1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Shotgun Mishap CRSO on line

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by Russ Fisher, Oct 12, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Russ Fisher

    Russ Fisher TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    I am the easy target that got “volunteered” to lead the team that wrote the Quantico Shooting Club (QSC) report being discussed on this forum. I am not a member of the bar, a metallurgist, mechanical engineer, gun smith or technical writer.

    I have tried to read as many posts as possible to get up to speed, but have had difficulty maneuvering through those posts that appear to have personal motives or agendas. I don’t know how long I will participate but I thought a few here would appreciate AN ATTEMPT to provide my point of view on our effort to report on the mishap.

    At the moment, I am considering the addition of an errata page to the report to keep it as up to date as possible. I cannot do this, however, if the club BOD or their representatives have any objections. Like Mr. Charlie Phillips, I have been asked not to comment on anything that is in dispute with the litigation in progress. I assume this is normal lawyer stuff.

    Russ Fisher

    QSC Chief Range Safety Officer and designated “volunteer”.

    -
    -

    Layman’s disclaimer:

    QSC is made up mostly of Marines, other active duty members and retirees but IS NOT a federal entity. It is not a part of the Department of Defense or any of its components and it has no governmental status. The club was never threatened in any way by our hosts. We are not a party to any action that might be taken by the firearm owner or the injured young man, and do not have pecuniary interest such. We have nothing against any firearm manufacturer or distributor. We have nothing against any reloading equipment manufacturer or distributor. We have nothing against any reloading supplies manufacturers or distributors. We have no ulterior motives other that the safety of our members. We are not part of any conspiracies or government plots. As the person most intimately familiar with the report, I would caution the following: Anyone claiming they have ANY knowledge of the processes, motives or details of the QSC report WHO WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE REPORT PROCESS is simply not credible. I would also expect that reasonable people would challenge those with salacious claims to SUBSTANTIATE their assertions so rational discussion has a chance.
     
  2. Remstar311

    Remstar311 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    942
  3. goatskin

    goatskin TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,781
    Russ, I would appreciate the .pdf of the suit (public record, but not accessible to those of us who do not have Pacer) and responses/filings by QSC, of course, be posted to the QSC website.

    I have made the same request of CG and have received no response.

    If one assumes the investigative report was preliminary, and was organic and not static, I think the QSC BOD should welcome errata and addenda.


    Bob
     
  4. KENENT1

    KENENT1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,393
    Location:
    Beloit, WI
    almost sounds like a White House press release....lol.




    tony
     
  5. Russ Fisher

    Russ Fisher TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    Bob,

    I wish CG had answered your request. Your request of me is well above my pay grade to decide to do so. While I suppose everything in written form is up for interpretation by the reader, I can tell you that my intention was not to close any doors to further information. Ergo my desire to attach an errata update.

    Here is a quote from the report that illustrates my intention as to the length of any suspension. <i>“It is recommended that any such suspension remain in effect until such time that evidence can be presented supporting any supposition that the shotgun is safe to use.”</i> If/when evidence can be shown that the firearm safe to use, the suspension would no longer be compelling.


    Ccw1911

    This is the only serious accident I am aware of in our nearly 60 year history. Please understand, however, that this is a suspension [Def. A temporary abrogation or cessation] only as the quote above illustrates. Not a ban. Like most folks, we too started with suspicions about reloading and/or blockages. Had we found ANY evidence supporting these suspicions we would have reported them. We would also have been in a much easier position regarding recommendations to avoid a repeat.


    Russ Fisher
     
  6. goose2

    goose2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,037
    In the end the people responsible for the report or the so call ban of the gun manufacture will all wished they would have never stirred this hornets nest up. I would bet that they just thought it would blow over. We won't go into all the sleepless nights for all of them. It's got my on the edge of my seat waiting for the verdict.
     
  7. Russ Fisher

    Russ Fisher TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    I can’t speak for all the investigators, but I for one never considered the possibility of there being anything to blow over. The decision to post the report to our website as the most efficient way to get it to our members, came after the report was done as far as I know.

    You are right, however, about our regrets. As shooting sports enthusiast all, nothing good comes out making more of the issues than really exists.


    There is no “ban” and never has been.

    Russ Fisher
     
  8. 221

    221 Banned User Banned TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,736
    With all these proceedings, filings and the paper involved......What is the obligation to distribute them to the club......Whats with the vote....whats it for..... sounds like you have about 600 members that are not involved. I just cannot see the logic of dragging the whole membership into this mess.

    Also why should anyone out of the loop be furnished with up to date copies.....
    What are you, QSC doing or attempting to accomplish by making this a public spectacle.

    Those of you that wrote that report seem competent to write This report like it's written.....That report is right by the Military Play Book.....Anyone that's served in the Armed Forces with rank over E-4 knows that format very well......A lot of us are, also Retired from the armed forces.....A lot of us know how, and why their written, and what to put in them. Things are emphasized or downplayed for a reason, or exempted for a desired result....My experience has been that they are to make something or someone, look good or bad..They are an absolute necessity for a successful career.

    What's puzzling is why you wrote it, then put it on the net without covering any of your bases or verifying your statements.....Your not in the military anymore, right?.......In civilian life we have to play by a strict set of rules and protocol.....There's no system to bury paper in, short of a dumpster, before it gets published. This has crossed the line for both parties and I hope that your report writers took into consideration that this was going to a civilian court where the military may hold no weight whatsoever.

