Savage Muzzleloaders Blow Up - Company Sued!

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    It would appear that there may(?) be a product defect in Savage muzzleloaders!

    Link: https://apnews.com/adbc910fa9064d4f...ploding-rifle-leaves-trail-of-injured-hunters

    It seems that there have been multiple problems with the rifle over the past many years. This may be a design flaw that hasn't been corrected.

    According to a metallurgical expert in the article, "
    An expert hired by Hansen’s lawyers came to a similar conclusion, saying the steel used to make the rifle was prone to catastrophic failure after repeat firings."

    Of course with a muzzleloader there is also more room for operator error, so it will be interesting to see which way the wind blows on this lawsuit.

    Regards,

    Doug

    PS - I did a search and didn't see this elsewhere.
     

    PGRChaplain

    Master
    Jan 13, 2011
    3,765
    83
    Waynedale (FT Wayne)
    Watching for the outcome on this. Lots of room for human error on a Muzzy. Its like Reloading, it needs your undivided attention, All The Time! I shot Trap with a guy that had reloaded thousands of Trap Loads. He must have Double Charged one, that his Wife shot. The 870 Trap Gun looked like a Banana that an M-80 had gone off in.
     

    Sling10mm

    Expert
    Mar 12, 2012
    1,117
    38
    I'll have to follow this as well. I have a stainless 10 ML-II that I bought used years ago. I have probably fired it 50 times, and have no idea how many times it had been fired by the previous owner(s).
     

    42769vette

    Grandmaster
    Industry Partner
    Oct 6, 2008
    15,222
    113
    south of richmond in

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    I have been thinking about this since I posted it.

    IF Savage has had several incidents of personal injury, or at least product failure, they should have performed multiple analysis of the events to determine what, if any, design issues are contributing to the events.

    If they have done nothing other than pay lawyers and lawsuits then their culpability will rise tremendously in my mind.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    M67

    Grandmaster
    Jan 15, 2011
    6,181
    63
    Southernish Indiana
    People can screw up anything, I've seen a lot of fubar Savage muzzleloaders. I've seen a decent amount that had a charge in it, and some genius put another charge on top of that. Never seen a blown barrel because of that, bulged yes, kicked the hell out of the shooter, but the gun took the pressure. Also seen bulged barrels from bullets not being seated all the way or people keep pushing them to limits the gun wasn't intended to go. 50 grains of smokeless powder is way different than 50 grains of black powder

    Of course owners will say that they did everything right and couldn't possibly have messed up. It's a numbers game yes and that will be the case in a select few, but most of the time, they messed up. Either with a way overcharge, barrel obstruction, ramrod got left in the bore, etc. Once saw a TC Encore with a barrel split from the muzzle and for about a foot long and owner said there was nothing but air in the bore

    Savage didn't discontinue them because they were unsafe, they did it because people were always messing them up and expected Savage to fix them.

    If they were indeed prone to failure and dangerous, Savage/Vista would have issues a blanket recall on them to get them ALL off that market.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    People can screw up anything, I've seen a lot of fubar Savage muzzleloaders. I've seen a decent amount that had a charge in it, and some genius put another charge on top of that. Never seen a blown barrel because of that, bulged yes, kicked the hell out of the shooter, but the gun took the pressure. Also seen bulged barrels from bullets not being seated all the way or people keep pushing them to limits the gun wasn't intended to go. 50 grains of smokeless powder is way different than 50 grains of black powder

    Of course owners will say that they did everything right and couldn't possibly have messed up. It's a numbers game yes and that will be the case in a select few, but most of the time, they messed up. Either with a way overcharge, barrel obstruction, ramrod got left in the bore, etc. Once saw a TC Encore with a barrel split from the muzzle and for about a foot long and owner said there was nothing but air in the bore

    Savage didn't discontinue them because they were unsafe, they did it because people were always messing them up and expected Savage to fix them.

