16ga.com ~ View topic - Load testing, Liability, and the Low Pressure Group

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 224

All this talk about getting data for the new wad got me thinking...What are the potential liability complications with data posted on the Low Pressure Group?

As I understand it, we send Tom, or another tester, 3 to 5 shells, get a data sheet, and post the results. Now, that is good enough for me...but from a liability standpoint in today's sue for all you can get/I'm not responsible for my own actions world...is that good enough?

I guess I am trying to ask How is the LPG protected from liability with a shot string of 3 to 5 shells, and a powder company/wad manufacturer needs to run 100's of shells before data for a specific load is considered good?

Guest

The product liability is a little different than just load data when you are not the party making the product.

Product liability is more extensive, as you need to prove suitability for a given purpose.

With loading data you just need to run a 10 shot data string, keep good records and have liability insurance to cover any potential issues. With loading data alone you are just giving data as the product suitability issue is already established by the maufacturer.

I am sure that Tom Armbrust is only giving you results, PERIOD. 3 shot data strings are very inadequate for any real information. No standard deviation, no extreme spread, no idea of what happens at cold temperatures. Pretty useless actually except for an idea of what you have in terms of average pressure and velocity. However since most of the data is for little powder puff loads, no one is going out on a limb either.

I doubt that there is much of a liability issue here, but you never know and a lawyer's advice might be sought.

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 224

Yes, I understand that Tom is just giving me results...and then I submit those results to the LPG. It was my understanding that all the loads in the LPG are tested in short shot strings of 3 to 5 shells. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

The loads I have been making, and the ones I plan to have tested are far from powder-puff loads. The last good load I had tested was 10 pellets of O buck. That is no powder-puff load. (Just ask the buck I shot with it Very Happy

)

It is my understanding that the LPG data is "use at your own risk, but here are the data sheets, use your own judgement" type of data.

Does it go through the same extensive testing process?

Guest

Bowbuilder,

I would say no.

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 224

I don't want anybody to think I am trying to start a controversy or arguement. Far from it. This is for my information.

I ask because I have a handful of loads I was going to have Tom test that were purely for the benefit of other 16 gagers. For example, #1 buckshot loads and a 10 pellet O buck load in a Remington hull. These are not loads I really intend to hunt with, but I thought that since I have made them up during my experimentation, I would get them tested for others to use if they would like...to benefit the community.

I just want to (1) not get myself into any liability trouble, and (2) not waste my money if the 3 shot string loads I send to Tom are not enough to be posted in the LPG.

Guest

Ok I understand better now, send 5 loads to Mr. Armbrust, at least you will get some idead of how consistent the load(s) will be.

As for liability, you aren't the one doing the testing.

It is best if you scan and send in the data sheet from Mr. Armbrust, that way there is no chance of a mistake on your part. Additionally everyone can see the SD and EV of the load and make a better decision.

I wasn't saying that you were starting controversery, I was worried about (me)being bombarded with nonsense.

I understood that you have loads tested and I just wanted you to get the best information you could.

Anytime anyone represents themselves as an expert in almost anything in our nation today, they are assuming a certain liability risk. Federal law is fairly consistant on the issue. However, state civil codes vary widely. In the less stringent jurisdictions, a person can be sued and can be found against simply for not answering the suit. Disclaimers of liability will not always hold up as a prevention against suits being brought and given venue.

Of course, appeals can be made. However, the greatest danger is the legal fees that must be paid to defend against even frivelous suits. The best answer for this is legal insurance if a decent and reasonable policy can be obtained.

Until we adopt a system that automatically awards damages for legal fees to a succesful defendant in such cases, we will have this problem of questionable lawsuits. So the short answer is yes, civil suits are possible and can be costly even to the innocent.

Member Joined: 09 Dec 2005 Posts: 989 Location: Las Vegas

The issue of liability did come up when we were updating the spreadsheet. New loads added at that time were referenced to the files containing Tom's data and, hopefully, that will continue going forward. Also, a new disclaimer was added to the spreadsheet.

