellant like smokeless powder (Pyrodex, etc.). Blackpowder is somewhat unstable and can be set off with pressure (so can smokeless, but it's less likely). Pyrodex pellets have a coating of blackpowder on the base to help with ignition. My theory is that in the act of ramming the ball home perhaps the pressure ignited the black powder coating. While I've never heard of this it is theoretically possible. Of course static electricity or an ember could be the culprit. I would be interested to know the difference in ADs such as this between shooters using real blackpowder and smokeless substitutes, though figures would no doubt be difficult to gather. My $0.02...

TheKlawMan
June 23, 2009, 03:22 PM
Adam: If you have not done so, I strongly suggest you get an attorney; preferably one with products liability experience. I do not know anything about the law of your state, but individual states that law suits be filed within so much time of an injury. For exmple, one web site from an Indiana attorney says it is 2 years for a personal injury case, but to verify the period of limitations of actions with an attorney.

There are also rules specifying the tolling of the period, which I won't get into but even if one's period seems to have expired it may have time left should one or more of the tolling rules apply to their situration.

Depending on your states laws, there may be no such thing as a "freak accident" if this is classified as what is called an "ultrahazardous" product. If it is and if you were using the product in the manner for which it was intended, and it sounds as if you were doing just that, you may have a very strong case. In some states, and I don't know the law of your state, a manufacturer is held "strictly liable" regardless of negligence, for injury to a consumer as long as the product is being used as intended.

I don't know about the manufacturer of your gun, as you modified it and had it since you were 10, but an attorney from your state can advise you on that. I am focusing on the 209 conversion kit and possible more than its manufacturer.

Once again, depending on the law of your state, anyone involved with the "stream of commerce" of the kit may be liable. The manufacturer, the importer, distributor, and retailer. I assume you installed it yourself according to its instructions.

You may find this article helpful. even if your case has nothing to do with CVA. I suspect its author may be able to refer you to an attorney with expertise in black powder cases. http://www.chuckhawks.com/dangerous_muzzleloaders.htm

I hope your recovery is going well. Please find an attorney as you should not rely on anyting I have written as it may not apply to the laws of your state. In fact, if the conversion kit was purchased in antother state or hour injury occured there, your state's laws may not even govern. Get an attorney.

Zilmo
June 23, 2009, 03:39 PM
Why is everyone in such a damned hurry to get lawyers involved? Seems like lawyers are the main reason we have things like the stupid locks on S&W's and other things. Screw the lawyers.

Dood_22
June 23, 2009, 04:32 PM
Adam: If you have not done so, I strongly suggest you get an attorney; preferably one with products liability experience. I do not know anything about the law of your state, but individual states that law suits be filed within so much time of an injury.

Oh goody! Get another fine product taken off the market over nothing more than speculation. And cost another fine American company money just defending itself.

Suing over BS like this only causes everyone to pay in the end. The loss of useful products, the loss of domestic companies, the loss of jobs and the increase in the cost of everything. After legal fees, the only winner is the lawyers.

TheKlawMan
June 23, 2009, 04:50 PM
Adam, who no one has been able to fault. He had just purchased the primer concversion kit and had waited 5 minutes before reloading or the manufacturer of the kit. Adam is lucky to be alive, but can he work and provide for his family.

Who should bear the burden of the spreading the risk of injuries; the consumer or the manufacturer who hopefully tests their equipment and is able to pass the cost of insurance on to consumers.

And just who do you think is going to go to bat for injured consumers, the manufacturer's lawyers. Sure they can have lawyers up the kazoo, but if an injured party hires one it's "BS". Ask someone who has been around where woking people would be if it wasn't for the lawyers that took on big business.

Brian Pfleuger
June 23, 2009, 05:00 PM
Suing over BS like this only causes everyone to pay in the end. The loss of useful products, the loss of domestic companies, the loss of jobs and the increase in the cost of everything. After legal fees, the only winner is the lawyers.

Very much correct, sir. Except you left out one of the winners.... this thread. It just got brought back to life after 3 months in the grave!

adam0bomb
June 23, 2009, 06:27 PM
I agree with everyone...Yes it sucks that a gun i have had since i was 10 went off like it did while i was loading it.I loved that gun and think knight has good products but this conversion kit is what i believe caused the accident.I started this thread to see what others thoughts were on this accident and also to find others who have had the same accidents.I have found 2 others with identical accidents and both were with the same style ignition system.Also all 3 of our accidents involved using pyrodex pellets and round balls.I do have an attorney right now and he has been very persistent and very helpful to me and my case.

