Quote:

---

Puzzles me why anyone would think of filing a lawsuit against a retailer of factory ammunition, Surely an investigation first to determine the exact cause of the burst barrel. As it turns out advice seems in this case, to indicate an old firearm with metal fatigued barrels using modern ammunition was the cause of the blown barrel.

If anything a question could be asked of Hornady, the manufacturer of the ammunition but of course with even just a small bit of thought they would soon have pointed to the real problem. This is the very thing that is covered here in NZ for firearms licence applicants. I am one of the firearms safety instructors who teach this, old shotguns and modern ammunition do not mix. Double rifles are not overly common here but the same would apply.

You might have looked rather silly in a law court had you gone ahead with your lawsuit. Fortunately nobody got hurt except a little pride maybe.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Puzzles me why anyone would think of filing a lawsuit against a retailer of factory ammunition, Surely an investigation first to determine the exact cause of the burst barrel. As it turns out advice seems in this case, to indicate an old firearm with metal fatigued barrels using modern ammunition was the cause of the blown barrel.

If anything a question could be asked of Hornady, the manufacturer of the ammunition but of course with even just a small bit of thought they would soon have pointed to the real problem. This is the very thing that is covered here in NZ for firearms licence applicants. I am one of the firearms safety instructors who teach this, old shotguns and modern ammunition do not mix. Double rifles are not overly common here but the same would apply.

You might have looked rather silly in a law court had you gone ahead with your lawsuit. Fortunately nobody got hurt except a little pride maybe.

---

You don´t have the slightest or the brightest ideas of what you are writing.

---

My observation is based on the information you gave in your post, glad to be enlightened if you care to. I understand you not wanting to involve your friend in a lawsuit but puzzled why the ammunition manufacturer is not the party you would be looking to file a lawsuit on. I deduced by the information you gave that your gunsmith friend did not make or work on your gun (the barrels) therefore could not be liable for faulty material or workmanship. If he did then I accept you might have cause for taking legal action to recover costs involved in sorting the problem. You didn't indicate what role your gunsmith played other than selling you factory ammunition.

It seems the fault was either with the factory produced Hornady ammunition or your gun, the latter which you seem to have accepted was the problem?

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I don't understand this statement.
"I must say it regulated fine"

when you then state this:
"at 50meters the rifle printed 40cm below point-of-aim"
"at 100m and the rifle printed 70cm below point-of-aim"

then this
"The further distance the further apart!." (IE: diverging)

That is no regulation of a DR in my opinion.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

What was the original caliber of this rifle?

So far I have seen a Holland 500/465 and a late Alexander Henry 475no2 with burst barrels. I have heard of others but those are the only two I have personally handled.

The Henry had been rebored.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Jens,

Out of interest, what was the cost of just the new set of barrels, and from what to what ie what use of the old set was made? As you mention total cost of the rifle only.

What projectile were you using again?

I do totally avoid any monometal bullet in my old rifles. And try to limit Woodleigh FMJs as well to need.

Your 'new' rifle looks nice, and hopefully will bring a century of pleasure.

---

Post Extras: