My Stoeger was deemed 'unsafe to fire'

[Ace_of_Hearts 1,171]

The stock cracking and falling apart is common on shotguns due to the sharp/heavy recoil.

The problem stems from improper bedding on the recoil/stock mounting lug inside the rear stock and the decorative design of the action leaving sharp points of contact at the weakest point of the stock.

If you repair the chip without fixing the underlying problem, a piece will come out somewhere else and soon the stock will be useless.

In order to properly repair your stock the problem must be solved first, else it will just occur again somewhere else where wood meets steel.

Bedding can be done with any good bedding compound. I prefer to add wood shavings to the compound to better bind the mixture together. After the gun is properly bedded then the repair can be accomplished. 

JB Weld is not the proper material to accomplish this. However they do make a STEEL putty that works well but must be stained to match the stock. All repairs in this area usually require a small piece of dowel be inserted to reinforce the rearward motion of the repair and keep in from falling off in use.

Bedding is done at the rear of this action where the stock screw attaches. (ignore the arrow. It is illustrating the pin to remove in order to remove the safety from the gun without effecting repairs by the factory) Care must be taken the insure bedding compound does not get into the bolt's thread.

 

 

 

Note

You are lucky.

Several customers have had their guns returned with the "Unsafe to shoot" ENGRAVED into their action.

 

 

[Chuck Steak 386]

So I am going with the take away that sending a race ready gun to the manufacturer is a recipe for disaster.

[Ace_of_Hearts 1,171]

32 minutes ago, Chuck Steak said:

So I am going with the take away that sending a race ready gun to the manufacturer is a recipe for disaster.

Depends on the manufacturer AND what you have done to turn that gun into a race gun.

In this case - Beveling the chambers to make it faster/easier to load rendered  the gun unsafe according to the manufacturer.

"Polishing" may have also exceeded the limits set by the manufacturer.

I guess they could have put together a new receiver, fitted a set of new barrels to it and replaced the stock and sent it back with a bill for double/triple the price of a new gun. I don't think that would have made the owner happy.

 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz 7,565]

1 hour ago, Chuck Steak said:

So I am going with the take away that sending a race ready gun to the manufacturer is a recipe for disaster.

Yes.....send to the one that made it 'race-ready'.

OLG

[Max Payne 243]

21 hours ago, Cholla said:

Change your alias to "Unsafe To Fire". Problem solved.

Excellent solution!!!!!!! My compliments!!

[Chantilly Shooter 31]

23 hours ago, Yul Lose said:

Hey CS, I noticed the marker writing on your SG at the unload table and wondered what that was. If you’ll be at Dulzura on Saturday let me look at it and maybe I can repair the stock. If not Dulzura PM me and I can meet you somewhere in North County and see what we can come up with. Welcome home by the way, you shot real well for being off so long. I have a ton of walnut, I’m pretty sure we can come up with something.

 

Yul, I will absolutely take you up on that. Unfortunately I'm out of town again for a couple of weeks, but I'll be sure and reach out when I get back.

 

It was great to see and shoot with you the other day. Thanks for the kind words about my shooting. It seems like you and everyone else got way faster while I was gone!!

[Chantilly Shooter 31]

Thanks to all those who replied with suggestions on how to remove the ink and repair the stock. I do intend to get it repaired. This was just a story about a 5.5 month circus show. I took it to this gunsmith along with some other non-CAS firearms. Lesson learned; specialty guns go to specialty gunsmiths.

 

Don't misunderstand- I totally understand why they would refuse to work on it. However, there is no excuse for defacing property. They could have easily used one of the red tags @Lawdog Dago Dom mentioned.

 

They must know that we, as SASS shooters, compromise a huge portion of the market for those shotguns. I can't imagine who else is buying them in relevant numbers. One would think they would tread a little more lightly. But maybe this is treading lightly based on some of the painted and engraved guns mentioned by others. Ridiculous!