TheKlawMan
June 23, 2009, 07:44 PM
I am glad you found an attorney. He or she would probably want you to say no more, as what you do say could find its way back to the manufacturer of the 209 kit.

Dood_22
June 23, 2009, 09:57 PM
Very much correct, sir. Except you left out one of the winners.... this thread. It just got brought back to life after 3 months in the grave!

I'm sure Klawman is a lawyer.

And just who do you think is going to go to bat for injured consumers, the manufacturer's lawyers. Sure they can have lawyers up the kazoo, but if an injured party hires one it's "BS". Ask someone who has been around where woking people would be if it wasn't for the lawyers that took on big business.

Who should go to bat for the consumer? The Consumer, of course. Buddy, if you aren't taking care of yourself, (in this case by having insurance of your own) there isn't anybody else that will.

I love how you lawyers call any business "big business" as some sort of slur to make a cheap play on envy. But the reality is that most businesses are not big businesses by any stretch of the imagination. Most businesses are barely making it. How many 209 conversions do you think a company has to sell just to cover 1 hour of a lawyer's time?

I guess anyone who wants a 209 conversion had better go out and get one now, because by the time the vultures get finished there won't be a company left making them.

TheKlawMan
June 23, 2009, 10:51 PM
Where did I say the maker of the conversion kit was big business? I simply pointed out that you folk should consider where you would be if lawyers didn't take on big business.

Yeah. I used to be a lawyer and my practice was devoted to defending mucipal entities, corporations, and individuals at the request of their insurance companies. Later I specialized in representing consumers against the like.

So your answer is let the injured consumer buy insurance; not the company profiting from selling the product. Assume that many persons injured are working people who can barely afford the necessities of life, and many can't even afford health insurance, how are they to afford disability insurance.

This assumes that neither the consumer nor the manufacturer had any fault for negligence.

And what in the heck makes you think this is an American company and even if it is it isn't manufacturing in Mexico or China?

Zilmo
June 23, 2009, 11:05 PM
Yeah. I used to be a lawyer

Huh. I wouldn't have guessed.

Dood_22
June 24, 2009, 09:39 AM
You avoid a very pertinent question. Here, I'll even help you with the math.

Knight 209 Conversion (http://www.gamaliel.com/cart/product.php?productid=2703)

Call it $50. We can easily assume that the retailer marks up 100%. but let's not. Let's be more "conservative". So, let's say Knight sold it for $40. A profitable company is doing well when they make 10% after everything is said and done. That would be $4 profit on these things after Knight pays their employees, suppliers, rent and taxes, etc.

A corporate lawyer goes for $200/hr minimum. So that means Knight's has to sell 50 of the conversions simply to pay for a lawyer to write a letter. What if this goes to court? Or even settles? I can see an easy 10 hours in that. So now Knight's has to sell 500 of those things. This isn't even considering any payments to the plaintiff or the plaintiff lawyer's fees.

Just how big do you think the market is for 209 conversions? Give me some numbers.

My guess would be that they *might* sell 500 of those in a whole damn year. Even if Knight has insurance that pays, what do you imagine the insurance company is going to do to their rates?

This isn't difficult math figuring out why lawsuits are a major contributor to the decline of American manufacturing.

johnwilliamson062
June 24, 2009, 11:12 AM
This isn't difficult math figuring out why lawsuits are a major contributor to the decline of American manufacturing.
More like everything. Maybe the lawyers are just the result of most of America being babyies though.

This is a common problem w/ BP guns. If you didn't look into BP enough to know that, you were negligent in the accident. Knight should not be responsible for something totally unrelated to their specific design. This could happen in ANY BP gun. Bringing suit for this would be like getting in a motorcycle accident and suing the manufacturer for not installing a sufficient crumple zone.

1.Use plastic Sabots
2. DO NOT PUT YOUR BODY IN FRONT OF THE GUN(rule #4). If possible hold the ram rod on the edges and RAM it down into the bullet, multiple times is not unusual.

adam0bomb
June 24, 2009, 03:47 PM
so you guys are telling me if you had a product that you believed to have malfunctioned and caused physical injury to you or to someone you cared about you would just suck it up and deal with the outcome without putting any effort in letting the manufacturer know it has a prob.Tell that to all the cva gun owners who have had them blow up in there faces.Its called product liability you make the gun(or the conversion kit)you better make damn well sure its not going to cause an accident or a death.I have the freedom to bring a lawsuit against the company and have them defend whether there conversion kit caused the accident.And if i lose and they prove the theory wrong then so be it ill let it go.

johnwilliamson062
June 24, 2009, 07:23 PM
The product did not malfunction. This is a known characteristics of all BP guns. You bought it and you should have looked into known characteristics before you started shooting it. There is probably something in the manual that talks about it. You admitted you should have swabbed the barrel. Not saying I do it every time, but i know I should and it is my fault if I have an accident because I do not follow safety procedure.

