On September 1, 2005, I was severely injured by a catastrophic gun failure. My face was permanently disfigured and sight in my right eye was lost forever. I was shooting with the Thompson/Center Encore Rifle. It blew apart because of a defect in its design. That horrendous day propelled me down a path I never planned on or wanted in my life. I’m not speaking out for personal gain or to be vindictive toward Smith & Wesson or Thompson/Center Arms (Thompson/Center Arms has apparently been sold to Smith & Wesson). I merely want the truth about this rifle to be known. I don’t want anyone to go through the pain and suffering I’ve endured. In my opinion, this rifle defect is something that was known about and has been covered up for years.
After almost 10 years of battling over the Encore, I received the final judgment order from the 46th Circuit Court for the County of Otsego, Michigan. I sued Thompson Center Arms (TCA), and the jury found TCA at fault. The jury found TCA to have a defect in its design and found their manual to be defective.
Throughout this entire process, from the day that my rifle had failed, until being given the green light to speak freely about this rifle, I have felt as though I’m involved in a David and Goliath scenario. In the end, no matter how much money they threw at this problem, with their team of lawyers and paid experts, the truth could not be veiled from the jury. At many points over the nearly 10 years since my injury, I have experienced hopelessness about the outcome of the case. One of these moments occurred during the trial. My attorney had in his possession letters, obtained from Thompson/Center through discovery, from other individuals who had incurred similar injuries from the same type of failure. Although the letters were discussed in open court, they were not allowed to be shown to the jury as evidence, based on a technicality concerning Thompson / Center’s claims as to when they had actually received the letters in relation to the date of my injury. A representative of the company did admit that he saw failures of this kind during testing. He also admitted that TCA destroys customer complaints every six months.
Because of the pending suit, I have not been able to share these details until recently. I cannot adequately express what a tremendous relief it is to be able to finally share the truth about the dangers of this rifle.
Most gun owners I know - including myself - thought suing a gun company was practically blasphemy. My suit was never about anything more than seeking truth. I believe wholeheartedly in the Constitution and stand for our Second Amendment rights. I love freedom. I was an NRA member when my injury occurred and I’m an NRA member now.
This is the first lawsuit brought against TCA regarding this rifle that has been successfully litigated. In my opinion, TCA is fighting me so hard because the Encore Rifle has been wildly popular. A recall would cost potentially a lot of money. Still, I am now finally allowed to spread the truth about this gun. Please notify anyone you know who owns this rifle that it could catastrophically fail!
The judgment is attached. I have blacked out the award amounts because the money is not important in this regard. No amount of money can compensate me for the loss of my sight and the years spent in recovery. Additionally, I truly believe this company will continue to fight this judgment, and as a result I will never see any monetary compensation. The court documents are now a matter of public record, and if you wish to seek out more details they can be obtained.
Thank you for your time, and if you would like any additional information please let me know.
Sincerely,
Brian Ward
Was this a ML or CF? What caliber?
What is the defect?
Did your accident happen during a hunt or practice?
How long had you owned the rifle and about how many shots had been fired through it?
Sorry to hear about your sight.
Thanks
The gun can't keep tolerances and headspace grows over time.
I had well over a hundred shots with a 300 win mag, it's been over 10 years now I can't remember the exact amount off the top of my head.
This is the first I've heard, I think. But maybe I read somewhere about a TC recall. Seems familiar, but......
Know a few guys that have 'em in .270 and .243. Never mentioned anything but good things about the gun. Even let their kids shoot and hunt with them.
I'll be sure to mentioned this to them, though.
Thanks for the info.
Judgement here
Email me the PDF and I will post it for you.
Thanks for sharing your story.
Possibly something fishy here.
Headspace problem resulted in a broken stock? Doubtful.
The excessive headspace allows gasses to act on the plunger thus allowing the gun to open. (We are not talking about a bolt gun here….the plunger is held in place with a spring That supposedly needs to be replaced after so many shots that they never tell you about.)
The stock breaks in bending when the gun blows open....very violent.
I'm skeptical.
Bernie1, please verify
I'm confused. What blew up?
I have no knowledge of this case other than what I saw when a friend called my attention to it. So, what I'm passing along is not from the horse's mouth.
