Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive :: View topic - Mythbusters and the .500 magnum...

Dick Unger wrote:

It's unreasonably dangerous to have that much blast coming out of the side of the gun.

DeanC wrote:

Dick Unger wrote:

It's unreasonably dangerous to have that much blast coming out of the side of the gun.

All revolvers do that. It's a design necessity. This was a case of user ignorance.

I guess everyone who has gotten "railroad tracks" on their thumb from the slide of a semi-auto has a case too?

Dick Unger wrote:

DeanC wrote:

Dick Unger wrote:

It's unreasonably dangerous to have that much blast coming out of the side of the gun.

All revolvers do that. It's a design necessity. This was a case of user ignorance.

I guess everyone who has gotten "railroad tracks" on their thumb from the slide of a semi-auto has a case too?

Well I'm not a pistol guy. But I've never heard of an injury like that from sideblast, until the 5000/460. My 44 mag does not do that.

Obviously "design necessity" is the company's side of the story. I bet they'll change it or discontinue it.

Dick Unger wrote:

"User error"?

I don't think so. It's unreasonably dangerous to have that much blast coming out of the side of the gun. It's forseeable that a shooter will use a two hand hold and have a body part ih the way. Regardless of shat the instruction manual says.

Should be an easy lawsuit I would think. Liability is a slam dunk, the picture shows plenty of pain and suffering and the hand is permanantly disabled and will affect any activity he uses his hand for. Liability plus damages equals profitable lawsuit for a plaintiff.

It's probably a tough fix. The tighter the gap the more directed the blast. And the gap will open in time.

I've wanted one since they came out. But I guess I'll wait.

Dick Unger wrote:

My 44 mag does not do that.

Quote:

Well I'm not a pistol guy. But I've never heard of an injury like that from sideblast, until the 5000/460. My 44 mag does not do that.

Traveler wrote:

Dick Unger wrote:

DeanC wrote:

Dick Unger wrote:

It's unreasonably dangerous to have that much blast coming out of the side of the gun.

All revolvers do that. It's a design necessity. This was a case of user ignorance.

I guess everyone who has gotten "railroad tracks" on their thumb from the slide of a semi-auto has a case too?

Without a cylinder gap the cylinder would not revolve. If memory serves, the British had a complicated revolver design in which the cylinder advanced forward on firing and mated with a tapered barrel end. If that design would have had merit I assume it would have been copied. It has not. Gas blast from the cylinder gap has been problematic with some calibers and some hot loads for a long time, not just with the .460/.500 magnum selections. Top straps have been cut in the past by hot gasses coming from revolver cylinder gaps, and I believe it possible for bystanders to be hit with some powder residue and gasses if standing too close.

In any event, it is just not wise to put one's fingers anywhere ahead of the trigger when firing a revolver. It is also not wise to stand directly next to, or ahead of, anyone firing a firearm

Dick Unger wrote:

DeanC wrote:

Dick Unger wrote:

It's unreasonably dangerous to have that much blast coming out of the side of the gun.

All revolvers do that. It's a design necessity. This was a case of user ignorance.

I guess everyone who has gotten "railroad tracks" on their thumb from the slide of a semi-auto has a case too?

Dick Unger wrote:

Does a big Freedom Arms gun leak gas like this Smith and Wesson? I don't really want the hassel of a 460 after seeing this.

Greg wrote:

I've got an older, three screw, Ruger Blackhawk in .357, and one in .30 Carbine. The 357 will at least hurt you with the side blast, the .30 Carbine will take a finger right off, and clear people from the shooting positions on both sides of me.

If you want a good illustration just take a paper sandwich bag and poke the barrel thru it so the revolver is bagged but open in back where your hand enters. WEAR A GLOVE! Now fire...confetti!

Author:	DeanC [ Sun May 31, 2009 8:47 am ]
Post subject:
Dick Unger wrote: It's unreasonably dangerous to have that much blast coming out of the side of the gun. All revolvers do that. It's a design necessity. This was a case of user ignorance. I guess everyone who has gotten "railroad tracks" on their thumb from the slide of a semi-auto has a case too?

Author:	Dick Unger [ Sun May 31, 2009 8:54 am ]
Post subject:
DeanC wrote: Dick Unger wrote: It's unreasonably dangerous to have that much blast coming out of the side of the gun. All revolvers do that. It's a design necessity. This was a case of user ignorance. I guess everyone who has gotten "railroad tracks" on their thumb from the slide of a semi-auto has a case too? Well I'm not a pistol guy. But I've never heard of an injury like that from sideblast, until the 5000/460. My 44 mag does not do that. Obviously "design necessity" is the company's side of the story. I bet they'll change it or discontinue it.