    I have heard you,(qsc) say you had to publish the report so all the members would know......WHY.

    Is this the only reason, a company was publicly drug through the streets, was so you could get the word to your members??????

    Also I believe you dropped the ball by having sympathetic and biased,investigators,,,, maybe some with a preconceived opinion prior to the investigation.....I would have used investigators that were total sterile to those involved. Just reading the report sounds biased and done as a favor.....

    Was the Powder secured, the Primers, hulls, was a forensic sweep done of the loading area??????

    "Be NICE"....%~)
     
  9. BIGDON

    BIGDON Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    6,625
    Location:
    Michigan
    221: I ams sure if you were a member you would want a copy of the report, I know I would. QSC didn't bring the report to this site and ask that it be discussed ad nauseum. CG decided to make it a spectacle. There was a severe injury and a report and an investigation needed to be done by club management. This report was and is more complete than any you would find at any other small club. Being made up of former military just what format would you expect?? You would have prefered that they mail all 600 members instead of posting to their site, get real. Get off you CG pony. The gun in question is no different than any other product after a severe incident and that is guilty until proven innocent.

    The whole thing needs a rest in the public forum but I have the feeling you will continue to attack QSC.

    Don
     
  10. Fast Oil

    Fast Oil TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    918
    Could the fact that there are thousands of CG guns shot everyday without incident since this happened be "evidence can be shown that the firearm safe to use, the suspension would no longer be compelling." ???
     
  11. Charles.F.Phillips

    Charles.F.Phillips TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    330
    221,

    You are more likely to get satisfactory answers to your questions if you ask them one at a time and not make it seem like you're a prosecutor grilling a defendant.

    R/s,<br />
    Charlie

    "The Dude abides..."
     
  12. DTrykow

    DTrykow Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,543
    Yes, this issue needs a rest but 221 didn't start this thread. He isn't attacking QSC. I know he's a lightning rod, on this site, but there seems to be some back pedaling going on and he's asking some tough questions. Dave T.
     
  13. eightbore

    eightbore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,330
    Mr. Fisher, how can you state that there is no evidence of blockage when you stated in the report that you inspected ONE empty shell and didn't identify it except to say that it was a unibody hull? Blockage would be a very real possibility had there been any hulls that are suspect for base wad separation, like the WW AAHS hull. WW AA hulls have not been unibody for years. Did the report writer misspeak when he referred to the one hull that was inspected as a unibody hull? Do you think the investigators should have inspected more than one empty hull?
     
  14. Charles.F.Phillips

    Charles.F.Phillips TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    330
    What back pedaling?

    Also, tough questions are fine - I merely suggest that he not pile them on at once - after all, Russ doesn't have to explain a damn thing to anybody, so I think he deserves the courtesy of having the questions framed in a polite form.

    R/s,<br />
    Charlie

    "The Dude abides..."
     
  15. Charles.F.Phillips

    Charles.F.Phillips TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    330
    eightbore,

    <i>"WW AA hulls have not been unibody for years."</i>

    I'll stay out of Russ' way in answering the questions, but I would point out that old style AA's are still available - I just bought a box of 1000 hulls from Precision Reloading this past winter.

    R/s,<br />
    Charlie

    "The Dude abides..."
     
  16. hmb

    hmb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,440
    AA hulls do not have base wads that migrate or separate. If you doubt that, remove the metal base from the plastic hull and try to remove the base wad from the plastic hull. HMB
     
  17. BIGDON

    BIGDON Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    6,625
    Location:
    Michigan
    cy-kick: Where do get your 1,000's number??? I doubt if there are 100's shot every day. If the numbers were made available on this model I doubt if even a 1,000 have sold.

    Don
     
  18. rhymeswithorange

    rhymeswithorange Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    Messages:
    745
    Location:
    Northern Illinois
    I heard one at the Grand had a broken ejector.
     
  19. eightbore

    eightbore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,330
    Mr. Phillips, unibody AA shells are, of course "available", as are Model T Fords, but neither have been made for years. HMB, current production AA hulls are definitely not one piece unibody shells and they have been known to separate. The unibody shell has not been made for years. I did as you suggested. I went to the loading room, dismantled a AA hull and removed the base wad. I went further. I inserted it into a standard .729" 12 gauge chamber. It stopped at about the 3" mark, right at the forcing cone. Ceasar Guerini is aware, I am sure, that there is some evidence that these base wads in AA hulls have been known to separate from the hull. My main point is that the QGC investigators were deficient in that they did not inspect the trap field or the shooter's loading room for evidence that these two piece shells were used. All fired shells should have been examined for evidence of a loosened base wad, but, apparently, only ONE hull was examined. I am not sure that the investigating committee correctly identified the empty shell as a "unibody" hull as stated in the report.
     
  20. eightbore

    eightbore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,330
    I don't mention the base wad separation as a possible cause of a breech failure in a shotgun just for the red herring effect. I mention it because it is the most likely cause of a breech failure in a shotgun unless we include the possibility of detonation caused by a primer in the powder charge. Breech failures in shotguns (is not- this is an edit)a normal consequence of a bad shotgun or an overloaded shell. There are many overloaded shells and many bad shotguns out there, but very few breech failures. I'm sure H.P. White is correct in their conclusion and their conclusion will be considered before anyone ends up in court. Of course, "court" is doubtful at this point when most of the evidence is compromised.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.