Like itshot pointed out, Bernie1 has been around for quite a while. He's not just popping up. For what it's worth, I have brought this to the attention of a friend who owns a T/C so that he can have his checked out.
Regarding the 40% fault issue. It seems like a lot of people are getting hung up on that. I’m not trying to hide that at all. But it is pure speculation why the jury decided how they did. I posted all the information I have: the verdict. The jury didn’t write a paper summarizing their thoughts in the deliberation room.
I will not be posting for a few days. I’m going away with my wife and kids for Memorial Day weekend. I should be back in front of my computer Wednesday. I'll try to answer all the questions when I get back.
Thanks, Brian Ward
"Apparently the 40% liability was found because he was shooting hand loads."
I missed that in the judgment on the THR tread. But it makes sense.
In 2007, in Australia, I had a similar hunting accident. A bolt-action Bruno, in .308, exploded when I fired it. Like this gentleman, I was using handloads.
I'll see if I can find some photos, but the (wood) stock blew into a lot of pieces and the left side of the action exploded. Wood splinters, shards of brass and bits of burned gun powder were imbedded in my face and worse, in the cornea of my right eye.
After thousands of dollars of doctor visits and surgery, some in Australia and some back in US, I have regained most of the sight in my R eye.
But the most significant difference is that I realized that accidents happen. I didn't feel the need to blame anyone, much less sue the company.
So if you happen to buy a Bruno rifle anytime, you can thank me that it didn't cost you any more than it did!
Pete
there's too much technology, and too much CYA involved in manufacturing these days to put sub-par equipment on the market
with that said, it's up to everybody to inspect their equipment, prior to use, for obvious signs of wear and needed adjustment
handloads are a different story, buyer/maker beware
I am fortunate and privileged to call Brian Ward my best friend. He has been on Bowsite for a long time and his personal accomplishments, both hunting related and non-hunting related, speak for themselves. You may call me biased, but I have known Brian long before his accident.
I cannot attest enough to his character. He is man of great integrity. I can also verify that, for Brian, this is not about money. Neither him nor I are supportive of baseless lawsuits, foolish litigation, or entitlement mentalities. This is about truth, honesty, right and wrong.
To say that Brain has suffered because of the accident is an understatement, but it has never held him back. He has persevered through all the trials that God has allowed him to go through, and has come out the other side a humble and thankful person.
Regarding the failure of the weapon, I'll leave it to him to fill in the details, but I will re-iterate again that this lawsuit was not a conjured up idea or a baseless accusation. That being said I have watched Brian put it behind him and still continue to be successful, when many would have fallen into self pity. As I stated before, Brian is a man of extreme integrity and a grounded belief in the truth at any cost. To insinuate otherwise is baseless in itself, and only shows that one doesn't know Brian or their opinion would be drastically different.
Brian is a wonderful and amazing human being. I consider it one of the great blessings of my life to have him as my closest friend.
I appreciate you sharing your story. I think the one thing that is odd to many is the fact that all of a sudden you have put this on so many internet message boards. I assume it is simply a PSA but you have to at least realize why many are skeptical. I am sorry for your injury and I hope you are doing well.
Has anyone heard any word of this from Thompson Center Arms or their attorneys?
Sorry you were injured and hope for a full recovery.
Sundowner,
You are wrong, but that is OK.
Were you using hand loads or reloads? If so, did you develop the loads and build the ammo yourself, or buy it from someone? What brand components, bullet weight, type and powder weight?
Why did the jury find that you were 40% responsible for the accident?
If you were using factory ammo, what brand and bullet weight?
Again, sorry you were hurt but why not provide all of the facts of the case?
“The load on my hunt when the gun failed was- once fired brass Remington brass - 215 primers - 180g Nosler accubond – H-1000 85g. It is over the published data of 83 from 26 edition Hodgdon Data Manual. I worked up from 10% below max and worked up the final load in half grain increments looking for accuracy (also potency) since I was hunting for moose in Alaska with Griz running around. There were no pressure signs in the cases compared to the 83 gr load (no blown primers, splits, cracks etc.). I even had two other experienced reloaders look at the cases. Also, since this was a single shot, I was not seating the bullet as deep, allowing for more case capacity...but I was not engaging the rifling. The cases were not crimped. My loads did not exceed SAAMI PSI for the 300 win mag. They were at max but not over.
Also, these loads are base upon a 1:10" twist rifling. Do you know the twist rate in your rifle?
