Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 58 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
I, for one, am glad to hear it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
702 Posts
Picking on a gun club BS. You had a bunch of IDIOTS that don't know what they are talking about putting a BS report out that directly impacts the business and sales of a Gun Company that has gone out of it's way to work with American shooters and in your mind CG is picking on them. I agree that it is way past time.

--- Chip King ---
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,098 Posts
Chip-

You want clubs to embrace you, not shun you. CG's willingness to take up a lawsuit against a club is bad juju.

What I'm saying is that there are better ways to handle this...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
Guerini picking on a gun club
I don't think they are picking on anyone. It is an unfortunate situation, but QSC created it and they should be held accountable for their actions.

I have read their report and they initially went to great lengths to cover their *** as far as range management, safety procedures and their response to the emergency. That is fine and proper. Once that was accomplished, they should have left the investigation of the actual blow-up to folks with some knowledge in the field. (I've also read the bio's of the folks who wrote the report.) My perception is that they then went off on an over-zealous tangent in an effort to absolve their buddy of any liability and try to place the liability on someone else - Guerini - regardless of what the true facts might be. They then publicly published a report indicating that Guerini's design and manufacturing process are inherently unsafe. It now appears that the unsupported conclusions of these unqualified persons were largely based on erroneous assumptions about the design and manufacture of the gun. Additionally, they have apparently refused all requests to have the gun examined by either Guerini or an independent lab with expertise in the field, haven't they?

We were writing at the same time....

there are better ways to handle this...
I whole-heartedly agree. But I think where it went astray was when QSC went off on the tangent, rather than having a proper investigation done by qualified persons.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
Access to the gun and a proper investigation may be what they are really after. This legal action will surely force an examination by a qualified, independent lab with expertise in the field. I see on the QSC web site that they have posted a "news" item today that attempts to soften their position. I predict they will back-track as gracefully as possible and this will be quickly resolved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
702 Posts
drsfmd Tal/IL is on the right path. You are very correct as well there should have been a better way and I am pretty sure that CG tried many different ways to get an independent investigation performed on the failed shotgun. When all else failed due to a lack of cooperation of the QSC there was no other resort than the suit. Now the investigation will be compelled by a Federal Court.

Also I have a little problem with your statement
"You want clubs to embrace you, not shun you." while I agree wholeheartedly At what point after the first time they stick the knife in your back do you decide ENOUGH!

CG showed far more patience with these folks than I think they should have.

--- Chip King ---
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,098 Posts
Kraiza said:
I think that CG had no other choice but to file suit. Now let the court decide who's right and let the best man win.
It's a heck of a gamble... there have been at least a half-dozen CG's that have blown up (I've been reading up on the matter). If CG loses this lawsuit, they will be done in the US... not a risk I'd be willing to take with *my* company...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
30,310 Posts
In 26 years of law practice, I've never, ever filed suit against one of my own clients to collect a fee. Being in all ways human, many is the time I have been sorely tempted to do so. But I haven't. Because, if you file a lawsuit against a client for a fee, the only possible defense is that you have comitted malpractice. Which would take all the fun entirely out of suing somebody. :wink:

But, it can be argued that this situation is entirely a different matter. If you know your adversary is certain to file suit against you, no matter what you do, it's usually an excellent idea to sue him first.

A few years ago Pepsi was sued by a man who claimed he found an insulin needle in his Pepsi. (He just happened to be a diabetic. :wink: ) All over the country, Pepsi was sued by folks claiming to find needles in their Pepsi cans. Pepsi did not take this lying down, but launched a counteroffensive, suing everybody who claimed to have found a needle in their Pepsi and even trying to have criminal charges brought against plaintiffs and their lawyers for extortion. There was a video clip of Pepsi cans on television that showed the cans whizzing through the line, being turned upside down before being filled with Pepsi and sealed, so many and so fast that words fail to adequately describe it. Pepsi didn't suffer from any long term effects,,,,because they nipped the rumors in the bud. Seems as though the first guy had put an open can of Pepsi in his refrigerator,,,,the same place he kept his insulin needles.

As I've said earlier,,,,,if a half a dozen Remington 1100's or Model 12's had blown up, and it was discovered that each time involved a reloaded shell,,,,we'd dismiss all that as proof of the dangers of reloading,,,wouldn't we?

