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

John25 wrote: The question is, would anyone who knows the story, buy one of these firearms? Not I.

But I *really* want one, and have asked for a slot for one! Decisions decisions!!

At least if it goes wrong you know all the answers to the questions...they are on this thread :lol:

techguy wrote:
But I *really* want one, and have asked for a slot for one! Decisions decisions!!

If you want, you can give me 1400 quid and I'll sell you a gun that won't work and damn near kill you! And, I'll tell you it's your fault, if you want...!

Only one decision to make there, my friend.....

Sim G wrote:

techguy wrote:
But I *really* want one, and have asked for a slot for one! Decisions decisions!!

If you want, you can give me 1400 quid and I'll sell you a gun that won't work and damn near kill you! And, I'll tell you it's your fault, if you want...!

Only one decision to make there, my friend.....

Am I missing something or did the chap who's gun blow up use hand loads when the manual suggests that will void the warranty and can be dangerous?

Did this same chap not also post earlier in the year about how he had had previous problems with his 9mm home loads, including suggesting that his charge bar was not giving consistent charges, and also mentioning he had previously had a bullet from a homeload stuck in the lands of the barrel?

Seems to me that if Bob at SGC has read all that too then it is a fairly clear example as to why home loads are not recommended.

I have two of the V22's imported by Bob at SGC, and yes sometimes from things i have read he perhaps gives the appearance of slack customer services, but whenever I phone for advice he has given it, when I needed a firing pin a few years ago he got me one....

I think trying to put people off of a rifle because bad things happen if you do things that you are advised not to do in the manual is a bit strong.

Sticking to the facts,

1. On testing the Lee variable charge bar was found to give poor load consistency with smaller powder weights so wasn't used for any ammunition production.

2. The bullet which was left in the chamber throat was a result of rifle mis-feeding the round at the wrong angle (probably due to the feed ramp being out of position if you look at the later photos), the very considerable force of the bolt slamming the case into the mouth had jammed the case partially into the chamber causing severe deformation of the case and upon extraction the case mouth was opened enough to leave the bullet behind.

3. The actual failure occurred when using Prvi factory ammunition to test for mis-feeding not when using home-loaded ammunition. I was asked if I wanted an independent inspection but the gun was then sent to SGC who immediately refused to do anything to it and simply returned it to Shooting Supplies where it has sat for around 6 months.

I have home loaded and shot thousands of 9mm rounds in the last 35 years without a single problem as well as countless thousands of .44mag, .223Rem, .222Rem and .308Win and have never had a problem with the quality of my ammunition.

Before ordering I contacted Bob Clarke asking for barrel length/twist rate advice and specifically told him it was mainly to be used it with home loaded ammunition (115gr Plated over 4.3gr TiteGroup), he replied with the barrel recommendation and told me to go ahead and order, no mention of him having any problem with me doing that which given his response to being asked about that is " I don't reload 9mm so I would not give loading information and should I discuss reloading any cartridges do as a matter of course state that the guarantee does not cover handloaded ammo" seems strange, I did ask about using home loaded ammunition and he did reply giving the best barrel choice for using it with.

Rarms wrote:I think trying to put people off of a rifle because bad things happen if you do things that you are advised not to do in the manual is a bit strong.

I advised against buying one of these because I believe the rifle is inherently flawed and has been since the design. Couple this with the appalling customer service that more than not have suffered, there are better places to put your money....

I still think a court case would be the way to go...some doubts thrown up by phaedra's account of the process would give some grounds for debate..IMO course....

phaedra1106 wrote:Sticking to the facts,

1. On testing the Lee variable charge bar was found to give poor load consistency with smaller powder weights so wasn't used for any ammunition production.

2. The bullet which was left in the chamber throat was a result of rifle mis-feeding the round at the wrong angle (probably due to the feed ramp being out of position if you look at the later photos)........

Your previous post suggests it was the charge bar that was at fault hence my comments in the previous post! Apologies if I'm wrong, i have quoted your earlier post below:

"then it fed most of the copper jacketed until it jammed again, this time turned out to be a bullet stuck at the start of the lands, looks like my Lee adjustable charge bar doesn't throw consistent 4gr loads"


My post was intended to highlight to the poster on the previous page who was asking why home loading would invalidate the warranty. And the other people saying the gun is crap based on a bad thread on the Internet.

I have a German diesel car. On the fuel filler cap and in the manual it says don't use biodiesel. If I were to make some biodiesel in the shed from a couple of recipes off the internet and run my car on it for a month and find it doesn't work properly. I put a tank of pumped diesel in it, and within a mile the seals on the fuel pump go. If Audi told me it was not covered on the warranty as I had used biodiesel in it, even though I have used biodiesel in my land rover for years, does that make Audi unreasonable? Or am I to blame?

rarms, YES but did you intimate to Audi that you might make your own fuel..NO.

In this case it wa stated to the manufacturer that home loads would be used and the manufacturer also sold home load compnents...why would he sell stuff that could invalidate a warranty??

By rights in the current climate of blame and liability, and (no offence) protecting people from themselves, the manufacturer was aware that Home Loads were going to be used but did NOT specifically draw his attention to the fact that as such he would invalidate the warranty.

likewise did the bumph that came with the gun have the correct wording....It should say something like " Your attention is drawn to XYZ on page ABC etc"...

Spurious, no. There IS a judgement (trying to find the case) where it was held that a persons attention must be drawn to the T&C's . such as "your attention is drawn etc".

Now then, whose job was it to draw attention to the NO HOMELOADS thing, the retailer oir manufacturer....I assume both sellers KNEW homeloads would be used before and possibly AT point of sale.

No, it was me that was wrong, the rounds in question were loaded with the AutoDisk not the charge bar, I've double checked my reloading records and have it noted that all of the charge bar loads were pulled and emptied.

The other users problems are nothing to do with a "bad thread" if you look you will find users with feed problems dating back before I even bought the rifle (I wish I'd read them first), returning it (sometimes more than once) to have bits filed off the bolt and a Dremel applied to the throat to try and fix these issues is not something I've ever heard of any other manufacturer having to do.

The analogy with the Bio Diesel isn't the same thing, the implication by SGC was that a low charge had caused the damage, now modified to either a faulty factory or home loaded round, the report suggest the "explosion" of an undercharged round, nitrocellulose powders do not explode or detonate, they burn at a given rate, the "explosion" or "detonation" effect alluded to is a very rare occurrence usually in large chambered rifle cases with very low loads of single base powder and has been the subject of much research, reliable duplication of such an event under laboratory conditions has been impossible. Even so the effect would not apply to TiteGroup as it is a double based powder and as such is a tested and recommended powder for low charge loads such as subsonic 308 etc by Hodgdon.