The maximum load is not to be exceeded, no matter what.
That could be why the jury thought you should carry part of the responsibility for the accident. Like I said, headspace was probably not the issue.
Not defending the rifle manufacturer by any means, but maximum loads should never be exceeded. Never.
I’m not recommending anyone exceed limits with their loads. As stated above 26th edition Hodgdon Data Manual states 83. I very judiciously worked up to 85. A lot of other factors can be weighted. That is why I stated my procedure above. I’m not hiding this at all, I very openly and willing gave this to T/C Arms, the jury, and this forum.
H-1000 is one of the slowest burning powders around; which makes a 2 grain increase not much of a pressure rise.
Hand loaders can archive more constant accuracy, and pressures over factory loads. Factory loads on a hot day in the SW US or Africa can have pressure spikes well above my loads.
I don't have the 1992 manual as I pass my old books to new guys but even with your manual you were still 2 grains over according to your comment.
I always look for the most accurate load to get good groups within the min/max range. The only load I currently max is a magnum load and only because it performs better that way.
More pressure, more wear and tear on your firearms. Consistently loading over recommended maximums can cause catastrophic failure.
I am really sorry this happened to you but if I were on the jury and saw the evidence I see here.....
My loads were within SAAMI service maximum avg. pressure limits.
Also, it appears that 81 grains of H1000 is a compressed load. Four additional grains would probably probably not have allowed the bullet to be seated properly. In some chambers this can cause the bullet to be jammed into the rifling, thereby further increasing pressure.
Not saying that's what caused the accident, but it could have contributed to the cause.
Edit: For those not familiar, 4 grains of smokeless powder is a standard load for the .45 ACP.....a fairly powerful handgun. Granted, faster burning powders are used in pistols, but 4 grains, or even 2 grains past the maximum in any chamber, with any powder, is dangerous. At a minimum, as gflight stated, it causes undue wear and tear on even the best built rifles and handguns. Plus, it is never necessary to load to the max, and usually not very accurate.
"I had well over a hundred shots with a 300 win mag"
I must have assumed you meant with that load in the Encore my mistake.
Sundowner his reasoning on the compressed load....
"Also, since this was a single shot, I was not seating the bullet as deep, allowing for more case capacity"
My opinion stands as my opinion and I will leave you with Hodgens safety statement on pressures...
"Hodgdon reloading data shows starting loads and maximum loads. You might have heard a fellow reloader claim that published reload data errs on the low side and it is OK to exceed maximum charge recommendations.
THIS IS NOT TRUE – and is why Hodgdon publishes pressures with all its reloading data. The MAX load pressures shown by Hodgdon match the industry standards, just as the ammunition loading companies do in factory loads.
There is a reason why this is called a MAX load – because it is! Trying to push your reload any stronger exceeds the design limits of the ammunition components and gun."
This appears to be a case of exceeding pressure limits due to exceeding recommended maximum powder quantity for a given bullet weight.
Again, sorry you were injured, but it looks like the jury was generous.
Based upon the information provided, I would not hesitate to use the TCA Encore in any caliber with handloads from my bench, OR factory ammo.
Go for it, all I’m trying to do is bring awareness and if people don’t want to heed my warning they don’t have to.
I say again....My loads were within SAAMI service maximum avg. pressure limits.
I work my loads up slow and back off if and when I see the classic signs. I don't understand how you go from ok to blowing up the rifle...obviously TC design was at fault here but it seems like you should have seen warning signs as the headspace grew over time.
When you exceed the recommended maximum load for a given bullet, you have no way of even guessing what the pressure will be, except that you know the pressure of that load exceeds the maximum allowable pressure published by the manufacturer.
And when you do that, repeatedly, with ANY firearm, you can expect failure eventually.
I'm just throwing this out there for him and you guys to keep in mind when reloading near, or above, max specs....
Case capacity!!! Not all cases have the same internal volume. Some can hold more than others. If you are at or above max and you are not using the same casings as the manual, you better be checking the volume capacity of yours vs. the ones used by the manual.
If your case has smaller internal volume, that load you just did at max is likely well over the maximum load and pressure specs.
Don't have the paper here, but I actually worked up the reduction of powder needed based on differences in casing weight.
