STROKLUND v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS COMPANY, INC.

[chorizo]

This is an interesting read on burst T/C barrels:

https://casetext.com/case/stroklund-v-thompsoncenter-arms-company-2

In support of their claim that there was a post-sale duty to warn, the Stroklunds cite to the deposition testimony of Ken French, the Director of Research and Development at Thompson/Center Arms until 2006. French said that he has testified in as many as fifteen cases, many of which involved Renegade and Hawken muzzleloaders.

Q. So the majority of the ten to fifteen taken (sic) cases that you've testified in involving Hawkens and Renegades have been burst barrel cases?

A. Probably true.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Well I read through it all …

“On December 3, 2004, Pete Stroklund went hunting for deer and loaded the muzzleloader with powder manufactured by defendant Clean Shot Technologies, Inc., and with one 348-grain copper plated aerotip Powerbelt bullet. Stroklund shot a deer and then reloaded the muzzleloader in case he had to fire a second shot. However, he did not fire a second shot that day. Stroklund did not unload the muzzleloader that evening, but instead placed the loaded rifle in his truck where it remained overnight. On December 4, 2004, the barrel of the muzzleloader rifle exploded when Stroklund discharged the rifle into an open field to unload it.”

In one place, the engineering expert says the barrel was ‘too hard’ so as to be brittle. And yet in another place talking about the same steel, the claim is made that it was ‘not hard enough’. Which is it?

I do feel sorry for the family or anyone in such a predicament … but I would surmise that it was the heavy copper bullet in the plastic sabot that froze in the barrel overnight, nevermind any crud ring from that synthetic powder.

T/C did try to state, for the record, that the barrel was shot with a bullet and powder that it was never designed to shoot, i.e., that they did not exist at the time of manufacture for that particular barrel.

 

[UndeadPoet]

It seems a bit of stretch to lay the blame on T/C decades after the rifle was manufactured, and since the new owner had evidently never even read any info (warnings, or not) regarding loading, shooting, or maintaining the rifle. I almost feel like it is saying that someone should be able to sue the government (etc.) for their original-era Springfield musket blowing up when they load it with modern stuff. “You should have warned me,” etc. Tort attorneys…

 

[chorizo]

It seems a bit of stretch to lay the blame on T/C decades after the rifle was manufactured, and since the new owner had evidently never even read any info (warnings, or not) regarding loading, shooting, or maintaining the rifle. I almost feel like it is saying that someone should be able to sue the government (etc.) for their original-era Springfield musket blowing up when they load it with modern stuff. “You should have warned me,” etc. Tort attorneys…

Oh, I concur. What surprised me was the number of times that one of their own copted to barrel failures. A surprising number in my opinion.

 

[UndeadPoet]

Oh, I concur. What surprised me was the number of times that one of their own copted to barrel failures. A surprising number in my opinion.

I know CVA had inline barrels that it recalled around the late 1990s-early 2000s, and I think T/C may have as well, so you would think if there was a known systemic problem with Renegade or Hawken barrels that they would have done the same thing, right?

 

[chorizo]

I know CVA had inline barrels that it recalled around the late 1990s-early 2000s, and I think T/C may have as well, so you would think if there was a known systemic problem with Renegade or Hawken barrels that they would have done the same thing, right?

You would think, but many times those recalls are written in blood and enforced in a court room.

I certainly am not worried about it, but found this case brief interesting.