Filing a lawsuit opens up a can of worms. It costs a lot of money. You cannot know how it will turn out, and the only thing for absolute certain is that at least one set of lawyers,,,,sometimes both,,,,are going to make money that somebody else earned. But,,,,lawyers are mentioned in the Bible, they were known to the ancient Romans, and we aren't likely to go away any time soon. I've told my kids if they aren't going to be lawyers, they should consider being undertakers. Steady work, regardless of the economy, you know? :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
702 Posts
drsfmd Please list them with references!! There are 3 that I have seen reported with followups. The Quantico gun, The Las Vegas one (Independent testing concluded that it was an over pressure ) and one reported in Canada that the RCMP supposedly took possession of with no further feed back.

WHERE are the others?????? and what proof is out there.

By the way there were also 3 K-80 blowups , 1 M-32 blowup and a Perazzi blowup (of the type being discussed) last year alone that were reported and posted with pictures I tried to pull some of the pictures of them but they have been removed from photobucket so they are not in the postings but the posts remain.I was able to retrieve a couple of pics.

--- Chip King ---
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
"You want clubs to embrace you"

Maybe they should have returned CG's phone calls. Too late now, they didn't.

I see QSC has reworked various parts of their web site to include a whole bunch of weasel words - www.quanticoshootingclub.com/downloads/ ... uction.pdf - such as now claiming it was a "preliminary report".

They try now to make it sound like they didn't have any factual basis for their report and were just killing time writing all those pages and footnoting everything while waiting for the real experts to examine the gun. They try and fail.

Sometimes people just won't pay attention until you get your lawyer involved. I see QSC is paying attention to something or somebody now after posting that poor excuse for investigative journalism.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,098 Posts
chipking said:
drsfmd Please list them with references!!
There's one in Kentucky that's well documented.
The Canadian one isn't a rumor... http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/stori ... ?id=157484
There's reportedly one from Nellis AFB, that was LONG before the current Quantico one.

There's four of them reported in this thread none are the incidents listed above... two from an owners, another from a witness... one of those owners claims to know of two more... : http://www.trapshooters.com/cfpages/thr ... ssages=278

I also heard of one (but don't have proof) in downstate NY... at some club in Westchester county... maybe someone can confirm?

That's 8, possibly 9. Too many. What's going on?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Interesting article on the Canadian incident. The article isn't much of a reference, it doesn't mention any gun by name or even the country of manufacture.

The rest of your list contains a whole lot of reportedly and I heard.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
702 Posts
As I said before SHOW the references. I searched for the Kentucky one and found one reference to a goose hunter blowing up the barrel of his Winchester SX1 (plugged barrel)
The Canada gun I listed but as JohnBT stated however the brand was not mentioned at all so I am trying to track this further.
your link was very helpful however and I quote

"The man whose firearm blew apart was "pretty distraught" but uninjured, said RCMP Sgt. Greg Woodcox. The shotgun was barely a year old and worth $4,000. Police seized the shattered stock and barrel to find out what caused the gun to blow apart.

"I've seen this happen before. People load their own (rounds). Sometimes a malfunction happens and the firearm is blown to pieces," Woodcox said. "It's likely the load caused it." "

Nothing on the Nellis gun except a comment that the owner of the Las Vegas gun had "heard" of a blowup at Nellis as well as a reference to a well known blowup in Kentucy but I did get another great quote from that link you provided as well.

"Boiled down to the bare minimum, the lab said: "It is my opinion that the failure of shotgun...is due entirely to firing inappropriate ammunition, and there is no indication of any defect in the shotgun that contributed to the failure" This is from the owner of the Las Vegas gun

As I said before there are 3 documented cases that I am aware of and of those 1 has been investigated by an Independent lab and was caused by ammo.

All 3 involve Reloads

Please show any others that are documented so I can add them to my list.

--- Chip King ---
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,607 Posts
Opinion:

Clowns are clowns. If clowns form a club, you have a club of clowns. If clowns form a gun club, I suppose you just have a clowny club of gun clowns.

The so-called "report" is unable to show anything at all, except that some people are stupid enough not to read the manual that came with their new reloaders. People are of course entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts.

Any dim-witted third-grader can make an assertion. People do that at the time; religions have been started on little more than that. To use a flippant assertion as basis is fraudulent. That opens up all kinds of libel and defamation issues. Of course you need to defend yourself. If you don't think you need to, then please tell me exactly when it was that you stopped molesting children?