[Chantilly Shooter 31]

19 hours ago, Buck Garrett said:

It was good to see you yesterday, and you're getting back to form really quick. That 17 second stage to end the match was awesome.

I forwarded this thread to Double Diamond in hopes that he may have a cure for the stock.

 

 

Thanks, Buck! I really missed being at the CAS range and was glad we got to shoot together the other day. I always enjoy watching you shoot and catching up. Hopefully I can make it back out again soon.

[Ace_of_Hearts 1,171]

 

This is an SKB that didn't make it through a match.

Please note the 1/16 inch gap between the wood stock and where the action should be touching. This is the cause of failure. If it hadn't failed up front it would surely have split somewhere else. 

[Major BS Walker Regulator 625]

Hello Mr. Chantilly

Glad you're back but sorry about your problem. Don't ever send a tricked out Vaquero back to Ruger either. They will send it back with factory parts installed. The broken stock problem is typical to that gun. Hopefully Mr. Yul will straighten it out

[Yul Lose 6,730]

3 hours ago, Chantilly Shooter said:

 

Yul, I will absolutely take you up on that. Unfortunately I'm out of town again for a couple of weeks, but I'll be sure and reach out when I get back.

 

It was great to see and shoot with you the other day. Thanks for the kind words about my shooting. It seems like you and everyone else got way faster while I was gone!!

When you’re back in town just PM me and we’ll meet up. Getting all of you young folks shooting with us is truly exciting. Mo T and the young Marines that he brings out to every Bandidos match is a really good sign. We’ll get your stock fixed up one way or the other. I have an in with old Ace Of Hearts if needed.

[Ace_of_Hearts 1,171]

7 minutes ago, Yul Lose said:

When you’re back in town just PM me and we’ll meet up. Getting all of you young folks shooting with us is truly exciting. Mo T and the young Marines that he brings out to every Bandidos match is a really good sign. We’ll get your stock fixed up one way or the other. I have an in with old Ace Of Hearts if needed.

Who are you calling OLD!

[Yul Lose 6,730]

Just now, Ace_of_Hearts said:

Who are you calling OLD!

I’m a pup compared to you.

[Moe T Vator 78]

On 10/6/2019 at 3:17 PM, Yul Lose said:

Hey CS, I noticed the marker writing on your SG at the unload table and wondered what that was. If you’ll be at Dulzura on Saturday let me look at it and maybe I can repair the stock. If not Dulzura PM me and I can meet you somewhere in North County and see what we can come up with. Welcome home by the way, you shot real well for being off so long. I have a ton of walnut, I’m pretty sure we can come up with something.

If anyone can work your wood back to pristine shape, Yul can. As for the sharpie, go over it with a dry erase marker. No damage to any metal surfaces and you can put a little elbow  into it. 

aND Dang glad to have you home 

[Gray Drifter 78]

Mr. Clean Magic Eraser with a few drops of oil will take that off. It's a micro abrasive, but that paint should be the first victim.

[ChuteTheMall 18]

If the manufacturers see enough of our guns with the same modifications, maybe they should incorporate some of our fixes and offer competitive guns.

Nah, too sensible.

[Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129 1,511]

When I Deem a Firearm to be "Unsafe to Fire"

I type up a letter of explanation of just what the issue or issues are, and why they make said Firearm unsafe to use ...

There is a detailed report Made often including photos of each factor considered in my decision...

Info on the Firearm is included like Ser # , Barrel length and type, Make and Model.

I keep a copy on file , I send a copy to the Manufacture and one to the customer ....

I attach a bright red Tag to the trigger guard or lever ....

With the letter to the customer I include a form again spelling out the reason or reasons why the Firearm is unsafe ... There is a space on the letter for the customer

to sign and date saying they have received this information and would they please return this form to me ...

 

This is how I handle this issue ...

 

Jabez Cowboy  

[The Original Lumpy Gritz 7,565]

1 hour ago, ChuteTheMall said:

If the manufacturers see enough of our guns with the same modifications, maybe they should incorporate some of our fixes and offer competitive guns.