Normally this isn't an issue, but it becomes an issue when running at max or trying to squeeze that last finite amount out of your group.
Just something to keep in mind.
My terms may not be exactly correct, but you guys know what I mean.
The Lake City military cases are thicker walled than civilian brass, and therefore have less volume.
There are probably differences in volume between brands of civilian brass as well.
This is another reason to stay well below maximum loads, much less exceeding them!
There is usually no need to load to max.
You don't hear much about case capacity. I only read about it on some long range shooting forums. Most just don't consider it at all.
The long range precision shooters actually group their cases based on the capacity!
From what I've read, there's generally a low node and a high node up very close to max. You just have to find them. I have read some guys say that in the 300 Win Mag they could only find a high node.
I don't use H1000 in mine. I'm playing with R22, but I'm only loading in the low to mid 70's for a 178gn A-Max. Got me some 208gn A-Max to play with if I can ever find the time!
I won't criticize Bernie1 for his load. It sounds like he worked up to it like he should have. But given a 300's barrel is usually only good for around 1500 rounds with normal loads, I'd say his load would shorten the barrel life up quite a bit.
I know the T/C Arms are inherently weaker IMO now, back then I did not. I truly thought they were on par with a bolt gun. The gun comes with a lifetime warranty and they offered the gun in a 300 win mag. Was I as a layperson supposed to know a T/C Encore should not have full power cartridge in a caliber the manufacturer offered?
I like this bow and arrow analogy... I buy a 60-70 lb bow for XXX manufacturer with a lifetime warranty.
10 years later people are saying that bow is great when you shoot it at 60 lbs.
What? You cranked it up to 70lbs, you’re an idiot! That 60-70lb bow and can’t be used at 70 lbs.
Like others have mentioned... case capacity and other criteria come into play. I also think chasing and exceeding max loads is silly. If you want more gun.. get a bigger caliber.
In my view.. allowable case pressure is dependent on the action much more than the case.
JMO...... individual responsibility is the bottom line.... no different than a "layperson" trying to hot lap a race car. He's in way over his head.
Not attacking you in particular.... seen way too many hot shots with sticky bolts and blown primers in my years in southern Arizona.. Not smart at all.
Please provide some form of legitimate documentation that the Encore is a "weaker design". Thousands of TC Encores are being shot every day without problems.
"Was I as a layperson supposed to know a T/C Encore should not have full power cartridge in a caliber the manufacturer offered?"
You, as a rifle shooter and hand loader should know that it is always dangerous to exceed load maximums. Always.
Headspace is created by whatever element of the cartridge that prevents the case from entering further into the chamber. It may be the shoulder of a bottleneck case, or the rim of a flanged case, or in straight-wall pistol rounds, it is the case mouth.
The 300 Win Mag has a belted case, and the belt bumps into a shoulder inside the chamber and stops the round from further forward movement into the chamber. The shoulder is machined into every rifle of that caliber exactly the same way, and cannot move. The dimension from this shoulder to the start of rifling in the barrel does not change. Under no circumstances would this dimension become smaller, a condition which could cause failure.
However, if the powder load was excessive to the point that the bullet could not be seated to the proper depth into the case, the bullet, when chambered, could be pushed into the rifling, cutting straight or slightly angled grooves in the surface of the bullet plating, thus locking it in place and probably further increasing pressures at ignition. Chambering the round would also undoubtedly cause the bullet to move deeper into the un-crimped case, further compressing the powder load and decreasing the case capacity even more, thereby increasing pressure.
Given all of the factors involved and further complicated by the fact that the maximum load was listed in the manual as a Compressed Load, and you exceeded the maximum load, you certainly had a dangerous rifle in your hands, but it was probably not the fault of the rifle manufacturer.
But in my opinion, one must completely disregard the following to support that argument:
In open court, a T/C Arms representative said he saw failures that caused the T/C Encore to blow open like mine.
T/C Arms destroys customer complaints every 6 months.
Calibers like the 300 Short Mag were not put into production because the T/C Arms Encore could not handle the round. Please note: the 300 win mag has a standard SAAMI psi of 64K and the 300 short mag is 65K…. kind of similar.
They changed the Encore stock design after my accident in 2005.
The gun didn’t blow up like a bomb, like many people bashing me thought it did.
Multiple other people posting on my threads on multiple forums have stated:
-The Encore is a weak design.
