freak muzzleloader loading accident

[adam0bomb]

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]

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]

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]

#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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Rembrandt]

Will be interesting to see how far this goes.....Knight Rifles is no longer in business, just a piece of history now.

[Zilmo]

"It is always someone else's fault."

The Lawyers

[TheKlawMan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You 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.

[HeroHog]

I did miss that, sorry. My bad. I will eat my crow. Pass the salt please...

[TheKlawMan]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Be Safe !!!

[shortwave]

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.

[HeroHog]

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]

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.