The so-called "report," the publication and dissemination of it can only be one thing: malicious and vindictive. No way does this have anything to do with "shooter safety." Just by casually saying something is "well-documented" does not mean that it is. This was just referred to as "well-documented": http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/stories_local.php?id=157484 . Just what is documented at all? There is no information on brand of shotgun at all, much less the reload used. No metallurgical analysis of failure analysis at all. From the article: "The man whose firearm blew apart was "pretty distraught" but uninjured, said RCMP Sgt. Greg Woodcox. The shotgun was barely a year old and worth $4,000. Police seized the shattered stock and barrel to find out what caused the gun to blow apart.
"I've seen this happen before. People load their own (rounds). Sometimes a malfunction happens and the firearm is blown to pieces," Woodcox said. "It's likely the load caused it."


Just what type of documentation is that?

So, now, at long last, we have an undated, unsigned "update": http://www.quanticoshootingclub.com/downloads/QSCRevisedIntroduction.pdf .

Unreal. This "update" now says:

"The Report was not reviewed before publication by any laboratory specializing in
the examination and testing of guns or by any organization or individual
unaffiliated with the Quantico Shooting Club."

"Neither Caesar Guerini, U.S.A., LLC nor its affiliate in Italy were contacted before the issuance of this Report."

" . . . the shotgun has not yet been subject to any mechanical engineering, metallurgic, or materials
science testing to fully assess the cause of the incident."


The alleged "incident" was said to have taken place on May 9, 2009 - - - - nearly five months ago. Five months, and someone can say with a straight face they give a hoot about shooter safety? Five months with not even the minimal effort required to contact the manufacturer? Five months, and complete failure to conduct any reasonable, independent tests? That is hardly the reasonable action of anyone that has any sincere interest in shooter safety.

The original report came up with a baseless "hypothetical sequence of events along with the rationale."

Here is a far more plausible "hypothetical sequence of events":

A clown that is a nubsauce at reloading gives some of his nubsauce reloads to his kid to shoot. Clown's kid manages to destroy a shotgun with his clown-loads. Pictures of the shotgun show a severe overpressure situation impossible to reproduce without defective ammunition or a bore obstruction.

The clown is mad. The son of the clown, the clown's offspring, is also mad. But, the pair of clowns don't want to contact the manufacturer. Of course, the pair of clowns very much want to avoid any professional, independent failure analysis or metallurgical testing of any kind.

Of course the clowns want to avoid that. Reasonable and proper failure analysis would quickly reveal that the gun is overbuilt for the application of any commercially available ammunition used properly. That would bring a great wall of shame and embarrassment to the most entertaining of clowns.

What's a dumb old clown to do? Well, when a clown has no facts and less knowledge, it is easy enough to convince other members of the circus to write a bogus report that is unable to show anything at all.

A mad clown can be a dangerous little fiend. So, write-up your best and most official-looking clown report and make sure it is cut and pasted all over the Internet. That makes mad clowns happy, for the uninitiated and uniformed will quickly succumb to a malicious, fraudulent, unprofessional clown report. Rather than taking personal responsibility for clowning, it is comforting to some clowns to know that they have financially damaged and sullied the good name and good reputation of the manufacturer. Clowns can be strange people.

That's my theory and my "hypothetical sequence of events along with the rationale."

I don't think clowns should reload or be allowed to attempt to operate shotguns. It is a great pity that clowns form clubs, and that clowns can form and distribute malicious, vindictive, libelous pdf files. But, it is a free country-and clowns roam free.

When a company is forced to waste their time and money to defend their good name against clowns, it is a shame. Sometimes, there is nothing else you can do with clowns.

Being a free, happy clown has its limits. When you get your clown-white on someone else's face, your right to be a clown is in great peril. The clown's insurance company likely won't appreciate the malicious clown behavior, but no one forces a clown to be a clown. When the red rubber noses come off, it will be apparent that for some clowns, the Marcel Marceau approach would have been the far more intelligent one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
This was posted (http://forum.m1911.org) September 14, 2009 copied from base website - the official statement by the base:

"Restriction of Summit Sporting shotguns made by Caesar Guerini

With concurrence from the Base G-3 and the Base Judge Advocate General Office (JAG), all shotguns model "Summit Sporting," manufactured by Caesar Guerini in Brescia, Italy are restricted from use aboard Marine Corps Base Quantico at any shooting event conducted by the Quantico Shooting Club. We hope that this is a temporary restriction, but it is a necessary restriction until Summit Sporting shotguns are proven safe by an independent laboratory. Click the link below to see the Shotgun Mishap Report. All Range Safety Officers are to verify that shooters are not using this firearm until the restriction is lifted."

This would imply to me that the club did not ban the Caesar Guerini Summit models but that it was an action by the base commander and the ban did not apply to all Caesar Guerini models.

Any thoughts - Duh
 
1 - 20 of 58 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top