Matt

We can only hope the people who choose to join and use the LPG data are of the nature to take personal resposibility for their choices. We choose to join and we choose to use the data. Just my 2 cents.
Best,
Ron

Guest

Guys,

I have been thinking about this whole question of liability.

With all the switching of components, ridiculous fillers, using a multitude of different hulls just because they are close in construction, guessing about powder charges, etc. Liability issues on this site and LPG, are to say the least out of control.

We are probably lucky that most of the loads are light loads, and it is harder to get into trouble guessing at what component you can switch.

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 224

Guest

Bowbuilder,

I have seen written more than once, guys altering the loads listed in LPG, both here and on 16 Gauge Reloaders.

Who is loading the stuff for Ballistic Research? 10 to 1 it isn't Mr. Armbrust. He just tests the loads, and records what he is told, the components are in the load. No chain of custody, not even lot numbers of the components. Who knows the age of the components? How were they stored? Were the hulls new? Once fired? Fired multiple times?

Very much out of control, from a liability standpoint.

The loads done for LPG are just an idea of how the load really performs, as 3 shot data strings aren't very long on info. I am not saying that the loads are bad, the question is one of liability.

I have been through the liability issue, of reloading data, first hand.

I also believe that because it is an internet setting that it would be hard to prove liability anyway. You have to admit that with all the information both good and bad, who knows what is right and wrong.

Guest

I just found this reply in one of the topic:

"...try page 249 in the 4th edit of Reloading For Shotgunners there are 6-7/8oz recipes listed for the Fed hull in speeds of 1175 out to 1290 with decent PSI's 8.3k - 10k. Also, couldn't you take a favorite 1oz load and back off on the shot to 7/8's and rest assured it's running out at a lower PSI and probably a higher velocity?..... "

When guys are doing this kind of stuff liability issues get very muddy!!

Member Joined: 06 Oct 2007 Posts: 2350 Location: West MI

[quote="dogchaser37"]I just found this reply in one of the topic:

"...try page 249 in the 4th edit of Reloading For Shotgunners there are 6-7/8oz recipes listed for the Fed hull in speeds of 1175 out to 1290 with decent PSI's 8.3k - 10k. Also, couldn't you take a favorite 1oz load and back off on the shot to 7/8's and rest assured it's running out at a lower PSI and probably a higher velocity?..... "

When guys are doing this kind of stuff liability issues get very muddy!![/quote]

You're right DC37, very muddy indeed. Consider this also, just passing the reference to the published loading data in the reloading handbook along implicates me in a law suit if something should happen to warrent a suit. But, so would giving a home baked apple pie to a nieghbor that caused a severe illness. These days the messenger gets thrown under the bus with everyone else. I'm aslo aware of concerns about "experimenting" with the potentially dangerous hobby we perticipate in. But the technique of backing off on shot charge is a common practice. So I went out on a limb and suggested it figuring that in an extreem case the technique can be proven to be common practice in this "dangerous hobby" that the defendant chose to participate in....I SHOULD be covered in a suit. Believe it or not this descision process went through my head before I pressed the "send" button in the response.

This is a very interesting thread. It's a subject I've been mulling over since I once and only once gave a detailed reloading recipe out several months ago on this site. If a someone copies that recipe and uses it to an unfortunate end. Guess who gets a call from the lawyers. No question, it would be me and who ever else had anything to do with the situation.

Very very interesting, Thanks bowbuilder for initiating this forum, Mike

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 224

Yes, this has been an interesting thread for me as well. I really think it comes down to common sense and being responsible for your own actions.

I hope that the threat of liability doesn't keep people from sharing data and helping one another on this forum. That would be a shame.

That said, I plan to never give out "experimental" or untested data. But, If I have had Tom or another agent test a load, I feel that I have some "coverage"...along with the use at your own risk disclaimer.

Besides, liability can't be that big of an issue...just look at the data BP puts out Rolling Eyes