Author:	Nords [ Sun May 31, 2009 11:31 am ]
Post subject:
I guess revolvers will have to go back to this design People need to learn not to put their hands in dangerous places. Pretty soon we will need warnings to never put your face in the way of the end of barrels when firing.

Author:	Traveler [ Sun May 31, 2009 11:44 am ]
Post subject:
Dick Unger wrote: DeanC wrote: Dick Unger wrote: It's unreasonably dangerous to have that much blast coming out of the side of the gun. All revolvers do that. It's a design necessity. This was a case of user ignorance. I guess everyone who has gotten "railroad tracks" on their thumb from the slide of a semi-auto has a case too? Well I'm not a pistol guy. But I've never heard of an injury like that from sideblast, until the 5000/460. My 44 mag does not do that. Obviously "design necessity" is the company's side of the story. I bet they'll change it or discontinue it. Without a cylinder gap the cylinder would not revolve. If memory serves, the British had a complicated revolver design in which the cylinder advanced forward on firing and mated with a tapered barrel end. If that design would have had merit I assume it would have been copied. It has not. Gas blast from the cylinder gap has been problematic with some calibers and some hot loads for a long time, not just with the .460/.500 magnum selections. Top straps have been cut in the past by hot gasses coming from revolver cylinder gaps, and I believe it possible for bystanders to be hit with some powder residue and gasses if standing too close. In any event, it is just not wise to put one's fingers anywhere ahead of the trigger when firing a revolver. It is also not wise to stand directly next to, or ahead of, anyone firing a firearm

Author:	mrokern [ Sun May 31, 2009 11:51 am ]
Post subject:
Dick Unger wrote: "User error"? I don't think so. It's unreasonably dangerous to have that much blast coming out of the side of the gun. It's forseeable that a shooter will use a two hand hold and have a body part ih the way. Regardless of shat the instruction manual says. Should be an easy lawsuit I would think. Liability is a slam dunk, the picture shows plenty of pain and suffering and the hand is permanantly disabled and will affect any activity he uses his hand for. Liability plus damages equals profitable lawsuit for a plaintiff. It's probably a tough fix. The tighter the gap the more directed the blast. And the gap will open in time. I've wanted one since they came out. But I guess I'll wait. Yeah, user error. I don't agree that because someone pulled a stupid that they deserve money. I do agree that somebody is going to try it, and unfortunately will get a settlement, but I'm sick of subsidizing stupid via higher insurance (and therefore product) prices just because somebody put a body part where it doesn't belong. Next thing you know, chefs will sue knife makers for making their knives too sharp when if they'd kept their thumbs away from the blade in the first place... Not attacking you, Dick...I just think we've got too many morons in this world that think they deserve money for doing dumb shit. Now, if the cylinder blows up, by all means call a lawyer. -Mark

Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Mythbusters and the .500 magnum... http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=13069	Page 2 of 4

Author:	DeanC [ Sun May 31, 2009 1:39 pm ]
Post subject:
Dick Unger wrote: My 44 mag does not do that. I'll wager it does. I double-dog dare you to test it with your own hand. OK, wait, I can't wish that on anybody. Try this: tear a strip of paper about two inches wide and 12~18" long, Using a full power factory .357 Magnum, or higher, drape this strip across the top strap of the revolver so it hangs down roughly centered on the gap. Then fire the gun. The results usually turn the paper into confetti. . The cylinder gap is the reason revolving cylinder rifles never caught on. Imagine having that gap right by your nose.

Author:	Rip Van Winkle [ Sun May 31, 2009 2:05 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Well I'm not a pistol guy. But I've never heard of an injury like that from sideblast, until the 5000/460. My 44 mag does not do that. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T_TNvPhTiB8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T_TNvPhTiB8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Author:	Dick Unger [ Sun May 31, 2009 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:
I didn't know that was supposed to happen. I knew it might. I always worried about a case failure blowing the gas bac instead of this stuff. My son and his friends like to borrow my 44. I think I'll make some 44 Special ammo for them to shoot. Does a big Freedom Arms gun leak gas like this Smith and Wesson? I don't really want the hassel of a 460 after seeing this. [/i]