A few years ago some kids bought some black diamond climbing equipment and tried to go climbing with it. They tried to sue the company b/c they didn't know what they were doing and got hurt. They lost.

It is not the companies fault. Suing the "deep pockets" in any situation simply because they are "deep pockets" shows an absolute lack of character. You are responsible for this b/c YOU took a chance when you bought a BP gun. YOU should bear the burden, hopefully you had insurance.
Be ready to pay court costs for them and face a counter suit for libel resulting from this post if you lose.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe all the people who have used graphite arrows should sue the manufacturers for the injuries they received to their hands when the arrows shattered.

Maybe I should file a lawsuit against you for causing me trauma by threatening my ability to buy a 209 primer conversion kit with your frivolous lawsuit. I could, and if I only sue for two or 3 grand you would be better off to settle it than to hire a lawyer. Hell, I could contact everyone who ever read this post and we could make a class action out of it.

Just went to their compny website. Looks like they are closing down.

HeroHog
June 24, 2009, 11:32 PM
no 209primer was not struck.
End of story dude. How did a primer conversion kit, that did not cause the primer to fire in any way, cause the gun to go off? Simple, it didn't. You had a very bad, purely freak, accident. Quit trying to find someone to blame. So what, idiots follow a lot less safety precautions than you and don't get hurt. That has nothing to do with this. Yes, you did everything "right". It is not your fault. That does NOT make it someone else's fault. If you just HAVE to blame someone, blame God. You drew the short straw and lost.

I sincerely hope you heal and do better than the doctors think you will. I pray that. You have to accept that you got a raw deal but it is not this company's fault.

God bless man. I do feel your pain. I am disabled and I blame no one even though I have worked many jobs that were hard on me and one might get by with blaming one of them for my condition but I don't because there is no ONE incident that I can point to. I accept my fate and deal with the constant pain I endure every day as best I can. 2 weeks ago they found a tumor in my bladder... who would I blame for that?

Hook686
June 24, 2009, 11:57 PM
#11
adam0bomb
Junior Member


Join Date: 2009-02-20
Location: Elkhart indiana
Posts: 7
Quote:
have also considered suing the maker of the 209 conversion kit...
Why? You screwed up. Man up and admit it and quit looking to blame someone else.

Your post are very difficult to read.

-and how did i "screw up"?
seems like there are plenty of people on here that can read my post.you dont have to comment if you cant even read or understand my post.



With regards to the actual shooting incident, I really have no idea. However I note you posted on a public forum that you know you should have swabbed the barrel, but didn't. That strikes me as a major 'screw up'.

It strikes me as wise to swab the barrel between shots when shooting a muzzleloader.

TheKlawMan
June 25, 2009, 02:44 AM
I would like to know two things. Did this 209 converion significantly increase the amount of time that the breech remained hot and, if it did, did the manufacturer include a warning to that effect with the product? If the answer to each is yes, the manufacturer has a big problem. Especially if it believes that the accident wouldn't have happened if the warning had been given.

That could be because it finds that Adam wouldn't had used the kit, would have swabbed the barrel, or would in some other way have avoided injury but for the manufacturer's failure to provide an adequate warning of the risk.

Answer me this. Assume the above but that Adam was sitting down while reloading. Consequently his barrel was pointed behind the firing line. A pregnant 19 year old woman caught the ball in her brain and is now a paraplegic. Of course the baby died. Adam is so distraught at what had happened, he shoots himself. His estate is penniless.

Should the manufacturer be responsible for the woman's damages?

johnwilliamson062
June 25, 2009, 11:26 AM
Should the manufacturer be responsible for the woman's damages?
No. He still would have broken rule #2 or #4. He would be responsible.

