AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - My AR15 KaBoomed - from Maine Cartridge Co. SS109 (Updated Page 14 More Lying/More Stupidity) (Page 5 of 7)
I'm far from an expert and I'll admit to it, But from what he says, it sounds like to me his ammuntiion wasn't sized properly. The completed cartridge was probably too long in length and the bolt was unable to lock because of that. The gun fired and the bolt unlocked from the pressure before the bullet left the chamber. Hence the Kaboom. Either way, he owes you a new rifle. I don't know whick brand of gun amnufacturer you have but I would sent your rifle to them and tell them what MR. MCC said. I'm sure they would ber very interested. my $.02 |
I mailed the rifle to Bushmaster Firearms the other day. Bushmaster contacted me and requested the opportunity to examine the rifle and even covered shipping. I'll be gone all of April but I'll update accordingly. |
|
been there done that....anytime you use reloaded ammo, you are running the risk of having a case that is slightly longer than spec. when that happens, you run the risk of having a kaboom as the chamber pressures can exceed what the system will tolerate. unless every single round is checked for case length, and the company stakes their reputation on each round, you are flirting with disaster. the ONLY company that i trust with reloads in my guns is blackhills ammo...PERIOD... other than Blackhills, i run factory new ammo in all my AR's and especially M16's.... |
Just what would cause the carrier to move back before the bullet reached the gas port? And if there is any significant pressure in the chamber, the bolt load PREVENTS easy bolt rotation. There is well over a TON of force on the bolt when the bullet is at the gas port. About 2200 pounds of force. |
Well the bolt and carrier did move rearward before the bullet reached the gas port. Look at the picture. The only way this could have happened was if the primer ignited before the bolt was full rotated into battery. |
|
The primer can be struck before full bolt lockup if the disconector is removed, modified, damaged, or improperly installed. This allows the hammer to ride foreward with the bolt carrier and slam fire out of battery. This is sometimes used as an attempt by amatures to achive full-auto capability. It is the easy to blame the ammo company for "shitty reloads". you can not put enough of any suitable 223 powder in a case to blow up an AR. It was either: a round loaded with pistol powder (unlikely) fired after a sqib. or fired out of battery(as the pictures show) |
I realize reading 9 pages of facts is difficult but it is NOT impossible. Measurement though the bore indicated only ONE bullet was stuck in the bore. Squip hypothesis is dead. The bolt was fully locked into the barrel extension after the firing. In fact, the shooter had to hammer the carrier back because the case rupture fractured the bolt, wedging it into the extension. You completely missed the "weak case" theory. I had a KB with a weak, American Eagle (Federal, bunted "FC") case. Please abandon the "out of battery" hypothesis as the AR design precludes firing pin contact until the bolt is completely rotated into battery and the carrier moves forward the final 0.10" or so of travel. Note the only way for a servicable rifle to suffer a OOB condition is if the bolt/carrier is assembled without the cam pin. Note in one of the photos provided there is a visible cam pin. |
Or failed, weak brass? |
Wrong. |
|
Just spoke to Bushmaster. The rifle was definitely in battery when it fired and the barrel extension is cracked. Bushmaster is going to write up their synopsis of the inspection and and estimated cost of repair for the parts. I won't have the rifle back for a while since I'm deployed out of state but I DO have a final verdict in writing. Anyone know of any Attorneys who handle cases like this? Or should I contact MCC again after they denied liability once already? |
Fax MCC a copy of the letter and ask them how they wish to resolve the issue. If you had an attorney friend it MIGHT be even better to have them send a letter on his letterhead. |
My suggestion, is to go find another AR gunsmith. Ask him/her if they are willing to inspect it and determin the cause. DON'T tell them what Bushmaster said or MCC. Have them write up (if willing) their analysis and sign their name to it. If the second analisis is the same as Bushy, then get two copies (Bushy and the #2) and have them certified and send to MCC. Tell them what two experts said. Then the ball will be in their court..... |
Heck of an idea! |
I am not a lawyer, however, I do not think that will be necessary at first. I would fax over the Bushmaster letter to MCC. If they then decide to not do anything, I would contact another gunsmith, and hire a lawyer. The lawyer will get your money and/or rifle repaired. Good luck. Bigfeet |
Unfortunately there is not enough money involved in this case to interest many attorneys. If your face was blown off that'd be a different story.  |
Sad but true.  So what's left? Small claims court? |
MCC's brass failed. I'd put money on it. A pending seperation is easy to overlook and when it's low on the case wall can be a disaster when it finally occurs. |
+1 A letter might do the trick, if you have a friend who will do it. Aimless is right that the cost doesn't justify hiring an attorney. |
At least in NY, a small claims court cannot serve papers on anyone outside the county. I would guess that small claims court is not practical either. I have had other items (not guns) inspected by engineers for lawsuits, depending on what it is, it is not cheap to get an expert analysis. It could easily cost more than the gun is worth. Sadly I think he is screwed. He could still contact the attorney general in that state and file a complaint, if Maine has anything like that available. |
| The exact same thing happened to me when I was shooting my 9mm mac 11. I was using Federal brand ammunition. I sent the gun to the company and they sent me back some bullshit letter saying that the barrel was old and showed stress marks and it was not the fault of the ammo. However, the gun had barely been shot before. I could have taken them to court, but that would have ended up costing me waaaayy more than the price of the gun. I was not hurt at all thank God. Guns are usually able to contain such things without hurting the shooter. I say you should contact the company and send them the rifle and see what they will do. |
We just got done paying a biomedical engineer $400/hour for a case that we just settled. His fees alone, without any testimony, was nearly $12,000. Still not as bad as medical doctors. I am paying a treating physician $1600 for a two hour trial deposition.  SBG |