Author:	rudy [ Sun May 31, 2009 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:
Traveler wrote: Dick Unger wrote: DeanC wrote: Dick Unger wrote: It's unreasonably dangerous to have that much blast coming out of the side of the gun. All revolvers do that. It's a design necessity. This was a case of user ignorance. I guess everyone who has gotten "railroad tracks" on their thumb from the slide of a semi-auto has a case too? Well I'm not a pistol guy. But I've never heard of an injury like that from sideblast, until the 5000/460. My 44 mag does not do that. Obviously "design necessity" is the company's side of the story. I bet they'll change it or discontinue it. Without a cylinder gap the cylinder would not revolve. If memory serves, the British had a complicated revolver design in which the cylinder advanced forward on firing and mated with a tapered barrel end. If that design would have had merit I assume it would have been copied. It has not. Gas blast from the cylinder gap has been problematic with some calibers and some hot loads for a long time, not just with the .460/.500 magnum selections. Top straps have been cut in the past by hot gasses coming from revolver cylinder gaps, and I believe it possible for bystanders to be hit with some powder residue and gasses if standing too close. In any event, it is just not wise to put one's fingers anywhere ahead of the trigger when firing a revolver. It is also not wise to stand directly next to, or ahead of, anyone firing a firearm You're thinking of the mosin nagant revolver: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagant_M1895 There's a video on youtube of a guy that has a silenced one--only works because of the gas-seal. Pretty neat little revolver.

Author:	Dave Pendleton [ Sun May 31, 2009 7:42 pm ]
Post subject:
See? Guns are dangerous and should be banned.

Author:	Greg [ Sun May 31, 2009 11:08 pm ]
Post subject:
I've got an older, three screw, Ruger Blackhawk in .357, and one in .30 Carbine. The 357 will at least hurt you with the side blast, the .30 Carbine will take a finger right off, and clear people from the shooting positions on both sides of me. If you want a good illustration just take a paper sandwich bag and poke the barrel thru it so the revolver is bagged but open in back where your hand enters. WEAR A GLOVE! Now fire...confetti!

Author:	Selurcspi [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:39 am ]
Post subject:
Dick Unger wrote: DeanC wrote: Dick Unger wrote: It's unreasonably dangerous to have that much blast coming out of the side of the gun. All revolvers do that. It's a design necessity. This was a case of user ignorance. I guess everyone who has gotten "railroad tracks" on their thumb from the slide of a semi-auto has a case too? Well I'm not a pistol guy. But I've never heard of an injury like that from sideblast, until the 5000/460. My 44 mag does not do that. Obviously "design necessity" is the company's side of the story. I bet they'll change it or discontinue it. Dick, 357 and 44 Mags have been causing side blast injuries since their inception. I've seen several first hand and the results of many more days after the event. Hign pressure hot gasses cut the steel of the gun, we should expect them to cut flesh, kind of like we should expect hot coffee to scald us, but that's another story.

Author:	DeanC [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:57 am ]
Post subject:
Maybe if they required the manufacturer to put some gory, bloody pictures on the gun's box at the store people would get the message that shooting revolvers is serious business.

Author:	ironbear [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:22 am ]
Post subject:
Dick Unger wrote: Does a big Freedom Arms gun leak gas like this Smith and Wesson? I don't really want the hassel of a 460 after seeing this. It's not the gun, it's the pressure. The .460 S&W is a magnumized version of the .454 Casull which is itself a magnumized .45 Colt. If I hold my FA up to the light, I can see a gap of several thousandths, through which hot gasses undoubtedly leak during firing. As a side note, I understand that this is why revolvers generally cannot be effectively suppressed. FWIW, I've heard of FAS instructors holding a hot dog up next to the cylinder, during firing, as a fairly graphic example of what could happen to a finger...

Page 2 of 4	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Dick Unger [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:38 pm ]
Post subject:
Greg wrote: I've got an older, three screw, Ruger Blackhawk in .357, and one in .30 Carbine. The 357 will at least hurt you with the side blast, the .30 Carbine will take a finger right off, and clear people from the shooting positions on both sides of me. If you want a good illustration just take a paper sandwich bag and poke the barrel thru it so the revolver is bagged but open in back where your hand enters. WEAR A GLOVE! Now fire...confetti! Well the 460 has even greater presure than either a 357 or a 30 carbine. So I guess that's the reason for these dramatic injuries. No big revolvers for me I guess.