-The Encore has can pop open after firing.
-The Encore has headspace issues develop.
- The Encore frames warp.
I’ve tried to convey that I took due diligence in the development of my loads, and I stand by the statement. (My loads were within SAAMI service maximum avg. pressure limits.) I gave T/C Arms all my records, physical evidence, reloads, old brass… everything! For days in court, in front of the jury, they tried to make same arguments some people here are trying to make. But in the end, those arguments didn’t stick and the jury determined that T/C Arms was more at fault.
I think most posters picking at my reloads are doing so because it’s low hanging fruit; it’s what they can get their minds around. But at the end of the day, that argument fell flat with the jury and it’s been beaten to death here. People can keep beating the same old drum, but I suggest you take an analytical look at my side of things.
Thanks,
Brian
Good luck Bernie. Sorry you got hurt.
Thanks again Blugrass
All I want is for people to be aware of the situation and check their T/C Arms Encore for problems. I’ve done my best to try forget all this junk and just live my life for the past nearly 10 years. Stewing and obsessing on the case would drive a person crazy.
I don’t have the case files my attorney does and the Encore rifle and components hasn’t been in my possession in almost 10 years so I’m not able to break out the calipers and give you guys measurements. I’m speaking in just general terms from memory. I’m not trying to re-litigate this case over the internet. Also I think that would be foolish on my part since T/C Arms has already filed for a re-trial. If people are really that concerned with getting all the details and determining what happened the court documents are public record and can be obtained.
Gglight / Sundowner, Best of luck you also. Kill some big stuff with your bow this year…..I will do my best to do the same.
It looks like posts on this thread have subsided. I just want to thank everyone that posted on this thread. Some posters stated this thread didn’t turn out how I had hoped, but actually it did. I knew some people would attack me no matter what, and some would give an honest evaluation on what I was saying
Above all I just wanted to bring awareness about this gun and have people check their T/C Arms Encore for problems. I was not trying to re-litigate this case over the internet; I would never be able to do it justice. If people are really that concerned with getting all the details and determining what happened, the court documents are public record.
So at the end of the day, even people attacking me actually helped me by driving up the number of people being made aware of the situation and the judgement against T/C Arms and their Encore design.
Thanks again!
Brian Ward
I believe an unintended awareness was also brought forth: The dangers of operating at maximum loads.
This is by no means an attack on you, or my other posts...
It merely points to those dangers. You were operating at very close to maximum pressure with a gun that may have some inherent weaknesses. You didn't not know of the possible weakness. Unfortunately, that combination came together and you were seriously injured.
I've reloaded to max before, checking for the usual signs on the case. You just gave us all a reality check in that the case may not tell us everything that is going on!!!
I'm sure all of us reloaders get lax at times in our reloading. This should serve as a reminder to all of us that we literally are playing with fire and should be diligent at all times.
Sincerely wish you the best!
I like .5 grain changes myself and I can usually see changes in how I am grouping in those increments and see the signs of overpressure.
This situation is very strange and very scary.
But shooting max loads, or even very near max, is not recommended. In fact it is clearly noted in all reloading manuals that dangerous pressure levels can be reached at maximum loads.
The rifle Bernie was shooting probably showed signs of over-pressure loads, as he was concentrating on looking for signs in the cases. He was aware that pressure issues might arise, or he would not have been carefully inspecting his fired cases, and having others do so. Cases rarely show any sign of over-pressure (splits or bulging primers) unless one is at max powder loads for a particular bullet weight.
As stated above, the lesson here is: Do Not Load to Maximum Pressure! And CERTAINLY do not exceed the max load for a given bullet weight.
And if you do, be willing to accept the consequences.
"My loads were within SAAMI service maximum avg. pressure limits."
"SAAMI does not provide a maximum pressure category for loads that exceed the powder manufacturer's published maximum loads for a given bullet weight."
Lots of great info here guys. Thanks to all posters.
Given the quotes above, the first two being the thread owner, and the last being sundowner, I don't think you would have wanted me on the jury Bernie.