    If they were indeed prone to failure and dangerous, Savage/Vista would have issues a blanket recall on them to get them ALL off that market.


    I agree that people can screw up anything, and of course in many cases the operator will say they did everything correct. Heck, they may even honestly in their hearts believe they did everything right, but were ignorant of some variation in the powder etc that could have been their fault unintentionally.

    However, I will disagree with your statement that "If they were indeed prone to failure and dangerous, Savage/Vista would have issued a blanket recall on them to get them ALL off that market." I believe this could easily be replaced with "...should have issued..." Companies have proven time and again over the many decades that they do NOT do what they ethically or morally should do! Ford and Chrysler and others stole the delayed windshield wiper from Dr. Kearns. Walmart has forced/intimidated employees to work off of the clock, the Ford Pinto went Boom. Companies have proven hundreds of times over the past many decades that they are all more than capable of ignoring their ethical duties in lieu of profits.

    You say that, "Savage didn't discontinue them because they were unsafe, they did it because people were always messing them up and expected Savage to fix them." What if Savage used the minimally standard materials that made it EASY to mess up? I'm am not saying they did, only asking "what if...?" What if they didn't study the first few incidents where people were injured? Or what if they did study them but in a minimally cursory manner, because they just know their design is good? Pride has caused many problems both in and out of business.

    With muzzleloaders I doubt there is a government regulation or industry standard that dictates how much overcharge must be designed into the weapon tolerances. As such, my guess is that every company that makes such designs using their own best guesses. Maybe the tolerance for risk at Savage is lower than other companies making similar products? Maybe it is higher?

    I have a buddy that does re-enacting. He told me the story of a new kid that got excited the first time he was in the battle line fighting the bluecoats. He was so excited he forgot to put the cap on the nipple of his rifle. After reloading about six (6) times the kid finally put the cap on. Needless to say the rifle went BOOM in a big way! The kid survived, and thank God nobody was close to him in front of the muzzle, but the flames that came out of the side of the rifle knocked down several full grown adult men standing the the row next to him as fire and blast came out. My understanding was the the guy to the immediate right suffered some minor burns, the kid didn't lose any fingers or eyeballs, and everyone else was just knocked on their butts.

    I like firearms and fully support the companies that make them, but one facet is universal, they are still just a company like any other.

    I hope everyone sees how many question marks I put into this response. I agree 100% with what they should have done, but that part of me that has studied labor relations knows darn well there can be a huge chasm between "would" and "should." I wish such were not the case.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    M67

    Grandmaster
    Jan 15, 2011
    6,181
    63
    Southernish Indiana


    I agree that people can screw up anything, and of course in many cases the operator will say they did everything correct. Heck, they may even honestly in their hearts believe they did everything right, but were ignorant of some variation in the powder etc that could have been their fault unintentionally.

    However, I will disagree with your statement that "If they were indeed prone to failure and dangerous, Savage/Vista would have issued a blanket recall on them to get them ALL off that market." I believe this could easily be replaced with "...should have issued..." Companies have proven time and again over the many decades that they do NOT do what they ethically or morally should do! Ford and Chrysler and others stole the delayed windshield wiper from Dr. Kearns. Walmart has forced/intimidated employees to work off of the clock, the Ford Pinto went Boom. Companies have proven hundreds of times over the past many decades that they are all more than capable of ignoring their ethical duties in lieu of profits.

    You say that, "Savage didn't discontinue them because they were unsafe, they did it because people were always messing them up and expected Savage to fix them." What if Savage used the minimally standard materials that made it EASY to mess up? I'm am not saying they did, only asking "what if...?" What if they didn't study the first few incidents where people were injured? Or what if they did study them but in a minimally cursory manner, because they just know their design is good? Pride has caused many problems both in and out of business.

    With muzzleloaders I doubt there is a government regulation or industry standard that dictates how much overcharge must be designed into the weapon tolerances. As such, my guess is that every company that makes such designs using their own best guesses. Maybe the tolerance for risk at Savage is lower than other companies making similar products? Maybe it is higher?

