Shotgun Forum banner
21 - 40 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,819 Posts
duh said:
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
The club is not part of the base, but merely a Tenant.

http://www.quanticoshootingclub.com/downloads/QSCRevisedIntroduction.pdf

The undated, unsigned "revised introduction" states:

"The Quantico Shooting Club is a non-federal entity. It is not a part of the
Department of Defense or any of its components and it has no governmental
status.
" The "bold" type was used by the anonymous person or persons that wrote the revised, months after the fact "introduction."

It also states: "The Quantico Shooting Club currently does not permit use of Caesar Guerini shotguns at the Club. To the knowledge of Quantico Shooting Club, the United
States Marine Corps has not restricted use of Caesar Guerini shotguns
."

What is common knowlege is that in compliance with Italian law for firearm production and sale, all the guns must go through the firing tests at the Banco Nazionale di Prova (National Proof House) in Gardone Valtrompia according to the C.I.P rules. The high pressure firing test sequence is one of the most sophisticated of qualification tests extant, involving not only actual overload firing tests but also over 40 inspections for dimensional changes which would indicate the slightest flaw.

All CG guns are proven safe before they are allowed to leave Italy. Not voluntary, it carries the force of law. This extremely well-known, considered common knowledge in the industry.

However, you might note that reloads, no matter how shoddily made or assembled by hobbyist reloaders are in no way "proven safe," nor is it ever suggested that amateurishly assembled loads from any source are ever inspected prior to firing, much less "proven safe" by the club. So much for any real interest in safety. Real interest in safety would be far too inconvenient, it seems.

Common sense should tell anyone that CG hardly enjoys or seeks litigation. It sounds like they have done everything possible to avoid it all the while. Though it is both costly and time-consuming, CG apparently understands the responsibility it has to its customers, and despite the baseless assertions and malicious attacks-- when all else fails, they have been forced to take the legal course to vindicate their good name. What else would anyone expect?

Every since the smarmy pseudo report appeared, there have been those that have been wringing their hands and demanding a "response" from CG. Hard to respond specifically to something you had never been advised of, harder still to respond when there have been months of non-communication and a peculiar refusal to submit the firearm to an accredited lab or labs for analysis.

I hope they pound the clowns into the ground like a tent stake. If you want to be dumb, you better be tough-- or at least have good insurance. Gun "clubs" like this one give all gun clubs a bad name.

Of course CG is confident of the outcome. They use only certified steel, their guns all go through Banco Nazionale di Prova, and no CG has ever failed the C.I.P. protocol testing, of which records are permanently kept of each and every gun.

In torture tests conducted by Banco Nazionale di Prova, CG guns have ranked in the top 10% of all Italians shotguns made-- the best of the best. The chuckle-head clubsters were apparently far too busy concocting their brainless report to bother to contact Banco Nazionale di Prova, which would have quickly exposed their clumsy, fraudulent "report" to be the clumsy, brainless waste of bandwidth that it was all the while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Does the club own the gun?

The question should be why hasn't CG requested the gun from the owner.

Why didn't they offer to replace the gun in exchange for the blown up gun so they could have it tested?

This whole thing stinks.

Personally, when CG filed the lawsuit against the gun club, they were permanently crossed off of my list of companies to do business with.

Brad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,687 Posts
Brad F said:
Does the club own the gun?

The question should be why hasn't CG requested the gun from the owner.

Why didn't they offer to replace the gun in exchange for the blown up gun so they could have it tested?

This whole thing stinks.

Personally, when CG filed the lawsuit against the gun club, they were permanently crossed off of my list of companies to do business with.