I don't swab the barrel between shots. I reload with smoke still pouring out the barrel. So did a million soldiers in the Civil war. They kept their hand and body out of the way of the barrel. I usually succeed at keeping my hand out of the way, but not always. All a part of muzzle loaders.

shortwave
June 25, 2009, 01:41 PM
should the manufacturer be responsible for the womans damage`s. johnwilliamson wrote: "No. he still would have broken rule #4." Great response john. In the hypothetical scene TheKlawMan portrayed muzzle should`nt have been pointed behind firing line at any time. Adam would be to blame, no one else. AdamObomb, am very sorry to hear of your accident and hope your recovery is quick. IMO, not clearing(choose your safe method) a BP barrel is an unwise thing to do and in many BP manuals/DVD`s that come with many new BP guns, shows swabbing between shots. Its just basic BP safety. Your dumping an explosive down a tube thats probably warm/hot with NO guarantee that all the powder from previous load is totally spent. THATS BP SHOOTING . Clearing/swabbing barrel should be part of basic shooting safety.FWIW, I`d rather swab barrel after shot than shoot BP gun for years,then one day have that accident and realize my mistake. With MUCH respect I don`t see how 209 conv. kit enters into this accident!

shortwave
June 25, 2009, 02:14 PM
adamObomb, after reading more of this thread can you explain specifically why you feel the conv. kit is responsible for accident? Please don`t get offensive I`m not being sarcastic just failing to understand your thoughts. If your equating the fact that an explosion like this has never happened to you before and you`ve been shooting this rifle since you were 10 and the only thing different is a new 209 conv. kit, have you forgot about the new pack of BP pellets or primers. Were the pellets old? How were they stored? Again ,what makes you single out conversion kit, how did it cause accident:confused:?

Rembrandt
June 25, 2009, 03:03 PM
Will be interesting to see how far this goes.....Knight Rifles is no longer in business, just a piece of history now.

Zilmo
June 25, 2009, 03:29 PM
"It is always someone else's fault."

The Lawyers

TheKlawMan
June 25, 2009, 07:30 PM
Since he may have to litigate things, the place to argue his case is in court and in front of a jury that is willing to follow the law of his state. The members of this board have made it perfectly clear that they have little regard for the dictates of the law.

Let me clue you in on the pregnant 19 year old hypo. In that case the manufacturer of the conversion kit would clearly be responsible; the question is for how much of her damages. ALL jurisdictions (states) pretty much agree that much.

The reason the manufacturer would be responsible is that the woman was an innocent with no fault of her own. Hence the manufacturer would have some liability to her, since the shooter's conduct was forseeable, even if it was neglient.

The conduct of a third party, here that would be the shooter, would only be a defense against the woman's claim if the third party's conduct was a superceding unforseeable event. This kind of negligence is clearly forseeable.

Hence it may be a pure defense to any claim of the shooter in those very few states that still follow the rule of contributory negligence (one's own negligence, regardless of how minor, cuts off any liability to them).

This assumes that there was some defect in the manifacture, design, or warnings given by the manufacturer. For purposes of the hyopothetical involving the pregnant 19 year old, you were to assume that the manufacturer knew that its product increased the risk of firing during a reload, but the manufacturer chose not to warn the shooter of the longer hot breech times. Under those circumstances, many judges would charge the jury that the manufacturer was liable on account of its failure to issue the warning if the jury finds that the lack of warning casued the accident.

You all assume that I am this greedy plaintiff's attorney. Few were brought for plaintiffs and they were in the field of securities and cotract law. Most all the injury ones were at the behest of insurance companies.

I would have agrued in my hyptehtical situation that the jury should not find the manufacturer liable, since there was no reason to believe that the hypothetical shooteer, who was clearly negligent and even reckless, would have paid any attention to the warning. On the other hand, were I the shooter's attorney I would have offered whatever evidence existed to show that the shooter was being extra cautious as he familariized himself with the conversion kit. Such an argument would be hard to make in the case of the shooter reloading with his muzzle facing back of the line, but that is not the case with Adam and I am not going there.

My point is that I have devoted much of my life to defending personal injury suits and I don't like to see money passed out without cause. I only recently stopped hearing arbitrations and was known as a defense arbitrator, though I would rule for a plaintiff when it was warranted. Still, I kept the size of the damage awards within reason.

But I am amazed by you folk. The heck with the purely innocent dead girl and the dead baby in her belly. So what if the manufacturer's deiberate decison not to issue the warning was a cause of their deaths. The shooter was negligent.

HeroHog
June 25, 2009, 10:10 PM
The reason the manufacturer would be responsible is that the woman was an innocent with no fault of her own. Hence the manufacturer would have some liability to her, since the shooter's conduct was forseeable, even if it was neglient.

That horrible leap of (lack of) logic, and lawyers who would pursue it, are why lawyers are hated so and why things cost so much... companies pay ungodly amounts to OTHER lawyers to protect said company from other lawyers! What a racket! BTW, you need spell check.

