| Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://ellegon.com/forum/ |
|
| Freedom Arms loses law suit. http://ellegon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=5694 |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | Andrew Rothman [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Occam's razor indeed suggests he was playing the fool, and later invented a story. |
|
| Author: | DeanC [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I can't figure out how by drawing the gun, which is essentially an upward movement in the opposite direction the hammer moves, would cause the hammer to become cocked. |
|
| Author: | KonaSeven [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
They were showing some cowboy action in slow motion on "Cowboys" on the outdoor channel. When drawing from a holster they were thumbing the hammer as part of the draw. It appeared to be fully cocked before it cleared leather. Then for subsequent shots the off hand ran the hammer. If this fellow had practiced that type of draw, it maybe was habit? ETA: That would entirely discount the reported facts I suppose. 
|
|
| Author: | Dick Unger [ Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
DeanC wrote: I can't figure out how by drawing the gun, which is essentially an upward movement in the opposite direction the hammer moves, would cause the hammer to become cocked. The article says he was taking off his leather duster (long heavy coat) and the gun was in his holster. Maybe the coat snagged the hammer, lifted it, and then when it unsnagged, boom. Lower right leg injury, gun was probably still in the holster. If the gun had been actually cocked in the holster it would might be easier to cause a discharge. But we'll never know that. The jury found both parties at fault equally, they didn't blame it all on the gun design. But with a 50/50 decision in a comparative fault tort system the defendent company still loses, but the damage award is reduced by 50%. |
|
| Author: | cobb [ Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dick Unger wrote: The article says he was taking off his leather duster (long heavy coat) and the gun was in his holster. Maybe the coat snagged the hammer, lifted it, and then when it unsnagged, boom. That is what I don't understand. Unless the gun is faulty, the hammer dropping seems impossible unless the trigger is pulled. |
|
| Author: | Dick Unger [ Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
cobb wrote: Dick Unger wrote: The article says he was taking off his leather duster (long heavy coat) and the gun was in his holster. Maybe the coat snagged the hammer, lifted it, and then when it unsnagged, boom. That is what I don't understand. Unless the gun is faulty, the hammer dropping seems impossible unless the trigger is pulled. I don't know how the gun works, but the Plaintiff's lawyer is quoted as saying the gun could both "draw fire" and "snap fire". Don't know what that means either, but it sounds like it could possibly be fired by thumbing the hammer and not pulling the trigger. There had to be a theory to support the Plaintiff's case. I would think even the Spence lawyers could not get a verdict if the gun went off when the trigger was pulled. The "draw fire" and "snap fire" are what must have won the case. If it's POSSIBLE, then the Plaintiff would argue that's how it happened. And since other guns don't "snap" or "draw" fire, it was an unreasonably dangerous design, (arguably). I'd bet what really happened is that he holstered a cocked revolver, and something did hit the trigger. But no proof except the Plaintiff's testimony probably. A jury of people, carefully screened to keep out anyone with any knowlege of these guns, decides how they should be designed. America is an amazing place. |
|
| Author: | cobb [ Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dick Unger wrote: it sounds like it could possibly be fired by thumbing the hammer and not pulling the trigger My 2 model 83's won't, period. |
|
| Author: | Dick Unger [ Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
According to the manual, if the hammer is in fired position, and a live round is already under the hammer, it can fire if dropped, (or thumbed?). If you reload after firing without touching the hammer maybe? (Not sure that's possible.) Or maybe the Judge let Spence call an expert who just made stuff up and the jury believed him. Or they twisted the language in the Manual arround and used it against Freedom Arms. The Manual does seem to say the gun could be somehow discharged without the trigger. Correct or not, the court would have to allow the Plaintiff to offer that evidence because the Defendent said it in the Manual. If there is truely no way to "fix" this, too bad for Freedom Arms, and those of us who would love to have one of their products. |
|
| Author: | ironbear [ Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dick Unger wrote: According to the manual, if the hammer is in fired position, and a live round is already under the hammer, it can fire if dropped, (or thumbed?). If you reload after firing without touching the hammer maybe? (Not sure that's possible.) However, move the hammer back a small bit, and you engage the "Hammer safety" position, where the hammer is not resting on the firing pin. The trigger will not do anything in this position. The hammer has to be pulled back slightly and then the trigger pulled to lower it back down past the hammer safety position. Next stop is the "Half-cock" position. Pull the hammer further back from the hammer safety position and it latches into the half-cock position. At the half-cock position, the cylinder is unlocked, so that you can rotate it, and load/unload rounds through the gate (the cylinder doesn't flop out. You have to load/unload one at a time past a flip open gate). At the half-cock position the trigger is not operational either. The hammer has to be pulled back slightly and then the trigger actuated, in order to lower it. I'm with Cobb on this one. I played with my Mdl 83 some, and I can't figure out the described scenario. If there was a round under the hammer, and the coat pulled the hammer back, the hammer would have caught at the hammer safety or half-cocked positions. A simple press of the trigger would not drop the hammer. Only if the hammer was pulled back to full-cock (which would require the cylinder to rotate in the holster) would a simple press of the trigger drop the hammer. In my mind the simplest scenario (which may or may not be true) would be that he had a holster without a strap, and his coat pulled the hammer back to either half-cock or full-cock. He then went to lower the hammer and flubbed it. I seem to recall a statement that I heard somewhere. "Never point a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy".
I suppose that includes your own body parts. |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|