Nah, too sensible.

 

The LAWYERS run the show.

OLG

[watab kid 1,275]

i think good wood in the original stock fitted well would survive our abuse - far less than real old west use , what ive learned here is do not send back to factory after modification , have your personal gunsmith fix it and look closely before buying to get a good one if possible 

[Chantilly Shooter 31]

8 hours ago, Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129 said:

When I Deem a Firearm to be "Unsafe to Fire"

I type up a letter of explanation of just what the issue or issues are, and why they make said Firearm unsafe to use ...

There is a detailed report Made often including photos of each factor considered in my decision...

Info on the Firearm is included like Ser # , Barrel length and type, Make and Model.

I keep a copy on file , I send a copy to the Manufacture and one to the customer ....

I attach a bright red Tag to the trigger guard or lever ....

With the letter to the customer I include a form again spelling out the reason or reasons why the Firearm is unsafe ... There is a space on the letter for the customer

to sign and date saying they have received this information and would they please return this form to me ...

 

This is how I handle this issue ...

 

Jabez Cowboy  

 

And that, sir, is how to be a professional. I would have totally accepted that result. Thank you for sharing!

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 3,393]

15 hours ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

 

The LAWYERS run the show.

OLG

 

Actually, lawyers typically offer advice.  CEOs or owners run the business.  Sometimes they follow the lawyer's advice, sometimes not.  As a lawyer, I would have told the owner to return the gun unrepaired, but with prominent markings and warnings, documented and provably delivered to the gun owner.  I would not have advised the business to deface or alter the gun.  It's a tough call.  Example:  (1) Factory returns the gun, after deciding that it is unsafe, but does not make repairs or mark the gun in any relatively permanent way (as most folks here seem to believe should have been done); (2) the owner receives the gun from the factory, and resells the gun to an unsuspecting purchaser; (3) gun fails on the range, injuring the new owner (or an innocent by-stander); think vision loss, multiple surgeries, hospital bills, lost wages, disfigurement and permanent disability - a verdict potential in the 7 figure range.  Who is responsible?  I can see potential claims against  (a) the factory, for not repairing the gun when they had it; (b) the factory, for not disabling the gun before returning it; (c) the factory, for not permanently and prominently marking the gun in such a way that the new purchaser would have been informed (like marking the barrels); (d) the original owner, for not passing on the danger warning and for selling a gun known to be defective and dangerous.  Unfortunately, the original owner probably has minimal assets, and could not satisfy a substantial judgment.  So, the prime target defendant is the factory.  Can you blame them (and their lawyers) for trying to limit their liability?  How many million dollar verdicts before their insurer cancels their coverage, or prices it out of range?  How many uninsured claims before they are out of business?

 

LL

[Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129 1,511]

Pard ;

Since this was a thread on returning Unsafe Firearm and in What condition, I did not spell out my policy before returning same ...

If the owner is in Canada or the USA and has provided a phone number ( or E-Mule ) I call them and we discuss their firearm and my findings, if it is not able to be fixed or at too great a cost .... The call is usually short (unless we get talking Cowboy ) if the owner starts arguing the call gets real short ...

If on the other hand the customer really wants the gun fixed and can handle the cost and I have deemed it to be repairable we can continue ...

If the owner is not a serious Cowboy Shooter or a return Customer I request that 75% of the cost be forwarded to me ,before work is started ...

I have been stung a couple of times ....  The Time frame for completion is established from when I receive the funds ...

I have done a couple of what amounts to remanufactures of the Firearm....