    I have a buddy that does re-enacting. He told me the story of a new kid that got excited the first time he was in the battle line fighting the bluecoats. He was so excited he forgot to put the cap on the nipple of his rifle. After reloading about six (6) times the kid finally put the cap on. Needless to say the rifle went BOOM in a big way! The kid survived, and thank God nobody was close to him in front of the muzzle, but the flames that came out of the side of the rifle knocked down several full grown adult men standing the the row next to him as fire and blast came out. My understanding was the the guy to the immediate right suffered some minor burns, the kid didn't lose any fingers or eyeballs, and everyone else was just knocked on their butts.

    I like firearms and fully support the companies that make them, but one facet is universal, they are still just a company like any other.

    I hope everyone sees how many question marks I put into this response. I agree 100% with what they should have done, but that part of me that has studied labor relations knows darn well there can be a huge chasm between "would" and "should." I wish such were not the case.

    Regards,

    Doug

    The Savage ML is just like any other gun, it can be pushed past it's limit and it can blow. If a reloader fills a 44 mag with Bullseye to the mouth and manages to cram a 300gr bullet in there and his Smith/Ruger's cylinder blows in half, barrel flies off and top strap peels back and the dude looses a finger, is it Smith/Ruger's fault? Course not, the revolver was designed to run under certain pressures and he WAY exceeded those.

    I know of a guy who uses smokeless powder in a Knight MK85, he claims it shoots great. I can't tell you how many people has told him he's crazy and to stop immediately (and throw away the gun) because one day he's going to pull the trigger and he's going to eat that muzzleloader, but he keeps doing it because he hasn't had any ill effects yet. His muzzleloader could last another 5 years like that, or next time could be the kaboom. Say the owner used a diet of loads that were 10-15grs over max because it shot great and he dropped every deer he ever drew down on and he figured "it's only 10-15gr over max charge, and they put the recommended max charges out there because of lawyers so he's probably okay", after a decade of a diet over max charge and it finally blew, I don't see how that is Savage's issue. I didn't see in the article where they publish what load he was using

    Cecil who runs Precision Rifle Bullets has probably experimented and tested the Savage muzzleloader above and beyond anyone in the world, if they were unsafe he would have came out long ago saying to stop use of his products in them and to stay away. If they were prone to blowing up he would have known. I'd hate to know the thousands and thousands of rounds he has through all of his is. Hell it looks like he's converting centerfire Savages to muzzleloaders now

    https://www.prbullet.com/
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    A plaintiff's expert came to this conclusion?

    Oh, well then it HAS to be true.


    I agree that each side will have an agenda. There was also a MSU metals expert that claimed a weapons failure back in 2009 was "...metallurgically defective." This second opinion, while also possibly biased, does lean toward those outside the company arguing with those inside the company, who are also biased the other way.

    I wish there was a way to have the court pay for an expert opinion and avoid the bias of leaning toward your lawyer or mine. It is my understanding that in some family law cases a guardian ad litem is there to represent a child, without bias toward one parent or the other. Do any courts anywhere allow for such payment from the court to a third party that isn't aligned with either party? It would be nice if so.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    two70

    Master
    Feb 5, 2016
    3,725
    113
    Johnson


    With muzzleloaders I doubt there is a government regulation or industry standard that dictates how much overcharge must be designed into the weapon tolerances. As such, my guess is that every company that makes such designs using their own best guesses. Maybe the tolerance for risk at Savage is lower than other companies making similar products? Maybe it is higher?

    Standards for proofing muzzleloaders are rather lax compared to centerfire rifles, however, Savage muzzleloaders are built on modified centerfire rifle actions with barrels. They typically proof rifles to ~ 100K PSI.



    I agree that each side will have an agenda. There was also a MSU metals expert that claimed a weapons failure back in 2009 was "...metallurgically defective." This second opinion, while also possibly biased, does lean toward those outside the company arguing with those inside the company, who are also biased the other way.

