I could grab around some big titties,
Or steer my car around inner cities,
Or up to ten I could add the sum,
And I could do some real good twiddling
and grab a pen to do some written riddling
If I only had a thumb...
So allegedly go the woes of more than one shooter who has attempted to fire a Savage 10ML-II (a muzzle loading rifle) in stainless steel. At least one lawsuit is currently under way seeking damages from Savage. More here at the source.
I have no clue if Savage is at fault here for having manufactured muzzle loaders with faulty metal in the barrels or if this is due to shooter error (it does not take much to screw up how you load a muzzle loader) and am not finding fault with either but just giving you a warning that if you own a muzzle loader - especially a Savage 10ML-II - be careful or in the case of a 10ML-II maybe consider asking Savage if they will replace it. Savage Arms reportedly discontinued the manufacture of these rifles in 2010 (source). What Savage Arms has to say about the 10ML-II can be seen here.
Here are some points, from quotes in the source article, I'd like to specifically address on this issue:
"The company acknowledged in Hansen’s case that it received 45 legal claims related to burst or split barrels dating to 2004. Hansen’s lawyers say documents show Savage Arms created a special “muzzleloader return team” and faced hundreds of warranty and service claims."
Seems like an awful lot of claims about burst or split barrels for one particular model gun. Either a lot of idiots buy those guns or maybe there just could be something to the claim that the metal of the barrels is unsound. It also seems odd that there were hundreds of warranty/service claims for one particular model if that model was not in some way faulty.
"Some hunters were offered free replacement rifles after they were told their errors caused the damage."
Add to that the alleged fact that while Savage blamed user error, they also offered some folks replacement rifles and it makes one wonder why would Savage offer replacements if the shooters were at fault. Were they trying to appease folks whose guns had barrels gone bad so they would not file lawsuits or were they doing it out of the goodness of their hearts?
"... a federal magistrate in 2015 sanctioned the company for a “purposeful record of obfuscation” that included falsely claiming that it was aware of only two prior explosions while withholding information that showed otherwise."
Then there is the obfuscation issue from the earlier case, Savage allegedly claiming many fewer incidents than of which they allegedly were actually aware and a magistrate judge reportedly calling them on it.
I am not saying Savage is at fault here but, in my opinion, I think this does not look good for Savage.
Safe shooting my friends.
All the best,
Glenn B
