SGC 9mm - Catastorphic Failure - Almost lost an eye :(

[Chuck]

Not sure .......if it passed proof it should have been OK...back to proof house, was it damaged in some way by the PROOF load???

Possibility????

Thought, does a proof load invalidate warranty or is it FACTORY AMMO???

This is better than any legal show on tele..

[tackb]

Surely the onus is on the manufacture to PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that it was the ammo reloaded or otherwise?

[phaedra1106]

Just to be clear, I was shooting Prvi factory ammo at the time of the failure.

I do not have the case from the failure, my RCO and another shooter looked for it but could not find it. I did however send the 5 cases fired immediately prior to the failure back with the rifle.

While I can't prove I was shooting factory without having access a time machine and setting up a video camera my range RCO and the other shooter adjacent to me will verify that the 9mm ammunition they removed from the firing point and magazine when it was cleared (I was not in a fit state and forgot to do so at the time) was Privi.

I can find no evidence of a Prvi load causing this sort of damage. However, SGC have now said they have had an incidence of minor damage from a Prvi 9mm round but that the ammunition was not available for test.

Regardless of the ammunition manufacturer SGC says that because home loads were used at some point prior to the failure all guarantees/warranties are void regardless of what happened, even if the barrel fell off I'm sure it would be the same reply.

Shooting Supplies are trying to sort this out and were in contact again last week, I am waiting for a promised follow up to see exactly where we stand.

Having talked to a lot of people about this the conclusion is that one of the following occurred.

#1. The rear locking lug failed and wasn't noticed as I was using the rifle from a seated position with the floating fore-end on a shooting rest so the upwards pressure was keeping the upper and lower closed. Upon firing the next round the upper and lower separated enough to prevent the bolt retracting fully.

SGC Have now stated that the lug did not fail but that the upper receiver also expanded sideways and split.

#2. On feeding the round it mis-fed (a very common problem with the LRA9) and did not fully chamber by a small amount, it appeared to be fully chambered to me as I always check to see the bolt has closed due to previous issues with mis-feeds and even the bolt being stopped by hitting an out of place feed ramp which I only realised after re-examining the photos on here showing a mis-fed round.

#3. On feeding the round it mis-fed and maybe clipped the feed ramp or throat/chamber which pushed the bullet further back into the casing causing an increase in case pressure.

At present the rifle is still with Shooting Supplies where it has been since being returned to them by SGC in May.

[ovenpaa]

Two things, firstly would a misfeed cause the bullet to move back in the case sufficient to cause such over pressure and catastrophic failure or was this a cumulative effect thing.

Secondly, get the rifle back from Shooting Supplies and get it to an independent to be inspected, if finances are an issue call the HSE, I am sure they will be interested.

I am deeply disappointed for you that this whole incident has been going on for such a long time and I genuinely believe you need a definitive answer on this other than the SGC 'It is not our problem' My concern is there is an inherent flaw in either the construction materials or design and this could happen again and kill someone.

It has got to be checked IMHO

[tackb]

The gun had been fired when you purchased it ! The proof house had to have fired it ? And sgc should have fired it to function check it I would think ?

Get the HSE involved ASAP and go legal as well , if for no other reason than sgc's utter disregard for you

If sgc is reading this ?(he'd be foolish not to?) he should be ashamed of himself , not for the failure of his product but for his shocking behaviour in the manner he's dealt with it.

[gungho]

HSE could call for a product recall surely? I cant see that going well for SGC.

[Chuck]

phaedra, I think you know we are all on your side, let's hope someone sees sense here before you get involved in expensive and by no means guaranteed legal fights.

tackb makes a very good point, given that SGC seem to be getting a few brickbats these days...much better to read of a dealer/manufacturer giving you the benefit of the doubt and taking it up himself (??) than have all this negative debate on his products.

good luck with it all.

[RWSENG]

I have had to inspect and report on 3 "failures-in-use" this year, all on full-bore centrefire rifles. 1 down to foreign object in bore and 2 were down to ammo (one factory and one home load) in both cases undercharged leading to detination causing major component failure. It is well worth remembering that an undercharged round is frequently more dangerous than an overcharged one.

The HSE is unlikely to be at all interested due to the use of home loaded ammo which, as has been discussed at length, voids any outstanding warranty and absolves the manufacturer of any obligation under the sale of good act. The HSE would consider it to be operator error and it is likely would be more interested in investigating "safe practice" and how it may be applicable to home loading. It would be a different matter if other examples of this firearm had failed in a similar way....

Likewise a judge would consider a case brought before him and have to find in favour of the manufacturer - homeloads again - and would be likely to award reasonable costs to the manufacturer.

I do not mean to cast doom and gloom and by the sounds of it the manufacturer could have handled the inspection/report process with a little more grace but I do not think you have anywhere left to go with this. The two "failures-in-use" that I mentioned earlier that were down to ammo undercharge panned out as follows: The factory ammo example = the ammo importer payed for a new bolt, the work involved in fitting and the re-proof cost, no arguments. The home load ammo example = owner lost the rifle and had to replace it himself.

[tackb]

I have had to inspect and report on 3 "failures-in-use" this year, all on full-bore centrefire rifles. 1 down to foreign object in bore and 2 were down to ammo (one factory and one home load) in both cases undercharged leading to detination causing major component failure. It is well worth remembering that an undercharged round is frequently more dangerous than an overcharged one.

The HSE is unlikely to be at all interested due to the use of home loaded ammo which, as has been discussed at length, voids any outstanding warranty and absolves the manufacturer of any obligation under the sale of good act. The HSE would consider it to be operator error and it is likely would be more interested in investigating "safe practice" and how it may be applicable to home loading. It would be a different matter if other examples of this firearm had failed in a similar way....

Likewise a judge would consider a case brought before him and have to find in favour of the manufacturer - homeloads again - and would be likely to award reasonable costs to the manufacturer.

I do not mean to cast doom and gloom and by the sounds of it the manufacturer could have handled the inspection/report process with a little more grace but I do not think you have anywhere left to go with this. The two "failures-in-use" that I mentioned earlier that were down to ammo undercharge panned out as follows: The factory ammo example = the ammo importer payed for a new bolt, the work involved in fitting and the re-proof cost, no arguments. The home load ammo example = owner lost the rifle and had to replace it himself.

i find this subject fasinating , i have to admit that i am not convinced on this detonation business from low charges in particular with 9mm as it has such a small charge area that the amount of powder laying in the bottom of the case would be tiny surely? i also never had a detonation with the tiny charges i used to load in my revolvers for pp1 and pp2 (back in the day!) the other thing that no one has mentioned is the fact that the proof house will have overloaded the rifle and also sgc must have function checked the rifle both things that the current owner had no control over ?

oh and i'm not saying detonation doesn't happen it's just that i'm not convinced , but i'm open minded enough to be convinced though?

[RWSENG]

I have to say that I was not convinced - until I saw the results and now I am more than convinced. I agree that such a small case such as 9mm should not be effected but the worst case I have seen ocured with a .223 - again a small case one would have thought immune.

I am led to believe that the most common failures of .455 webleys were down to undercharges causing detonations and causing spectacular blow-ups but I have never seen the results other than in pictures.