4V50 Gary
June 25, 2009, 10:29 PM
With black powder, static electricity doesn't ignite the stuff. I don't know about pyrodex pellets. How about compression? Anyone hear ever hear of fire-pistons? They're popular in some countries and are used in lieu of flint and steel or fire bow or other methods to start fires.

johnwilliamson062
June 25, 2009, 10:31 PM
its product increased the risk of firing during a reload
I ave never seen it claimed a 209 is more dangerous. I would be surprised if there is any evidence to this effect in court. The primer ignition device is not what set it odff. There was something smoldering in the barrel, or at least that has been the cause of every accident I have heard of. Like the barrel, the primer system does not get hot enough to ignite powder.

TheKlawMan
June 26, 2009, 02:35 AM
Johnwilliams, Your statement to the effect that you had never heard that the use of 209 primers increased the risk of a firiing during loading. If you didn't think there was any greater risk, then why would Adam think it wasn't safe to proceed following the same procedure he had followed for years with black powder and regular caps?

Whether Adams attorney will be able to prove the existence of this increased risk will be his job. From the little I have heard on this board he has a case.

When I refer to a "hot barrel" I mean it is hot in the sense that there is something, powder or patch residue, still smoldering in the barrel that is capable of ingniting the reload. I isee how you could have thought I meant that the barrel was so hot as to cause the propellant to cook off.

While you may be correct in so far as the conversion kit doesn't directly ignite the propellant, the kit is marketed for use with those propellants and it appears that Adams attorney believes that the use of those propellants and a 409 kit increases the likelihood that some kind of ember is still present after the shooter has waited a reasonable time to reload.

I think someone indicated that the problem may actually reslt from a characteristic of the propellant. If so, the kit manufacturer wouldn't necessarily be off the hook, especially if it markets its kits to enable shooters to use the propellant, but can seek indemnification from the manufacturer of the propellant.

TheKlawMan
June 26, 2009, 02:42 AM
What you have raised is the same principal of the diesel engine. The diesel doesn't need spark pluts since fuel is compressed more than in a gas engine; comprssion itself results in igniting the fuel.

TheKlawMan
June 26, 2009, 02:49 AM
:pYou either missed or chose to take out of context what I said, which was that "This assumes that there was some defect in the manifacture, design, or warnings given by the manufacturer." If the manufacturer had no fault, they are not responsible for the death of the girl and her baby.:p

HeroHog
June 26, 2009, 07:09 AM
I did miss that, sorry. My bad. I will eat my crow. Pass the salt please...

TheKlawMan
June 26, 2009, 07:58 PM
I could have written more clearly and all probably mean well. If I could I would pass you some tequila with the salt and lime.

many ponies
June 28, 2009, 07:45 PM
Sorry you were injured,,,things like this do happen.

I would like to commend those that posted the many safety tips, all apply in one way or the other.
I do not wish to come on as being a wise acre, but feel i should warn others about a potential safety hazard that exists with these weapons.

The problem lies in the compression generated by pushing a tight fitting boolet down a barrel, if the hole on the nipple is too small, or is obstructed, by small grain powder, burned powder, or anything else.

compression generates heat, and any flamable substance has a flash point, when that temp is reached ignition will occur, like in a desil engine.
desil only requires 150 psi to ignite, i do not know the flash point of substitute powders.

IF, the hole in the nipple is so obstructed, and a boolet is "rammed" home, the tempature can easily reach the flash point, not only of the powder used,but probably the lube on the boolit as well.

I am an old man, 68,,,i have shot patch rifles for much of those years.
I have never had an AD, altho i did shoot my ramrod away once.

Others have covered most of the required safety tips, but i will add this, make sure the nipple is clear, either by blowing down the barrel, put a cloth over it if you dont want lube and powder in your mouth,,,this will extinguish any spark, soften the residue, and generally make life easier, or poking a prick in the nipple.

you dont need to tamp on the powder, you couldn't tamp it any tighter with a loading press, BPC shooters consider 24 inches plenty long enough for a drop tube.

push the boolit down slowly, until it hits the powder, contact is enough, you dont need to bounce the ramrod on the boolit either, that will just cause more problems, put a mark on your ramrod until expirence teaches you the feel.

hope you consider this angle on the problem.....

look up compression fire starters.


many ponies

BUZ
June 28, 2009, 09:00 PM
I used to shoot ML's and have seen this happen twice, it wasn't pretty. Glad you're still alive to talk about it.