Brad
If you don't stand up for your rights you will be run over. CG and any other manufacture would have to do the same.
Watch for the next law suit. It just my be PW re loaders. Once CG wins the law suit and the blame go to a bad reload. What do you think will happen when sales drop on the PW reloader.
This Quantico deal relay turn in to a ugly mess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Think goodness its about time CG sued them...I think is a joke, that those guys used there postion to write that report.....I have also looked all over the net and cant find jack about CG's blowing up! Other than a bunch of guys that have friend who has a friend that has a cousin and his brother-in-law saw this guys CG blow up! I do know for a fact that I have seen 2 K-80 that had blown up......So do we need to have reports done on these guns.....By the way both guns were because of reloads! 23 years of shooting IPSC pistol and I have seen over 15 gun blown to hell and of the 15 none were the guys fault! Yea right right!!!!! I pulled bullets on 5 of those guns and found bad reloades! I will bet 1000 bucks Quantico mishap was was a mistake and he wanted to blame someone!

My wife has Maxum CG that has well over 5000 rounds through it and it's a year old....If that gun blows up it will be because of reload that i screwed up and it will be MY FAULT not CG's!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,819 Posts
Brad F said:
Does the club own the gun?

The question should be why hasn't CG requested the gun from the owner.
Not much of a question at all: if you have been following these threads at all, it is apparent that CG had repeatedly contacted everyone involved to try to do just that: get the shotgun off to an independent lab for analysis, with no response. It doesn't seem that anyone associated with perpetrating the "report" or the owner of the shotgun wants anything to do with a proper failure analysis at all, and have gone to great lengths over many months to avoid any involvement of accredited labs or metallurgists.

The horse manure level is astounding. There isn't a smidgen of evidence to even suggest, much less prove, that the shotgun was in any way deficient. Nothing, nodda, zippo, goose-eggs, zilch.

Whether the source is the Italian Proof House, or H. P. White Labs, there is however mountains of testing to show that CG guns are supremely well-built, and individually tested to the highest and most rigorous standards of any shotgun made . . . before they are ever offered for sale.

It looks like the ONLY entity in the least bit interested in shotgun safety is CG, even if they have to go through the unduly burdensome and expensive procedure of going to Federal Court to subpoena the shotgun and get it examined by professionals.

Mere possession of a shotgun or a reloader in no way qualifies you to use it. It's not often that people go through such great lengths to wear ignorance like a badge of honor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Caesar Guerini USA has made numerous attempts to contact Quantico Shooting Club (QSC) concerning the shotgun mishap report and to date we have not received a response from the club or its representatives. If or when Caesar Guerini is contacted and has the ability to examine the firearm in question, we are confident that an independent lab will render an opinion that clears Caesar Guerini of any type of manufacturing defects.

This is all I see from CG. I guess they're still waiting to be contacted. Oh wait, they're suing the gun club.

Brad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,819 Posts
OPINION:

A friend of mine told me that he felt it was "impossible to under-estimate" the intelligence of the shooting public. No comment on that one, but if the comment had been about the contents of the so-called "report" from "QSC," he'd have been right.

I've never read anything as poorly done, flawed, and as preposterously mythical as this "report." If someone had sent this to me privately, I'd have to check the calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1st, or the work of drug-crazed or intoxicated high-school gangs. That someone would put his or her name to such a bogus document defies explanation.

You really need to be smarter than the thing you are operating. Lacking that, before you go to the local donut shop (or bar) and start awarding yourselves titles like "ammunition investigating officer," "spec-loading investigative officer," or whatever the phony title of the day is going to be, it makes a lot more sense if you have some qualifications to call yourself what you decide on calling yourself. Surely, to be part of a meaningful "team" there would have to be some criteria for joining the team other than wandering into the same donut shop together that weekend? What other shotgun design and function reports has this team ever constructed together before? Anything? Ever? What do you really think?

I have no idea what the difference might be between an "ammunition investigative officer" and a "spec-loading investigative officer." Prior to this, the newly concocted term of "spec-loading" is something I've never heard of before. It is a dramatic failure of "investigation" to be unable to identify the propellant used. In the quasi-report, it reads "it was noted that shells numbered 1, 2, 4 & 5 contained a powder that was different in color from shells numbered 3 & 6." A third grader of average intelligence could have made that observation. You might think that some testing would be indicated to verify exactly what powder came out of those reloads? After all, this is an "investigation" by an "investigative team." It wasn't, of course. Without the propellant ever identified any subsequent comments are groundless and baseless.

