FA loses law suit

[Sverre A.]

"Do you need to warn guys that heavy handgun loads will hurt your wrists and hands over time? "

Somebody should  told me that   

[efremtags]

I believe that the user is ultimately responsible for his or her own safety of any firearm. That includes knowing all potential operation quirks.

That said, in todays high litigation times, I think it is stupid for any gun manufacturer not to take any reasonable advantage of modern design and safeties. Does that mean having a magnetic ring that only allows the user to shoot the gun is reasonable, definately not thats very unreasonable. However, knowing that similar SA firearms prove to be a hazard with a live round in a chamber should automatically draw the gun maker to implement a reasonable safety measure. If we never took advantages of these design advancements, we would still be using flintlocks.

From a litigation standpoint, I think that there needs to be a reasonable understanding and definition of gun types. its like having a classis car without seatbelts or airbags. You'd never add them to a model T because the new 08 cars have them. But it is reasonable to expect a newly manufatured modern (not replica) firearm to have these advancements.  I believe this would eliminate a lot of law suits on  older model guns.

FA wold be stupid not to implement a trasnfer bar safety. It does not effect the performance or reliability, and would have saved hem 600k in court. 

[CT Dolan]

If you've got money (or good insurance) it is pretty hard to avoid litigation in today's world (especially here in the U.S.).  Yes, one should practice responsibility, which especially applies to going it alone with a design all your own.  But, even so I've known of some pretty outrageous cases that have hit gunmakers, all good men doing good work with honesty and integrity.  Truth be told, this is one of the primary reasons I decided to stay out of the gunmaking field (although I often wonder if I made the right choice, not becoming a gunmaker).  At any rate, as a gunmaker you've got to be prepared for the worst.

[Bearbait in NM]

Efrem,

If you read Bob Bakers post carefully, you can kind of read between the lines of the court case.  The FA will go bang with the current "Hammer Safety" position with the trigger back, and the hammer pulled back some amount.  I have done this from less than half cock, testing it.  Same with a transfer bar on a Ruger.  I have not tested a Colt.  All assuming a round in the chamber, under the hammer.  I am betting that Taylor's attorney demonstrated this in court.  Easy to do.  The key here is trigger back.  Other posts on the subject indicated that Taylor shared some fault, according to the Jury.  Likley he had a round under the hammer, against the FA manual instructions.

Bob could design any manner of safety for the gun, and eventually someone is gonna find a way to defeat it.  Just the nature of the beast.  To be honest, I would think that a warning label on the gun, al la Ruger, stating that the gun can discharge inadvertantly while loaded and carried would buy him more protection than a mechanical device.  But, that would suck.  Bob's really between a rock and a hard place.  One court case against him, transfer bars on a newer model (97), and looking at having to upgrade all existing guns if he designs a new transfer bar for the 83.  I am in a Licensed Profession where I sweat this kind of crap, almost daily.  It sucks.

Craig

Craig

[SHOOTALL]

Gee , should we all get togather and start action for hearing loss ? the gun ? the ammo ? the range cover ? the muzzle brake ? the guys next to us ? where do we start ?
If i got $.10 for each shot i have HEARD i could retire !

[Davemuzz]

Hey.....if EVERY gun owner got $.10 for every shot he's heard, we would  have enough to buy out the financial markets......then gun owners would control the financial markets!!!!.....We would collect from the insurance companies, then use their own monies to control the insurance companies.....who in turn lobby Washinton....who pass the gun laws.....hey....this could go somewhere......

 


Yeah....pipe dream.....but you know.


Dave

[45454]

Thanks, Bob, good points well taken.

With regard to my preference for carrying with 5 loaded in the cylinder, I am a traditional bowhunter (longbow) and a FA will be my carrying piece when the time comes to make my Alaskan moose dreams come true.  It is this kind of use which has always had me wanting to feel safe carrying with all 5 chambers loaded (not general hunting).

The F.A. 454 is a 5 shot.
So,yours (as well as mine) will be a 4 shooter.
You have a good week.
As for the lawsuit,I'm highly disappointed with the results.
This "hunter" wants to blame Freedom Arms,knowing well of this power he packed on his hip.
I'm wondering if this individual knows how to read,and understand the instruction manual ?
It's his responsibility for safely carrying in the field.
This accident is his fault,NOT Freedom Arms.And is the first major accident that I've heard of.
Mr.Baker,I still support you and the company.
I've had mine since 1995/1996.I will not part with it.

[SHOOTALL]

buy a ruger and carry 6 if it makes you happy to have a full load .

[billy_56081]

Well, we do live in a society that has to have signs on lawn mowers to keep people from sticking their hands in the moving blades.

I feel this is where our society will fail, we are not only letting the stupid ones live we are letting them breed.

[SHOOTALL]

got to wonder how they figure out how to do that , they can't figure out how to work or be safe . and if it weren't for lawyers they would stay poor !