Exploding rifles leave trail of injured
IOWA CITY, Iowa — It was the opening day of deer-hunting season, and Ronald Hansen loaded his rifle the same way he had countless times before, aimed at a target and fired a shot, he said.
This time, the gun barrel exploded, knocking the farmer from Hampton, Iowa, backward, severely damaging his right hand and ear and burning his face.
Unknown to Hansen, the manufacturer of the rifle that injured him in 2014 had received other complaints of explosions and injuries over the prior decade. Customers repeatedly reported that the barrel of the stainless-steel 10 ML-II muzzleloader exploded, burst, split or cracked, according to thousands of court documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
Attorneys for the U.S. company, Savage Arms, are to appear Wednesday in federal court in Iowa to defend against a lawsuit filed by Hansen. He is seeking damages for his injuries, alleging the company failed to warn customers about the defect.
It’s one of several lawsuits that have claimed the company recklessly kept the muzzleloaders on the market even as they kept occasionally mangling hands, damaging hearing and burning faces. At least three have been settled on a confidential basis since last year.
Savage Arms recently agreed to settle a suit filed by Trent Procter, who was on a hunting trip with friends in October 2009 when the 10 ML-II he’d owned for years “just blew apart” when he shot at a target. Procter, 48, missed nine months of work as a power-company lineman as he endured surgeries on his left hand and rehabilitation.
Savage Arms, which discontinued the gun model in 2010 after thousands were on the market, has insisted it’s safe when used properly, has no defects and was designed in accordance with industry standards.
Savage Arms has argued that operator error is to blame for the explosions, saying users must have created too much pressure inside the barrel either by loading two bullets or using the wrong amount or type of gunpowder.
Efforts to reach Savage Arms’ parent company, Vista Outdoor, for comment were unsuccessful.
Hansen’s case highlights how gun makers, unlike manufacturers of other consumer products, have the sole discretion to decide themselves whether to recall potentially dangerous weapons. In 1976, Congress blocked the then-new Consumer Product Safety Commission from restricting the manufacture or sale of firearms.