Mossberg 500 Accidental Discharge

[TheKlawMan]

Thanks to a new member, Barthbnatos, for posting about a dangerous conditon with accidental discharges and pre-1994 Mossberg 500s,

Here's a reference from the Naval Safety Center:
http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafece...2012/3rd12.pdf

To sum it up, shotguns of this model put together before 1994 had a different firing pin spring. They should be replaced with a new part to avoid a shock to the weapon from causing a discharge, even with the safety engaged.

Here's a link to the Mossberg Customer Service / Parts page (USA):
http://www.mossberg.com/content.asp?...ection=service

The Naval Safety Center alert involves a shipboard accidental dischatge occurring when a wave caused the muzzle of the Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun's muzzle to strike the ships hull, even though the weapons safety was engaged. The specific model was the Mossberg 500A1.

Does the same risk apply to a pre 1994 Mossberg 500? I do not know but if I had one I would find out. Regardless, other FTL threads warn of the risk of accidental discharges from a shotgun even with the safety engaged.

[Slopemeno]

The M-500/590 lack a firing pin safety, as do must pump and semi-auto shotguns. This is the reason I prefer to leave my defensive shotguns with the hammer down on an empty chamber.

[TheKlawMan]

You got it slopemeno. Unfortunately some still think it safe to keep a shell chambered. The purpose of this thread is merely to flag the fact that keeping a round in the chamber entails a very real risk of accidental discharge.

[hogdogs]

My pre '94 500C (20 gauge) ha NO spring at all... the newer ones have a spring that keeps the pin set back and is over ridden by hammer pressure...

Brent

[oneounceload]

It still isn't an AD, but a ND because someone was still not operating the gun safely. I can keep my 500 with a chambered loaded, and have, for over 30 years - it still has yet to go off without my input

[Virginian]

I would suggest that practically any firearm with a rebounding firing pin could be subject to fire if it was moving forward fast enough and was then stopped fast enough. Simple physics.
Only in America. Land of childproof caps on everything, and gruesome descriptions of side effects on TV ads for prescription medications.

[TheKlawMan]

It still isn't an AD, but a ND because someone was still not operating the gun safely. I can keep my 500 with a chambered loaded, and have, for over 30 years - it still has yet to go off without my input

What was the sailor/Marine doing that was unsafe, assuming you do not think having a round in the chamber was just that?

[oneounceload]

If they have control of the weapon, and they allow it to be taken away and mishandled, it is NOT an AD but a ND - it is THEIR responsibility to maintain their weapon in a safe manner

I have maintained my 500, with its obvious failures from the article - with ZERO issues

Stop trying to place the blame on an inanimate object when a human is the fault

[TheKlawMan]

Oneounce, There you go saying that the serviceman is responsible for his Mossberg discharging on ship due to a failure to maintain his weapon in an unsafe manner and, yet, you still have not said what he did that was unsafe.

The only unsafe action of his that I can imagine is keeping a round in the chamber. He was aboard ship. We do not know that he was in a combat area. Ships roll and get tossed by waves. We do not know if it was rapidly maneuvering or not. I spent a career arguing when an accidental incident is a neglighent one and determination of negligence rides on if an act or ommission was reasonable under the circumstances. Why you fault the serviceman for negligence is beyond me, unless the unreasonable act was keeping a round in a chamber.

A round in the chamber in your home is one thing. A round in the chamber aboard a ship, and possible in confined areas and ladderways, is another.

I would add that part of problem is related to design of older Mossbergs. the weapon functioned as designed. That is not maintenance but the provence of the armorer and the service. The individual serviceman had better not be modifying his weapon. (For a very brief time I ran a squadron small armory.)

[oneounceload]

Klawman - if his gun goes off, then he had something to do with it - period

I can set ANY gun on the table and watch it till Hell freezes over - if no one handles the gun. it cannot go off

This is the same BS the antis use for "reasonable gun control"

[youngunz4life]

he probably wasn't supposed to have one in the chamber but I could be wrong about that ......... same thing as many agencies who carry multiple weapons in their cars: usually shotgun has rounds in the tube but not in the chamber. the same car has the handgun with one in the chamber but not the shotgun

[ripnbst]

One ounce is there something wrong with you? This guy wasn't sitting in his kitchen, he was aboard a ship in the ocean being tossed in rough water. Have you ever been aboard a boat in rough water carrying a shotgun? Walking down a narrow walkway and the ship/boat all of a sudden smacks a wave you will lose your balance. The easy thing to do is walk with arms out and ping pong your way down the hallway. Holdings shotgun be may have put the muzzle against the wall to keep himself from falling. The muzzle striking the wall caused the firearm to go off.

[Uncle Malice]

The muzzle striking the wall caused the firearm to go off.

That would still be an ND... I completely understand his position. An AD is if something breaks in the gun. The gun fires with no one touching it while it is in what would otherwise be a safe state. A failure of some kind.

The negligent act may be simply carrying it with a round in the chamber when it is not safe to do so.

If you were carrying a series 70 1911 with a polished hair trigger... with the safety off... and it fell to the ground, causing the trigger to move just enough to let the hammer fall and let a round off... that would be an ND, not an AD. If the safety was on and the sear somehow broke or failed and the hammer fell and let a round off, that would be an AD.

[johnwilliamson062]

My guess is a large portion of sailors are going to claim the safety was on even if it wasn't on, or even if they don't know if it was on or not.

[zippy13]

if no one handles the gun. it cannot go off

If you recall, there was mention, in a recent thread, of an unattended shotgun discharging. The reasoning was that a significant temperature change had caused the sear and/or hammer to expand or contract enough to cause the sear slip.