Pahoo
June 28, 2009, 09:14 PM
Others have covered most of the required safety tips, but i will add this, make sure the nipple is clear, either by blowing down the barrel, put a cloth over it if you dont want lube and powder in your mouth,,,this will extinguish any spark, soften the residue, and generally make life easier, or poking a prick in the nipple.

many ponies
You have listed some good points and with all due respect, have to disagree with "Blowing Down The Muzzle" We teach minimal contact of our body parts with any muzzle, under any condition. Instead, might I suggest that you pump the rod in the bore after shooting. Pump about four or five times. The vent will show you if it's clear by the puffs of smoke. This will also extinguish any embers. I too have never had an AD but more than my share or mis-fires, hang fires, dry balls and short starts. I am not and old man but have shot and taught for many years. Oh yes, I am older than you but certainly not bragging about it. :eek:

Be Safe !!!

shortwave
June 29, 2009, 12:12 AM
many ponies, I have to agree with Pahoo . I as well used to blow down the muzzle watching the smoke clear out the nipple. Kinda like my lips attached where they are and today just feel safer clearing muzzle by swabbing. Getting to be a sissy as I get older, less chances =`s less excitement:rolleyes:.

HeroHog
June 29, 2009, 12:24 AM
They sell rubber/plastic? tubes just for attaching to the nipple to blow down the barrel of a black powder gun. Get one of those! Accomplishes the same thing only safely!

BlueTrain
June 29, 2009, 07:22 AM
I graduated from West Virginia University, whose mascot is a mountaineer. At one time he would discharge his mountain rifle when the football team made a touchdown. At some point in the last 40 years someone decided that shooting off a gun inside the stadium was a Bad Thing and the practice ceased. Unfortunately one of the mascots had a premature discharge and last part of a finger. I don't know the details but it happened even without a bullet.

Dood_22
June 29, 2009, 01:05 PM
Did this 209 converion significantly increase the amount of time that the breech remained hot and, if it did, did the manufacturer include a warning to that effect with the product?

The barrel will remain "hot" until all of the fuel is consumed or extinguished. Following safe loading procedures addresses this. Using patched balls just introduces another source of fuel. (the patch)

If anything, the hotter spark from a 209 would more quickly consume any fuel.

adam0bomb
June 30, 2009, 11:03 AM
Thanks for all the great posts and great ideas and good safety tips.

jbrown
July 1, 2009, 02:51 PM
adamobomb,how old are you?

Doyle
July 1, 2009, 03:14 PM
I ALWAYS remove the plug and do a wet swab followed by a dry swab. I do this for accuracy (to prevent crud ring buildup). As a secondary benefit, it assures me that there are no burning embers left in the barrel.

Using this simple procedure would have prevented the accident.

adam0bomb
July 3, 2009, 01:39 PM
23

jbrown
July 3, 2009, 05:07 PM
what do you mean when you say the primer was not struck?

Doyle
July 4, 2009, 08:29 AM
what do you mean when you say the primer was not struck?
There was apparantly no primer in the breech. Detonation was caused by residual hot powder residue.

Uncle Billy
July 4, 2009, 10:19 AM
... Thinking the ammunition expended, I pulled the trigger to confirm that the chamber was empty.

I don't think that's a recommended way to clear a weapon; look at the results.

Blaming the 209 conversion kit without having clear and precise knowledge of how it caused the inadvertent discharge is an example of a fallacy of argument called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" in Latin. It means that just because event B happened after event A, it doesn't mean event A caused event B. Just because the tragic discharge happened after the 209 kit was installed, doesn't mean the kit caused the discharge. There are way too many other variables involved that have to be shown to be non-contributory in order to blame the conversion kit even a little.

In order to win a suit against the company that made the conversion kit, it seems to me you'd have to prove the kit was flawed in design, and then prove how that flaw caused the inadvertent discharge. You'd also have to prove somehow that the kit was installed correctly and that nothing was done in that process that led to damage which could have caused the discharge. Then you'd have to show that in loading the gun there were no mistakes made and no steps omitted which could cause or lead to such a discharge. Then, because the risks attendant to using BP are well known and well documented you'd have to show that the gun was handled in a way that an inadvertent discharge would not cause injury because doing so is commonly known to be required to prevent injury- and obviously that wasn't the situation here. In all of that lies the company's defense. If it's clear that all of those facts line up in a way that leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the company was at fault, then the suit is legit, as I see it. But any less conclusive lineup means the suit is frivolous and speculative, and as I see it, it lacks honor.

