The India-made Untouchables

[Va.Manuf.06]

Isn't Nactorman making the point that the gun WAS gov't proofed (and still burst)? Am I misreading that!?

Okay, I am embarrassed, I read it too fast. Nactorman, my apologies on that part of the post. But still, high quality work with a 150 year old proof with a history of being shot in the past in competition at a national event and other N-SSA events as well. It shouldn't have failed if properly loaded, especially in that fashion.

And no, you can't say the same about the Indian imitation guns. The imitation title is what they are officially called under Indian law. Indian craftsmen are quite capable of producing safe, working firearms and do, but they have to be proofed at the Indian government proof house to be called firearms and the importers are saving money and taking chances. There is no fall-back under Indian law and when one fails here or anywhere else, it is the importer who is responsible under US or European law, they can not expect anything from the manufacturer because they were produced as imitations under Indian law and the Indian courts will not prosecute.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Yes VA, there is the same feeling about American made muzzle loaders in Germany, where all guns are required to be proofed. They trust Italian made guns over American because of the lack of American proofing procedures.

Sort of the pot calling the kettle black the way I see it.

 

[greggholmes]

why do people keep beating the "proof" horse :dead:

How many people here have a T/C or green mountain barrel that have proof marks. Who here has a commercial American made barrel with a proof mark?

BTW my T/C barrel that bulged under the rear sight didn't have a proof mark.

also that car you drive probably has parts made in india.

 

[Rifleman1776]

it is the importer who is responsible under US or European law

I find that unlikely. We need some legal type to jump in here. You seem to be suggesting that if someone buys an India made ml'er and it blows up he would have recourse against the importer? I doubt an attorney would even that that case.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Most states have a sealed package law. That is if the product is sold in a sealed package, for instance a toaster from walmart, the manufacturer is on the hook for injuries, except where the maker is beyond the jurisdiction of the country where the injury occurred, or the maker is out of existence. In those cases the importer, distributor and retailer are responsible. If the package is not sealed the retailer and importer are equally responsible.

 

[Artificer]

First, I am not an attorney or connected with the legal profession.

However, I spoke many times with the H.P. White Laboratory over the years and they are considered THE best authority for testing firearms for court cases and giving expert testimony.

Yes, the importer would be at risk IF the manufacturer sold it as a non firing gun or some sort AND the Importer changed that to a firing gun (by drilling a vent hole for example) AND the Importer made any claim it was safe to fire AND the person/shooter/plaintiff got hurt from the fact of making it a firing gun. NOTE: Winning the case would involve that fact can be shown the cause was not the fault of the shooter. Hence it would be a good idea to have it tested by H.P. White, for example, even after it blew up. Conversely, IF one is getting wrongfully sued, testing by H.P. White is one superb way for the Defendant in a law suit to show the Defendant was not at fault.

However, I have personal knowledge of two court cases where the lawsuit was bogus and could have been won for a gunsmith, BUT the insurance company paid the defendant off rather than pay the costs of going to court, because it was cheaper to do so.

Gus

 

[zimmerstutzen]

The insured person almost always has the right to demand that his insurance not settle the case, however there are some personal liability problems and coverage limits when that is done. I have handled a few products liability cases and sometimes what is bogus to those in the industry is perfectly logical to outsiders.

 

[Artificer]

The insured person almost always has the right to demand that his insurance not settle the case, however there are some personal liability problems and coverage limits when that is done.

Quite true. Thank you for adding that. However, in both cases I know of, it wasn't worth it financially to the gunsmiths as their insurance rates would have skyrocketed.

I have handled a few products liability cases and sometimes what is bogus to those in the industry is perfectly logical to outsiders.

Yes indeed. It is amazing what gets into Civil Courts these days.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Yes VA, there is the same feeling about American made muzzle loaders in Germany, where all guns are required to be proofed. They trust Italian made guns over American because of the lack of American proofing procedures.

Sort of the pot calling the kettle black the way I see it.

Is this a matter of law, as it is in the UK where all firing guns have to pass proof inspection?

Gus

 

[pargent]

Yes ,it has been the case since the very early 1700s ,A case of you stand behind the product you make .

 

[KingofDerby]

What you are supposed to do when you have a misfire but you did have the pan flash... the shooter should half-cock the musket, prick the touch hole, feel for the powder crunching, reprime from a new cartridge (and dump the remaining contents on the ground), close the frizzen, cock the musket, and attempt to fire.

What reenactors often do, is to dump the contents of the musket barrel on the ground, fail to prick the touch hole, reprime and reload the blank, and then try to fire. Pedersoli or Indian made, no difference in this. AND... This is wrong.

People do that? Perhaps I'm just too used to my group, but I thought it would be common sense to look at pricking and re-priming first before emptying a barrel. Certainly I won't sign someone off as being able to take powder on the field until they know to do that.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

it is the importer who is responsible under US or European law

I find that unlikely. We need some legal type to jump in here. You seem to be suggesting that if someone buys an India made ml'er and it blows up he would have recourse against the importer? I doubt an attorney would even that that case.

Rifleman1776, I apologize for my lack of clarity and thanks to Artificer and others for clarifying my statement.

If the importer modifies the gun from an as-manufactured, non-firing state, then the responsibility for any injury is on said importer. However, if the importer sells the imitation firearm in it's as-manufactured non-functioning state and the new owner does the alteration to make it functional, then he and he alone is responsible.

I could go on and on but you get the idea.

 

[ord sgt]

Saw some photographs and heard about a 1861(?) Springfield rifle from N-SSA nationals.
Seems one skirmisher managed to destroy his rifle and almost extinguish his life. Smokeless powder was used.
The rifle came apart at the breech. Tang screw was sheared in two pieces. Some parts of the barrel were never found. The stock was in several pieces.
The shooter did survive. A concussion and cuts to face and head, this time. Lucky. It could have been worse.

I know that I am preaching to the choir but smokeless powder and muzzle loading firearms do not mix well. Bad things will happen. Very bad things.

Y'all take care. Know what powder you use.

 

[sidelock]

My son was there. He said it was a complete wreck. By the way, My Son did quite well on the firing line.

 

[Thejeepster]

What is N-SSA nationals?

 

[ord sgt]

North-South Skirmish Association. National matches are held at Fort Shenandoah, near Winchester, Virginia. There is the Spring National and the Fall National meets.
Friendly competition between recreated units of both the North and the South.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Smokeless powder in a gun at the N-SSA Nationals? :shocked2:

That’s kind of like a blind person behind the wheel at NASCAR! :youcrazy:

Sounds a wee bit odd to me. :hmm:

 

[Artificer]

Yes ,it has been the case since the very early 1700s ,A case of you stand behind the product you make .

Don't you mean if the barrel makers for three centuries stood behind the barrels they made and did their own proof firing, there would have been no need of the Government passing laws to force the barrel makers to properly proof their barrels, eh?

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Smokeless powder in a gun at the N-SSA Nationals? :shocked2:

That’s kind of like a blind person behind the wheel at NASCAR! :youcrazy:

Sounds a wee bit odd to me. :hmm:

Smokeless powder is expressly forbidden in muzzle loaders by a host of NSSA bylaws, rules, regulations and warnings. That does not mean that someone really ignorant or really stupid or a combination of both, can ignore all that and sneak smokeless into the shoots.

The last Nationals I was at had around 35,000 shooters and with those kinds of numbers, some ignorant or stupid people are going to occasionally do something they should not.

Gus

 

[Alden]

35,000? As in thirty-five-thousand!?