 

Jabez Cowboy

[Dusty Devil Dale 565]

1 hour ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

 

Actually, lawyers typically offer advice.  CEOs or owners run the business.  Sometimes they follow the lawyer's advice, sometimes not.  As a lawyer, I would have told the owner to return the gun unrepaired, but with prominent markings and warnings, documented and provably delivered to the gun owner.  I would not have advised the business to deface or alter the gun.  It's a tough call.  Example:  (1) Factory returns the gun, after deciding that it is unsafe, but does not make repairs or mark the gun in any relatively permanent way (as most folks here seem to believe should have been done); (2) the owner receives the gun from the factory, and resells the gun to an unsuspecting purchaser; (3) gun fails on the range, injuring the new owner (or an innocent by-stander); think vision loss, multiple surgeries, hospital bills, lost wages, disfigurement and permanent disability - a verdict potential in the 7 figure range.  Who is responsible?  I can see potential claims against  (a) the factory, for not repairing the gun when they had it; (b) the factory, for not disabling the gun before returning it; (c) the factory, for not permanently and prominently marking the gun in such a way that the new purchaser would have been informed (like marking the barrels); (d) the original owner, for not passing on the danger warning and for selling a gun known to be defective and dangerous.  Unfortunately, the original owner probably has minimal assets, and could not satisfy a substantial judgment.  So, the prime target defendant is the factory.  Can you blame them (and their lawyers) for trying to limit their liability?  How many million dollar verdicts before their insurer cancels their coverage, or prices it out of range?  How many uninsured claims before they are out of business?

 

LL

I totally agree with you.  I am sure the factory marked the gun with the intention of it being removed from service, absent needed repair.  Factory engineers have usually developed specifications that must be met before they can release a firearm for sale or from repair.   There are definite reasons for those safety specifications and tests.  In my own case, I wouldn't even consider continuing to use the firearm in public competition after such a determination/warning.  

 

I think it is good to step back a few yards sometimes and take a broader look and carefully think  about the risks that we get too used to taking in the vein of improving our competitive performance.   None of us wants to blind or otherwise injure one of our friends, or become embroiled in a liability lawsuit.  Yet in the interest of a couple tenths of a second in stage times, and our desire to get closer to the top of the sport, we risk operating with things like removed transfer bars, extremely lightened springs, absent lever safety mechanisms, or actions that are too loose for safe operation.   We find lots of ways to rationalize it to ourselves, after all, the risk is remote seeming.  But the reality is that we are simply choosing to go ahead and take the added risks (emphasize "added") to ourselves, family and friends.

 

Yes, all shooting has risks, and to partake, you have to be brave about accepting them.  But that isn't a reasonable justification or rationale for deliberately adding to that risk spectrum.   And when/if an injury occurs involving an unsafe firearm, friends or not,  the medical costs involved for the family are likely to drive some kind of liability action, either directly, or buy primary or secondary insurance providers.  

 

My belief is that we in CAS should be sponsoring absolute safe use of firearms at every opportunity.   Our guns should be impeccably maintained for safe operation.  To do otherwise risks liability, negative publicity, and in today's environment, probable eventual regulation or elimination of our sport from the outside.  How would we like the State Legislature deciding what gun modifocations are approved, or setting requirements over-top of our SASS  rules, or requiring proof of insurance or periodic gun inspections and fees.   

Just food for thought.  

If it were me, I'd simply retire the gun and buy another one.  One more safe queen, and one more new gun.  What's wrong with that. 

 

Many others here, I am sure, are going to see things differently--they often do.  I am OK with that.  I'm comfortable just knowing that I may never rank at the top, but I'll still have good fun, and the cause of some future accident is unlikely to be me or my compromised firearms. 

[Sgt. Hochbauer, SASS #64409 129]

Sadly I can relate to this too. The barrels on my TTN separated and I took it to a gun shop where I would say where most of my wife's and my cowboy guns have come from. Without going into the details of how LONG it took till I got it back. After picking it up I head straight to the range to try it out. After two boxes of shells...you guessed it the barrels separated. I took it back after a few days got a call that it could not be repaired and they would give me a $100.00 dollar credit for parts. My reply was for $100.00 I would put it on the mantle. Not to mention was going to give it to someone else to work on.  When I went to pick it up I was told that I could not have it back or the barrels would be cut up while I was there. I was for sure taken by surprise and by the owners attitude. I was given a credit for the repair and my old shot gun. I picked out a Stoeger and they slicked it up a bit. I did want a hammerless shotgun but not like this. I found someone that had a new in the box hammered double similar to what I had....sold the Stoeger annoyed me each time that I used it (only two matches)

After all of that I would NEVER step foot in that shop again nor recommend anyone to shop there.