It seems to me that taking an objective look at all that's involved in cases such as this BEFORE one "lawyers up" - using critical thinking principles to sort out the facts, and taking responsibility for one's errors- is necessary to preserve one's character and honor. It also could save a lot of everyone's money on legal fees. There are lawyers all ready to take your case even when they know full well that it's a loser, because fees are earned whatever the outcome. And they also know that these sorts of cases are often settled in favor of the unprovable lawsuit when the defendant decides it's cheaper to pay up rather than pay for a defense- the case is settled in the terms of a cost-benefit ratio, not proof. Meanwhile, justice and integrity take a hike and it's all about dirty money for the plaintiff and his lawyer. I think ethics such as that stink in the extreme.

shortwave
July 5, 2009, 09:48 PM
Seems like very good info Uncle Billy!

.50FAN
July 7, 2009, 09:53 PM
Can pryrodex pellets with regular 50 cal lead ball be used in a flintlock pistol? Probably a bit of BP would be needed to bring fire in from the frizzen, but otherwise, can it be done? SHOULD it be done??

Bud Helms
July 8, 2009, 01:19 AM
This, a black powder topic, was left in General Discussion (not moved to the black powder forum) because it was safety related and we thought the exposure was a good idea.

If we are moving back to typical black powder discussions, then we are moving to the correct forum.

mykeal
July 8, 2009, 07:26 AM
Can pryrodex pellets with regular 50 cal lead ball be used in a flintlock pistol?
In a word, yes. Ignition will be unreliable at best, probably nonexistent the majority of the time. You must use a real black powder primer in the main charge if you're going to use any form of substitute black powder. Even with the bp primer the Pyrodex pellets will be problematic.

SHOULD it be done??
No.

Hawg
July 8, 2009, 08:16 AM
Can pryrodex pellets with regular 50 cal lead ball be used in a flintlock pistol? Probably a bit of BP would be needed to bring fire in from the frizzen, but otherwise, can it be done? SHOULD it be done??

What Mykeal said. If anything he was being optimistic. You'll need 4f in the pan and probably a few grains in the chamber before you load the pellets to get any ignition at all and then it will most likely still be problematic.

CaptainCrossman
July 10, 2009, 07:42 AM
Seems like a long time for a hot amber to be in there. Two friends of mine were getting done hunting they were putting there guns in the cases when one went off hitting the other hunter. The gun was not capped. They figure some sort of static set it off. The one that got hit sued the gun maker, and won.


I often wonder how someone could win a lawsuit like that, because the 2 guys were there alone, for all we know the gun was capped and cocked, and went off naturally- and a story could be cooked up to cover that fact, and the 2 guys could split the money proceeds from the lawsuit. That seems very dubious to me. Just my intuition, but yes it happens.

when I'm loading my c/b pistols, I often wonder, while pouring powder in, what if there's a hot ember in there ? It could light the powder stream pouring from the flask, and detonate the entire flask in your hand, while pouring powder in the cylinders.

that's why the cannons back in the day, swabbed the bore with a damp ramrod, to put out any embers first, before reloading

Hawg
July 10, 2009, 09:42 AM
when I'm loading my c/b pistols, I often wonder, while pouring powder in, what if there's a hot ember in there ? It could light the powder stream pouring from the flask, and detonate the entire flask in your hand, while pouring powder in the cylinders.

That's why you never load directly from the flask. You load from a powder measure. More dangerous with a rifle but still a possibility with a revolver.

owen
July 10, 2009, 12:45 PM
While you may be correct in so far as the conversion kit doesn't directly ignite the propellant, the kit is marketed for use with those propellants and it appears that Adams attorney believes that the use of those propellants and a 409 kit increases the likelihood that some kind of ember is still present after the shooter has waited a reasonable time to reload.

When I have a question regarding physical science, I always consult a lawyer first! :rolleyes:

sundance44s
July 10, 2009, 01:47 PM
I don`t understand how the maker of the 209 conversion should be remotely at falt for this accident .
Unless the conversion maker said it was safe to load the gun with the conversion capped ...
With the walk down range before the gun was reloaded I would rule out burning embers ...
Was the 209 cap in place on the conversion when the rifle was being loaded ?????????
I have no Idea if this was the case or not ...if there was no cap in place on the conversion say so ...
and if there was no cap on the conversion ...why would you think the conversion may have caused the rifle to discharge while loading ???? explain how it could .
Glad to hear you were not harmed any worse than you were ...
I shoot timed muzzleloader events monthly ......never seen this happen in 35 years of muzzleloading .
Something else I don`t understand about this story ,.,.,why were you shooting patched round balls out of an inline muzzleloader rifle with 100 grs of powder ???.......I doubt you could keep the balls on paper at 50 yards .