The "reloading investigative team" didn't fare any better. By droning on with careless assumptions, all that was shown is that no "investigative officer" was capable of reading the owner's manual of a reloading machine. Reading an owners manual is hardly a difficult proposition. That same third-grader could have suggested that reading the directions would be a pretty good idea. Apparently, that third-grader isn't around when you really need him.

There have been far more sightings of the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot than any sightings of an Italian shotgun failure with factory loads. Some of the Loch Ness reports are far more compelling and better-written than this amateurish attempt. Just when you think it couldn't get much worse, more reckless, or more inane . . . it does just that.

Apparently not quite satisfied with the invention of "spec-loading," the nimrod investigative officers concoct another junk-term: the BSMC, now meaning Barrel-Sleeve-Monobloc Combination. This might have some relevance if it existed. Since it does not exist, however, the value of this newly concocted term is diminished into the cesspool of the rest of the pseudo-report.

Monobloc construction is so very common, accepted, and prevalent today it is considered standard construction. Beretta has promulgated the monobloc as their preferred style for years. Regardless of Beretta, the Ruger Red Label for some thirty years by now, or a Krieghoff K-80 . . . they are all essentially the same construction. The action is, as the names states, machined from a singular block of solid steel. The barrels are precisely set into the bloc by swaging, soldering, brazing, or "laser-fusing." The laser-fusing is associated with Beretta, but they have gone back to more conventional silver-soldering on some models. There is no sleeve or separate part involved.

How someone bragging of a "mechanical engineering degree" could miss that I have no earthly clue. It is basic O/U shotgun design, established for many decades. Anyone remotely familiar with shotguns knows that there are barrels unitized to the bloc-and no such random third part as a "sleeve" exists. There is a barrel set, and a monobloc-that's all there is. Whether you want to call drawings of a "BSMC" malicious, fraudulent, or just sea-slug stupid is up to you.

Of course the monobloc adds strength. That's why Lester Roane of H. P. White Laboratories has long noted that it is not uncommon for this widely accepted and used design to be able to withstand 30,000, 40,000 PSI or more MAP pressure with no damage. However, the barrels alone are more than strong enough to handle all factory loads by themselves with no additional help from the monobloc. They have also been shown to handle 30% overloads with no damage. This would be relevant only if no monobloc existed-not the case. There is no sleeve, no third party present. There is only barrel and monobloc. The barrel extension that is affixed into the bloc is one continuous piece of the same chrome-moly steel as the rest of the barrel-just as it is with Beretta's, Rizzini's, Rugers, Krieghoffs, Blasers, and so forth.

There is nothing that remotely suggests the "QSC" have any interest in all at safety. Any sincere interest in safety would instantly result in warnings about using home-made ammunition and as far the isolated incident that happened, there would also be no slothfulness or hesitation about getting well-qualified reports from accredited, independent labs and metallurgists. To date, none of the above has happened.

A fair reading of the report shows that 1) the homeloaded ammunition was never identified at all, the powder of remaining samples being different in color did not compel any independent identification of the propellant 2) there is nothing to disprove a bore obstruction 3) there was nothing to disprove a defective load. Further, there was nothing to show that 4) the gun was in good condition prior to firing, or that 5) the gun was not already damaged by prior use of handloads or previously fired with overpressure loads, stuck wads, partial bore obstructions, or all of the above. There is nothing to show that 6) the parent metal was questionable, much less defective. There is nothing to show that 7) the construction of the incident shotgun is in any way substantially different or inferior to any number of other shotguns, including those that cost far more. In fact, the "investigators" failed to compare the shotgun with any other shotgun at all.