Great info on all sides of this given what we were told
In over three decades of dealing professionally with hunters and guns I have seen 7 catastrophic gun failures. One shotgun, two black powder (Kodiak double and TC), two handgun (SW 29 and Ruger Blackhawk 44) and two rifles ( Bruno 375 HH and Remington 700 416) A couple of severe injuries and one fatality (Bruno )
The one thing they all had in common were Max or above Max reloads Black Powder were over Max by a lot
Threads like these should just serve as a very good reminder
Guys, I said my final piece on this thread. But I was contacted by Jack Belk (Author of UnSafe by Design: Forensic Gunsmithing and Firearms Investigations) and I put him in contact with my Gun Expert. I thought his assessment was pertinent and want to share it.
Thanks,
Brian Ward
Link to the original post: http://www.shootersforum.com/general-discussion/98824-embrace-truth-catastrophic-gun-failure.html
Text: “I have discussed this case with the plaintiff's expert witness that did the analysis of Brian's accident. As is normal in these type cases, there's a lot that can't be released to the public (and the gun companies fight to keep it that way).
Here's the physical facts that were demonstrated to the jury to 'prove' one or more defects in design or defects in material that was 'more likely than not' the causation of Brian's injuries. To do that, the firearms expert has to testify to the facts and opinions concerning the gun. Medical experts and monetary loss experts and all sorts of supporting testimony covers the areas outside the firearm.
In this case, the medical testimony did not or could not point to one specific thing or item that caused the loss of the eye but "impact" was named as causation. There was no one piece of debris named even though the fired case was not recovered from the eye or anywhere else.
That raises the first flag---Where is the fired case? If nobody removed it, it had to have left on its own. How?
The firearms expert and engineer in this case found that the weight of the locking block is sufficient to UN LOCK the TC Encore with the recoil of a .300Win Mag. This is inertia as described by Sir Isaac Newton and recognized by the Courts as mechanical fact. It was also found that the material and design of the (severely angled) grip section of the plastic stock was not proper for the amount of recoil applied by that caliber/weight combination of rifle. Proper stock design and materials are well-known and fully accepted by the courts.
Once it was shown through testimony the locking assembly on the rifle was not proper for the cartridge and could cause the gun to unlock itself and eject the case, then reclose when it fell, AND the cheap plastic stock was likely to break from recoil from normal use, the further facts of sloppy headspacing and the tested stretching of the headspace dimension in as few as five rounds just showed more exacerbating circumstances due to faulty designs in more than one place. The jury saw the gun was defective in design and materials and awarded the majority of the verdict to the plaintiffs. They retained part of the award because the handload was an unknown that the company contended could have been causation. (Common in civil courts in states where 'proportional liability' is the law.)
MY OPINION concurs with the plaintiff's expert: He believes as do I the TC Encore is not designed correctly for the calibers they call on it to hold. The weird stock was just stupid. Economy was chosen over shooter's safety......by design. Ignorance of basic firearms design history played a major roll, unless they knowingly gambled and lost.
All it takes to accept that opinion is to look at similar rifles (and shotguns) and how they were made: Locking blocks are to the rear of the locking notch(es). Recoil makes them lock up tighter, not loosens that most important connection. It has been that way since Manton invented the double underlock in about 1873. Purdey's made it famous and just about everybody on the planet has copied it since then. The greater back-thrust pressure of rifle cartridges usually made a 'third fastener' of some kind above the pivot point very common but not universal. (Browning Superposed, rifles)
Examine a heavy recoiling double rifle and see the metal tang extension all the way to the top of the stock comb and the trigger guard goes to the steel grip cap and is firmly attached there as re-inforcement to a (fine Circassian) walnut butt stock that has a shear strength higher than the plastics used on the TC rifle. Pictured is such a tang done on a .404 bolt gun by Steve Heilmann.
The inertia of the shooter means the gun recoils before the stock unless they're well connected and in a straight line. That means the same plastic used for AR platform stocks is likely to be too weak in shear strength to be used in 'crooked' stocks. AR stocks are strong in compression which doesn't count in the TC 'drop stocks'.
Consider also the safety factors that should be brought in because TC knows how shooters are. (Don't we all.) Just because the TC-E "will hold" a .300 Mag does not mean it will still hold one with excess resizing lube left on it, or an oversized flashhole, or a weld-crimped bullet or a round grabbed off the dashboard with hot and degraded powder. (don't ask me how I know THAT one!)
Hopefully this enlightens this group to the 'behind the scenes' take on what was a 'grenade of good intentions' without enough technical information to support it.”