Doyle
July 10, 2009, 06:06 PM
The problem with believing ANY trial attorney is that to them, there is absolutely no such thing as an injury for which somebody is not legally liable. In the case of a lightning strike they would try to sue God himself if they could figure out where to serve the papers.

MacGille
July 12, 2009, 11:09 PM
have you ever heard about fire pistons? You may have caused the fire piston effect ramming the ball rapidly.

W. C. Quantrill
July 14, 2009, 06:16 PM
I am of the thought that when lawsuits are made that the losing party should pay all the legal fees. If the judge is on his toes and assigns the legal costs to the losing party, then a lot of this frivilous lawsuit business would quit.

crstrode
July 14, 2009, 10:16 PM
"Kill all the layers - Kill 'em tonight!"
Don Henley in Get Over It, The Eagles


''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,''

Dick the Butcher in ''Henry VI,'' Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73.

andrewstorm
March 24, 2010, 09:19 PM
ive heard of people,shooting off there foot,but man your lucky,do u guys use 777 or blk pwder? never have i had this problen ,and i do a 5 sec reload,with powder or pellets.better late than never:cool:

mooseye
June 25, 2010, 08:16 PM
I failed to read every post so if this is a duplicate theory please excuse me.
I have a possible explanation of this phenomenon.
Lets assume that the only possible cause of ignition was an ember remaining in the area surrounding the breech plug internal tip.
A pellet is a solid object and will not readily assume the shape of its vessel. Loose powder will.
If that ember was near the threads of the breech plug, there may have been no contact with the pellet until additional force was applied to the ram rod to seat the ball. There by crushing the pellet which was then allowed to fill the area of the combustion chamber and only then contact the ember.
And the terrible result. I wish you a speedy recovery.

I know this is an old post but saftey does not go out of style!

Rifleman1776
June 30, 2010, 02:16 PM
I'm late on this discussion and I have not read all the replies.
I have been muzzle loading for over 40 years and have been active with many clubs, including NMLRA.
I once saw an ml pistol, with real bp, go off spontaneously about ten minutes after loading and, maybe fifteen after the last shot was fired. Lingering embers can do that.
Did you swab the bore between shots? I'm guessing, no.
BTW blowing down the bore is prohibited at all NMLRA sanctioned matches as unsafe.
Some lubricants can burn and linger hot.
I always swab between shots, even when hunting where time is a factor. But, I consider safety a factor of greater importance.
This thread reminds me of a couple others where proponents of unsafe practices brag "It ain't blowed up, yet". I just love the "yet" part.

davem
June 30, 2010, 10:21 PM
Interesting thread. Please excuse my ignorance but from what I gather- we are talking about an inline muzzle loader with 209 ignition. Black powder pellets (I thought all the pellets were substitutes), and a patched round ball. I assume the 209 primer was not on the gun while loading. You waited about 5 minutes put down the pellets- no problem- then rammed the ball and as it was fully seated the gun went off with no 209 primer- is that correct?
Just some thoughts......
1. I think I may share an ASSUMPTION with others that an ember in the bore is a short lived event. How long can an ember stay hot? Does the fouling from black powder act like char cloth and hold an ember for a long time and would blowing down the barrel do any good? If this has happened ONLY with an inline- does the grease on the threads of the breech plug react with powder residue to form some type of gummy substance that holds an ember?
HOW TO PREVENT this type accident is the big concern. I usually swab between shots just to get rid of residue which makes it easier to load the next round. If I swab every time instead every 5th or 10th shot- I feel each shot gets the same treatment so the accuracy ought to be a bit better. In any event swabbing between shots may be a good safety practice.
2. On the thread grease idea- I don't clean the bore before the first shot but maybe getting any remnant of grease out of the bore is a good idea. I figured the first shot would just burn it up.
3. Is there a compressed air issue? In other words, if you are familiar with a fire piston, does the trapped air get compressed and "supercharge" the space remaining which invited an explosion?
Seems to me, it is well worth trying to get a definite answer on what caused this accident.

Andy Griffith
July 1, 2010, 08:19 PM
This thread is about a year old, but I missed it on the first go-round.

However, am I correct that it was stated he was using "round ball" in a Knight Wolverine? The rate of twist is awfully fast for best results with round ball- conicals such as Maxi-balls or saboted bullets would likely shoot better.

From what I've experienced, the faster twist tears at the patch pretty good, and accuracy isn't good at all. It's likely a smoldering thread could have still been in there- especially if the patch wasn't lubed or lubed correctly, or it was some other material besides cotton ticking.

I'd like to know more about the projectile and patch part of the equation.