QSC was unable to correctly describe the construction of the shotgun, did not read or understand the instructions for use with the home reloading unit, and were apparently clueless about the condition of the incident firearm prior to its use. Unable to identify powder, unable to describe the construction of a firearm, unable to show the condition of the firearm prior to its use, unable to disprove overpressure load use or bore obstructions, unable to identify the metallurgy, unable to identify printed warnings with a newly acquired reloader, unable to compare this firearm with any others, unable to understand C.I.P. procedures and Italian proof house procedures, unable to conduct any metallurgical testing or pressure testing of ammunition is a litany of "unables" that makes these antics vindictive, malicious, damaging, and flagrantly incompetent.

I have no idea what went through CG's mind after being blindsided by this haphazard concoction of slip-shod attack "reporting" or "investigation." It should be puzzling to anyone why the manufacturer was never contacted, why seemingly the normal, appropriate course that would be immediate professional, independent failure analysis was avoided, and has been avoided for all these months. It makes what could appear merely unsmart and incompetent become clearly malicious and libelous.

When a reputable company that takes great pride in their products is afflicted with inane attacks such as this, they are left with no choice. They are being damaged, their dealers are being damaged, and their customers are being damaged. When you are being damaged, you are left with only one proper path: for the sake of your good name, your many dealers, distributors, and customers-you sometimes have to step up to the plate and disembowel the malicious, wrongheaded, incompetent attacks in the only proper action that you have open to you: the legal way, the one prescribed by law.

That's my opinion, and a transparently obvious one to anyone following the entire shameful sequence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,459 Posts
Good post, Randy.

All that will come out of this BS report is another line of warnings stamped on the sides of our barrels. It is a real shame that CG has to go through all of this just because a bunch of "clowns" can't accept responsibility for their own actions.

Bruce
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
I also agree with your points Randy. Very well said.

CG HAS to sue as a preemptive measure as stated earlier.

The "experts" from the gun club are not qualified to publish an "official report", or their opinion(s) that resemble an official report. It is pure speculation, and not based upon ANY definitive evidence or testing.

At my gun club, last year, a very good and prolific shooter blew his shotgun up. He had no idea why. Luckily he was not seriously injured. However, we surmised that he had MIXED 20 gauge with his 12 gauge (he was shooting his 12) and he must have accidentally dropped a 20 shell down the barrel. Upon opening the gun, you cannot see a shell in the chamber, so you place a new 12 gauge shell on top. DISASTER! Even Elmer Keith warned about this in his old book from the 50's "Shotguns".

Also, unfortunately, I "ringed" my lower barrel to my Browining 20 gauge O/U from using SOMEONE ELSE reloads. Either there was a stuck base wad (these were very old Win AA) or the powder was wrong. I also was given a reloading press and was having trouble with it. So I could have made a mistake in the other, newer reloads that I assembled. Either way, and this is getting off topic, but it was ultimately MY fault no matter how you look at it. Lucky me I was not hurt (the round in question was very loud and kicked much harder than normal). It ended up costing me a new barrel and if you don't think that is expensive, call Browning and ask them how much it costs to replace a barrel (they must replace both, not just the upper or lower). That expense amount could have paid for 20 cases of factory AA loads. It will take me YEARS to recoup that mistake as you can imagine.

So, my CG Summit 20 gauge / 28 gauge set? I have no fear because I will only shoot factory ammo through this nice Italian, expensive gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
CG had no other course of action. If the "report" cannot be substantiated by expert testimony, it amounts to slander in my book. Though it appears CG regretted having to do it - no one needs that kind of crap.

Hell, the "report" stopped me from buying a CG at precisely the moment I had the money saved and I was about to pull the trigger. The "report" totally blew my confidence, despite other owners claiming all is well, and before CG's Wes spoke up. I bought from another maker. Now it'll be a while before I can afford to buy that CG...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
brucestorey said:
Good post, Randy.

All that will come out of this BS report is another line of warnings stamped on the sides of our barrels. It is a real shame that CG has to go through all of this just because a bunch of "clowns" can't accept responsibility for their own actions.