 

 

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 3,393]

Unless there is something very unusual in the laws of your state, I can think of nothing that gives a gun dealer the right to refuse to return your property or to demand that he be allowed to cut your barrels before he delivers the gun back to you.   My first stop would be the police; my second would be my lawyer. 

[Dusty Devil Dale 565]

1 hour ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

Unless there is something very unusual in the laws of your state, I can think of nothing that gives a gun dealer the right to refuse to return your property or to demand that he be allowed to cut your barrels before he delivers the gun back to you.   My first stop would be the police; my second would be my lawyer. 

As much as I normally will advocate the retirement of faulty firearms,  I see a huge difference between advising a customer or marking a gun as unsafe, and confiscating (stealing) or substantially defacing the customer's property.   There are uses for inoperable or damaged guns, such as display, stage props, engraving practice, hunter safety training tools, etc. 

Gun shops who treat their internal liability management policies as the basis for infringements on customers rights deserve to be vacated.  

[Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L 2,857]

3 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

There are uses for inoperable or damaged guns, ...

 

Gun Buybacks sponsored by our "enlightened" government officials.

[Lawdog Dago Dom 1,840]

3 minutes ago, Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L said:

 

Gun Buybacks sponsored by our "enlightened" government officials.

 

Yes indeed. There is something very satisfying about getting money for damaged guns from the City of Chicago and using for an NRA Youth Program.

Lemonade out of lemons.

 

http://www.gunssavelife.com/chicago-gun-buyback-guns-save-life-nets-2420-for-nra-youth-shooting-programs/

[Patagonia Pete 911]

2 minutes ago, Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L said:

 

Gun Buybacks sponsored by our "enlightened" government officials.

Eggactly!!

Like a Beto buyout!! (there would be a run on 3D printers; flat black spray paint and airsoft guns) ...

Or .. if its chewable ... you could give it to the dog!!

 

 

[Chantilly Shooter 31]

@Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438, thanks for your input. I understand that you are responding from a lawyer's perspective, where the worst case must always be considered and countered with a legally ironclad response. I appreciate and see the logic in your reply. However, I still don't think, especially in this instance, the action on the part of Stoeger was warranted. I would consider it highly unlikely that they are unaware of the types of modifications commonly done to their firearms. I would also argue that there is, by now, a long and acceptable safety record of their firearms performing adequately with these modifications. If that doesn't offer them any legal backing, then ok, I can still understand that. I'm sure that they have tolerances they are required to reference (SAAMI specs?) which would be considered a legal standard, and that's fine, but this is still extremely poor customer service. Something more along the lines of what @Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129 described seems far more customer-friendly while still avoiding both legal responsibility for the allegedly unsafe firearm AND defacement of the customer's personal property. Had they permanently disabled the firearm, I would be causing a far greater ruckus.

 

@Dusty Devil Dale, thanks as well for your input. I have to say though, I respectfully disagree. If I sent a firearm off to a gunsmith and I had little confidence in or knowledge of the actual state of the firearm, I can see accepting the judgment of the gunsmith regarding its integrity. Milsurps with wildly incorrect headspacing come to mind as a common occurrence of this. However, a known and reputable gunsmith had already modified my firearm and deemed it safe. Whom do I trust? Does Stoeger have some type of assumed superiority because it's their design? A flaw in their design and manufacturing is what caused my issue in the first place (stock fitment)! Also, as I mentioned above, the types of modifications done on my shotgun are extremely common in SASS and have been for years. Thousands of shotgun rounds have been put through very similarly modified firearms with few, if any, related serious mishaps. And again, it's not as if I made these modifications on my own as an amateur and decided to blast away in the presence of a crowd; everything was done by an established professional. I appreciate your approach to risk management, but this doesn't seem like an appropriate application.