    Given the above and the lack of centerfire rifles (with much higher round counts) blowing up, it is hard to buy the "metallurgically defective" line. It is especially hard to buy that notion, knowing the extremely stupid/potentially dangerous things people were doing with Savage muzzleloaders.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,614
    149
    Valparaiso


    I agree that each side will have an agenda. There was also a MSU metals expert that claimed a weapons failure back in 2009 was "...metallurgically defective." This second opinion, while also possibly biased, does lean toward those outside the company arguing with those inside the company, who are also biased the other way...

    I saw that. Did you also see that there was a suit in Michigan about the same allegations? While he was not a retained witness in the main case discussed, I'm betting he has been a retained expert in another case or cases.

    This is how this works. having "University" attached to your job title is used to lend some air of impartiality, but the truth is that no matter what these guys do Monday through Friday, they run a side business testifying in lawsuits. Is he right? Is he not right? I don't know. What I am saying is that this article presents one side. That of the plaintiffs.

    I currently am working with retained experts from places like USC, Harvard and Yale.....the other side should just give up....but i sense they will probably show up and cross-examine nonetheless.
     

    indy durtdigger

    Plinker
    Jan 22, 2019
    3
    3
    Henry County
    Afternoon everyone. Stumbled across this forum while researching this issue this morning. Until I read about it I had not heard of this and I have had one of these muzzle loaders since they came out with the second gen. While I agree that there are many many variables and people do dumb things and try to hold other accountable for their own actions it appears there is merit to this and my 10MLII will remain mothballed. I found this article which shows the potential point of failure in a design flaw/anomaly of the rifles breach. It is most certainly worth a look especially for those that commented that the failures have to be user induced and intend to continue to use theirs. NORTH AMERICA'S NO. 1 MUZZLELOADING WEBSITE! - ML-Warnings-Notices-News the article is less than two weeks old as of this post.

    This online publication is hands down one of the best sources for muzzle loading equipment of all types I have found since Black Powder Hunting went under.
     

    Mark 1911

    Grandmaster
    Jun 6, 2012
    10,931
    83
    Schererville, IN
    I don't think I would want to use one of these after so many reports of failures. Of course it is true that there are many variables involved with muzzleloaders, and as such many opportunities for human error, but when the same model has this many failures compared to all of the other models out there, something is wrong. I'll wait until the whole thing is sorted out and resolved. In the mean time, I'm happy with my TC and hope to keep knocking down deer with it for years to come.
     

    Mattroth54

    Sharpshooter
    Mar 23, 2013
    370
    18
    I don't think I would want to use one of these after so many reports of failures. Of course it is true that there are many variables involved with muzzleloaders, and as such many opportunities for human error, but when the same model has this many failures compared to all of the other models out there, something is wrong. I'll wait until the whole thing is sorted out and resolved. In the mean time, I'm happy with my TC and hope to keep knocking down deer with it for years to come.


    True, there are many variables with muzzleloaders. To compare failures with this model vs others is apples to oranges. BP subs, if screwed up are by design very forgiving. The variable unique to this rifle, smokeless powder, has a very small margin of error. No other mass produced muzzleloader gives shooters the option to screw up a smokeless charge. I’m going to continue to follow this story closely, but continue to use my MLii. From the start of reports of kabooms, I’ve always had a sense someone had an agenda against this rifle. This just seems like more of the same.

    Edit: looking at the link to the newer article above...it is, in fact still Toby Bridges whining. He’s had an axe to grind from day one. Like I said, more of the same.
     

    M67

    Grandmaster
    Jan 15, 2011
    6,181
    63
    Southernish Indiana
    I'd be curious what a T/C, CVA, Traditions, or Knight would be like after 2-5000 shots fired through it....at close to full charge

    Article was interesting though, first time I heard someone give a reason for the failure outside of "bad steel"
     
    Top Bottom