Bruce
I said on the first original post of the matter down on the other board that it was the reload and I feel confident it stating that again. I also agree 100% with Randy.

In my opinion Bruce's post above sums up the situation and it is a problem that is caused by our society of everyone is a winner and no one is wrong. Very few people actually admit they messed something up, I deal with it almost daily and it is very frustrating.

I reload and I know the risks. I also LOVE my CG and will continue to shoot it without any questions.

Those of you who let 1 gun keep you from buying a CG really are/have missed the real customer service in this industry and an awesome gun, I feel sorry for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,687 Posts
Judd said:
brucestorey said:
Good post, Randy.

All that will come out of this BS report is another line of warnings stamped on the sides of our barrels. It is a real shame that CG has to go through all of this just because a bunch of "clowns" can't accept responsibility for their own actions.

Bruce
I said on the first original post of the matter down on the other board that it was the reload and I feel confident it stating that again. I also agree 100% with Randy.

In my opinion Bruce's post above sums up the situation and it is a problem that is caused by our society of everyone is a winner and no one is wrong. Very few people actually admit they messed something up, I deal with it almost daily and it is very frustrating.

I reload and I know the risks. I also LOVE my CG and will continue to shoot it without any questions.

Those of you who let 1 gun keep you from buying a CG really are/have missed the real customer service in this industry and an awesome gun, I feel sorry for you.
I have to agree. I love my CG..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
612 Posts
Randy ,good posts and information. I also read the HP White report on the first CG blow up but it was awhile ago and I did not save it. I seem to remember that they concluded that the gun had been exposed to over 50,000 psi. Do you have the report handy and can you confirm that? If so the first gun was exposed to more than double proof load pressure.
John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,819 Posts
It was clear to H.P. White that the pressure created by the incident shotshell was very high. H.P. White mentioned that shotguns of similar design have been known to remain intact and functional to pressures in excess of 50,000 PSI. What exactly was produced in the incident shotgun with reloads could only be estimated. White Labs also noted that most commercially loaded ammunition is 7500 - 10000 PSI.

H.P. White found that both barrels had moderate to heavy lead streaking forward of the chamber that is associated with firing excessive pressure shells. They also mentioned that the incident shotshell (reload) had its primer pocket expanded from .224 to .242 in., and that the primer/battery cup assembly was missing, yet another indication of excessive pressure.

The direct quote from White Laboratory was "the failure of the shotgun S/N 114215 is due entirely to firing inappropriate ammunition, and there is no indication of any defect in the shotgun that contributed to the failure."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
SuperXOne said:
In 26 years of law practice, I've never, ever filed suit against one of my own clients to collect a fee.
Around here we have to pay up front when a lawyer is involved..none of the local lawyers have ever had to sue a a client either..I know I hunt with them and have had to use them :D :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,488 Posts
Good for CG availing themselves to our one of a kind American civil legal system. I hope they find their remedy. The National Chamber of Commerce would like to dismantle the American tort system. Good to see a well respected corporation hauling off and filing a good old fashioned lawsuit. Thank god for trial lawyers and American justice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,819 Posts
CG was forced to do something, as the nutjobs at QSC were unresponsive.

As it turns out, it is all over with. CG prevailed, as QSC paid CG to drop the matter. They also withdrew their malicious, wrongful "report"-- you won't find it at the QSC website any longer.

The incident shotgun was sent to the lab by the law firm, AND-- manufacturing defects were ruled out.

The sole cause of the failure was a single, radically overpressure round-- period, according to the lab. The lab identified the problem, loudly vindicating CG, the QSC subsequently "withdrew" their baseless assertions and wrongful conclusions, and paid CG for the damages they created.

This case is closed, King. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,100 Posts
Way cool! Sometimes the good guys do win in the end.

Has QSC also lifted its ban on using the Summit on the QSC range?
 
21 - 40 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