The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

i'm pretty sure though that no one has ever been able to replicate a detonation on purpose though have they?

When you take into account proof loads fired by proof house and SGC the warranty was surely voided THEN - but no such statement actually exists in the warranty document does it...I am sure that proof loads are way above normal just to ensure that underloads/overloads do not cause catastrophic failure...

Devils advocate says no one knows WHAT exactly caused the fault to materialise and we probably never will..Was it factory load, home load or one of two proof loads?? Or a gremlin in manufacturing?

Expensive lesson sorry to say, and maybe shooters should think again about home loads in new firearms...Not saying don't do it - but be aware of implications if the gun goes bang with the round. Are the perceived results /benefits of home loads really worth the risk??

I think there is some validity in Chucks proof house point.

Most of the "use of home loads" caveats on rifles comes from the USA where most of the firearmsammunition are made. As far as I know there are no proof laws there unlike here.

UK made guns have to be fired with a known overpressure charge so that they can be sold through retailers, that would seem to invalidate the theory of the home load caveat on UK guns.

Also does the proofing of imported firearms invalidate the warranty even if factory ammunition is only used in it after proof testing.

It would make for an interesting court case to get a ruling on it if it hasn't been thought through already.

Wonder what the GTA's take on it is?

the long and the short of it is , if sgc had repaired it in house as a good will gesture or offered to do it half price for example then there would be 26 pages singing the praises of sgc and i'm sure his phone would be red hot ?

tackb wrote:the long and the short of it is , if sgc had repaired it in house as a good will gesture or offered to do it half price for example then there would be 26 pages singing the praises of sgc and i'm sure his phone would be red hot ?

Isn't that the truth!!

yes, SGC have shot themselves in the foot with this one (no pun intended)..A we eboit of "goodwill" and "without prejudice" would have gone a long way.

I think Chuck's spot on here - any legal process would throw it out because of the homeload aspect, and the all-important missing cartridge case makes it a bit difficult for any independent investigation.

tackb wrote:the long and the short of it is , if sgc had repaired it in house as a good will gesture or offered to do it half price for example then there would be 26 pages singing the praises of sgc and i'm sure his phone would be red hot ?

Agree with Sim, this would have been the 'right' thing to do. The problem is SGC has back orders/a waiting list for months on it's bog standard rifles, let alone the custom ones, and that includes the LRA9 (as i'm lead to believe from a recent conversation with an RFD that has ordered 2 for customers). Until a viable alternate company takes over, this kind of incident will go on ignored.

Out of interest, would any insurance provided by a shooting organisation, or house insurance for that matter, cover this if Shooting Supplies decides to abandon ship too??

just wrote long detailed reply and got ANOTHER 500 internal server error... and lost the LOT fck it. I'm not gonna try and remember it all and the reasoning that went with it..

to sum up, sue them both!

Why do we get these damn things, right pain in the posterior..GRR it's 1.20pm here..I'm off to bed.

Chuck, can you not hit the browser back button then just cut and paste Into a new post?