[Dusty Devil Dale 565]

39 minutes ago, Chantilly Shooter said:

@Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438, thanks for your input. I understand that you are responding from a lawyer's perspective, where the worst case must always be considered and countered with a legally ironclad response. I appreciate and see the logic in your reply. However, I still don't think, especially in this instance, the action on the part of Stoeger was warranted. I would consider it highly unlikely that they are unaware of the types of modifications commonly done to their firearms. I would also argue that there is, by now, a long and acceptable safety record of their firearms performing adequately with these modifications. If that doesn't offer them any legal backing, then ok, I can still understand that. I'm sure that they have tolerances they are required to reference (SAAMI specs?) which would be considered a legal standard, and that's fine, but this is still extremely poor customer service. Something more along the lines of what @Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129 described seems far more customer-friendly while still avoiding both legal responsibility for the allegedly unsafe firearm AND defacement of the customer's personal property. Had they permanently disabled the firearm, I would be causing a far greater ruckus.

 

@Dusty Devil Dale, thanks as well for your input. I have to say though, I respectfully disagree. If I sent a firearm off to a gunsmith and I had little confidence in or knowledge of the actual state of the firearm, I can see accepting the judgment of the gunsmith regarding its integrity. Milsurps with wildly incorrect headspacing come to mind as a common occurrence of this. However, a known and reputable gunsmith had already modified my firearm and deemed it safe. Whom do I trust? Does Stoeger have some type of assumed superiority because it's their design? A flaw in their design and manufacturing is what caused my issue in the first place (stock fitment)! Also, as I mentioned above, the types of modifications done on my shotgun are extremely common in SASS and have been for years. Thousands of shotgun rounds have been put through very similarly modified firearms with few, if any, related serious mishaps. And again, it's not as if I made these modifications on my own as an amateur and decided to blast away in the presence of a crowd; everything was done by an established professional. I appreciate your approach to risk management, but this doesn't seem like an appropriate application.

I appreciate your candor and courtious reply.  I think you made some very good points.   I was really just sharing my own decisions and philosophy regarding my own firearms.  If someone chooses to ignore what I shared, it is of no consequence to me, as below. 

 

You are correct that when you have a reputable gunsmith perform repairs, you should not have to be hesitant to use the firearm. 

My personal issue and concern came from being in the position of proceeding to shoot the gun after I have been warned not to, by the gun manufacturer.  That is particularly true if the mfg has indelibly marked the gun as unsafe.  In any injury accident, the gun is going to be examined.  The claim of negligence seems to me to be almost a given in that situation. 

 

The reality is that nobody really knows for sure what stresses a firearm can handle during various levels of use, so various companies, owners, institutes,  gunsmith, etc. all set some kind of safety margin, such as allowable chamber pressures.  Most of them are just recommendations for most of us, but some are regulations for commercial  manufacturers selling to others.  Some of those standards will prove valid and correct in practice.  Others may not. 

 

Living here in California, with its litigation predisposition, and having assets to lose, I tend to set very wide liability margins around what I personally do.  Others living in less litigious areas may choose otherwise, and be correct in doing so.  It's a very personal decision. 

 

 But beyond the liability world, I also have a serious personal worry about having another accident that possibly hurts one of my friends.   I blew the barrel open with a squib in a Mossberg shotgun many years ago.  My hunting partner and best friend at the time was standing just a couple feet away and miraculously was unhurt.  But it was a serious wake up call for me that sometimes things do happen. I think we all have to set our own standards of risk averseness.  

[John Boy 941]

Another reason to Black Ball Stoeger and NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 3,393]

11 hours ago, John Boy said:

Another reason to Black Ball Stoeger and NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS

 

I think I would need a better reason to "black ball" a cowboy gun maker than an uniformed policy.  Now, on the other hand, I would walk quickly away from a dealer who wanted to cut my barrels.....

 

LL