[oneounceload]

One ounce is there something wrong with you?

Nope, nothing at all - I disagree - but you go on attacking those who disagree - Obama does the same thing.........

If the serviceman ion question does not know how to safely handle his weapon - given his particular set of circumstances - it is still not an AD, it is a ND - the serviceman failed to operate/handle his weapon so ti would not go off

believe what you want, I am done with this one

[Willie Sutton]

"Klawman - if his gun goes off, then he had something to do with it - period"



It was offered locally here in a safety minute that the scenario was that a certain Mossberg went off when a wave slammed a small boat into the side of the ship, and a sailor aboard with a loaded and safed shotgun was thrown violently, jamming the muzzle into a steel bulkhead. That's not negligence... and it's not something that happens on a kitchen table.

Give real operators a break. Some folks are not sitting on their asses in guardshacks with these things.


Willie

.

[TheKlawMan]

I note that I mispelled the username of the member that alerted us to this incicent over on the "Mossberg 500A Question" thread. It is "Barthanatos".


Also since there are problems with the link to the Naval bulletin, it reads:

Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane (NSWC Crane) investigated an accidental shotgun discharge in a RHIB during a VBSS mission. A Sailor armed
with a Mossberg 500A1 12-gauge shotgun was injured and the RHIB damaged when a wave caused the shotgun muzzle to strike the hull, causing the
accidental discharge. The weapon’s safety had been engaged. However, the shotgun had an obsolete firing-pin spring configuration.

The Mossberg 500A1 has two different firing-pin spring configurations. The older (pre- 1994) firing-pin spring won’t prevent the weapon from discharging when dropped on its muzzle from a height of 5 feet. Changes incorporated with the post-1994 firing-pin spring solve this problem. However, one-third of the shotguns issued to Navy commands are the older pre-1994 models.

Naval Safety Center is working with NSWC Crane to disseminate this information to Navy commands, providing steps for replacing the defective springs.

Call it an Accidental Discharge or a Negligent Disharge as you choose, the Naval newsletter refers to it as an accidental disharge and does not say anything to fault the sailor and goes on to note that the problem can be fixed by replacing an obsolete firing pin.

[impalacustom]

**** happens learn from it.

Uncle Malice, you might want to take a look at the series 70 and before 1911's cause it doesn't matter if the safety is on or off, there is no safety interlock on them like there is on the series 80. In theory if you drop them muzzle down the inertia of the firing pin can overcome the spring.

[Destructo6]

The fundamental problem here is the definitions of "accidental" vs "negligent" discharges.

You can make up you're own definition a you like, but you will have to argue it every time.

The governments definitions are:

Accidental - the user did not pull the trigger. Dropping, bumping, or similar caused the weapon to malfunction and discharge. It is recognized that a combat weapon, used in the field will receive bumps and jarrs during the normal course of use and should not discharge as a result.

Negligent - the user pulled the trigger, but did not expect the weapon to fire.

[JKilbreth]

Guns are, by nature, designed to fire a projectile (or several projectiles). This is the primary focus of any firearm design. Occasionally, in the process of making an object that fires these projectiles, some design flaws are made along the way. Some may argue that an "unstable" firing pin on a shotgun is a design flaw. Some may argue that making a gun that fires shot instead of bullets a design flaw.

The issue at hand (of whether or not it was negligence or accident that caused the event) hinges on determining who was in control of the situation.

Fact: the Seaman did NOT have control of the ocean, nor the sudden violent movement of the ship.

Fact: The Shotgun does have a design attribute that can make the firing pin strike inside the chamber if jostled sufficiently.

Fact: If there is a shell in the chamber of the Mossberg when the firing pin strikes inside the chamber, it would be faithful to its design that the shell would discharge.

Fact: The Seaman did NOT have control over the design of the shotgun (since all military branches prevent servicemembers from altering the design of issues firearms).

Fact: The Seaman DID have control over handling a firearm with a chambered shell (this is assuming that carrying the Mossberg with a chambered shell is against SOP for his unit).

Conclusion: It is the seaman's fault for having a round chambered (if it is, in fact, against safety SOP).

It is also the "fault" of the waves on the ocean, seeing as no one can predict of control it, and if it had not happened, the jostling never would have occurred, and thus, no discharge.

It may also be considered the fault of Mossberg for designing the weapon this way, however, if Mossberg claims that this was an INTENTIONAL design, then it is up to the one buying/handling the firearm to know the capabilities of what he/she uses.

In layman's terms, the guy could have avoided the discharge if had observed safer practices, but if it's not against safety SOP to have a shell chambered, then it is purely and simply an accident, and the Navy simply needs to revise their safety procedures.

[youngunz4life]

Fact: the Seaman did NOT have control of the ocean, nor the sudden violent movement of the ship.

thank you for your post & it made sense.

I still can't get over the fact that he should have known not to have a round in the chamber. It is possible he didn't know but I am willing to guess he knew but disregarded this as something he didn't have to adhere to or as an over-protective measure(the latter makes him an idiot at least in this situation). You don't have a shell in the chamber while driving, on the open water, and so-on. I choose not to have any in the chamber just sitting in the house(I am speaking about shotguns)

just my thoughts...you learn from your mistakes but sometimes you have to take the safer route when dealing with these issues. how many people over the centuries have died due to these discharges whether AD or ND??

[TheKlawMan]

I take it as a given that the seaman was supposed to have a round chambered or else the article would have noted that he was in violation of regulations or orders.

[youngunz4life]

well I wish we could know for sure because that part doesn't add up to me