|
damn....good luck, tag for the outcome. I have about 800 rounds of MCC SS109 too..... ......first couple hundred went without a hiccup.....ETA: I don't know if some of you guys remember this far back, but MCC had some QC issues a number of years ago.....you may have suffered from a 6-8 year old batch from that 'dark age' and some of the recent stuff might be more than fine. In fact many people went in on a group buy last year with M4CQB-R. In either case, you're lessons are noted and well documented. I'm sure no one that reads this thread will ever buy any more MCC ammunition. I know I won't....and I'm IN Maine. |
get some sunlight DvlDog, nothing was worse than the MARPAT threads. |
|
maybe a post here HERE would get somebody that might take this on probono... never hurts to ask. |
|
Letter recieved from Bushmaster's Technical Section Dear Sir, On inspection of your rifle, we found that the only Bushmaster component was the stripped lower reciever. The inspection did show that the headspace was within specification. Firing pin protrusion checked OK. Bolt Measured OK. A squib round was found in the bore that caused the cartridge case head to fail due to the subsequent pressure in the bore forcing back through the action when the bolt unlocked. The rear of the lugs on the bolt have impressions on them from the barrel extension showing the the bolt was closed and locked when the cartridge was fired and the excess pressure was produced. The AR type rifles cannot fire out of battery as the firing pin stop in the bolt carrier does not allow for firing pin protrusion until the bolt is closed and locked on a round. The only way that a round can fire ouf of battery, which did not occur in this case, is if a primer was faulty, improperly installed or there was a piece of foreign material between the bolt and the primer setting it off. Estimated Cost of repair Serial #__________ Stripped V Match Upper - $151.95 AR bolt carrier with key - $92.50 Bolt Assembly - $56 Stripped Charging Handle - $18 Bol Catch - $5.50 Ejection Port Cover Rod - $1.60 20 round magazine - $24.95 Plus the cost of a replacement barrel - estimated at $245.00 (*for bushmasters not the White Oaks barrel I had) So that's the verdict. The letter states that only the stripped lower was Bushmaster mfg. They probably traced the lower's serial - which I purchased stripped - but it did have other Bushmaster parts in the gun - just not a complete factory stock rifle. Minor detail which has no bearing on the mishap itself. Initially, Maine Cartridge Company blamed the rifle after their "technical inspection". Just trying to decide the next course of action now. |
|
Fax them a copy of the Bushmaster letter and include a link to this thread. Ask them if doing the right thing is worth it to avoid the bad press they will get here if they deny the obvious. The fact that the upper is not Bushmaster tells me that Bushmaster has no incentive to lie, not that they would even if it was their product. Good luck! |
How the hell are they responsible for that? It was re-man ammo to start with, probably with a non-existant warranty. They have no responsibility, IMHO. Post away, though. |
BIG +1 |
You feel MCC is not responcible for a squib load? |
Not six years after he purchased the ammo! |
What is the statute of limitations on ammo that wasn't given an adequate charge. Are you suggesting that brass cases leak powder over the course of 6 years? 
|
Ammunition doesn't expire  We routinely use Lake City ammunition from US military arsenals at work (US Military) from 92, 93, etc. You get the idea. This isn't rocket science. A faulty product was produced that clearly would not have passed quality control/quality assurance. It was delivered/sold to a consumer (me). Said product destroyed personal property due to an unsafe product. People routinely shoot ammunition that is 20, 30, even 50 years old. It doesnt deteriorate into "dangerous" over time. This isn't dynamite we're talking about here. Quality control is set at the factory BEFORE it leaves. |
|
J_Smith has an excellent point reference deterioration of ammunition, however its also reasonable (in the legal sense) that a number of factors beyond the re loader's control have existed in the last six (6) years. Additionally, there is the issue of proving this is actually MCC's reloads. I believe J_Smith, but MCC can deny its their ammo out of hand. What proves its MCC reloads? Their headstamp on the brass? A weasel could merely deny its their reloads and claim its not their liability. And MCC has already floated the amazing 'fired out of battery' idea. Reloads are a serious crap shoot, regardless of the manufacturer. And "remanufactured" is the same as "reloaded". |
Without giving legal advice, because I'm not a lawyer, there probably IS some sort of warranty on the ammunition. Even if the company doenst have a warranty, most states (all?) have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code which contains a section on implied warranties for the sale of goods.
|
All the more reason for MCC to step up and do the right thing. Their reputation is on the line at a time when more and more people are turning to alternate sources for ammo. Reloaded ammo doesn't necessarily equate to more dangerous ammo if it is done correctly with proper quality control. MCC's willingness to stand behind their product (or not) tells me how they rate their quality control. In the end, their reputation is what will keep them in business. I agree with other posters that have said that there is no legal case to be made here. There are too many questions about the true provenance of the failure round. MCC would be within their legal rights to deny responsibility by denying that the round was theirs. All we have to go on is one member's word that it was MCC ammo that caused the kaboom. BUT, this is also an excellent opportunity for MCC to step up and make a whole lot of people feel good about them as a company. As it stands right now, all I am seeing is a lame attempt to blame the failure on an out of battery ignition, which the Bushmaster evaluation clearly debunks. I say give MCC an honest opportunity to re-evaluate their position and let the chips fall where they may. I, and a lot of others are watching. |
Did they print an expiration or use-by date on the box? "Keep refridgerated after opening"? Unless he stored it in a green house there is NO reason for ammo to 'go bad' in 6 years. You think IMI gets a pass on product liability if a case stamped WCC 2000 blows up my gun? |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - My AR15 KaBoomed - from Maine Cartridge Co. SS109 (Updated Page 14 More Lying/More Stupidity) (Page 5 of 7)
AR Sponsor
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter