smokeless powder in a muzzle-loader

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

You 're right on, Savage cannot produce or keep up with the production of their regular firearms, and the "smokeless ML " was tying up their production and cutting into profits, after all the dollar is what counts in business.

---

Savage was faced with a raft of problems with the ML10. I’m sure if you spent time on google you would get a more complete picture.

From memory;

They were battling the BATF because the ML was going to classified as a firearm instead of a ML ;
They were battling poor sales of the ML10-11 (less than 50% of projected sales);
They (Savage and the Ball’s) were facing lawsuits both against them and in defence of allegations from Toby Bridge’s;
There were mounting lawsuits being filed with claims the gun was exploding;

To name a few…

I was always left with the feeling after all the stuff printed on various forums many years ago, that in the end, having to deal with the courts over legal matters was something that Savage just didn’t have the stomach for. I even suspect the Ball’s themselves may have pulled the plug (parden the pun). That in combination of poor sales were the demise of the ML10.

So in a round about way, your right, the ML10 was cutting into the profits, it was going to cost Savage pile of money, so they dropped it from production.

edit add: In the US you can my an ML over the counter at WalMart without an FBI background check...which is required if it's classified as a firearm...that makes a huge difference in sales).

Oh I researched them fully. Toby was dropped by savage and he apparently tried some shenanigans afterward. His letter to savage is posted on line.

I don't believe any of the lawsuits were proven in court. User error every darn time.

I have purchased five in past several years. Last two runs were special runs. Every one I passed on still resides with close friends.

I will go one further and say ratio wise there are a hell of a pile more BP guns that have blown up over the years.

You double load your mz your going to be missing fingers plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Jack

No no that's not why Savage pulled it. They pulled it because producing 6000 mz's doesn't make sense when you can produce 60,000 rifles using the same real estate in the plant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

You 're right on, Savage cannot produce or keep up with the production of their regular firearms, and the "smokeless ML " was tying up their production and cutting into profits, after all the dollar is what counts in business.

---

Yep, same thing I've read, and been told by the local gun shops. Many models are still backordered, and they made a commitment to supply guns for the new .17 cal round developed by Winchester. The 10ML-II apparently accounted for less than 1% of their sales. It wasn't sound business to tie up resources to produce it.

I see Randy Wakeman summarized the decline of the ML10 production in an article...like he says;

Quote:

---

Caught up in a perplexing array of BATF decisions, knee-jerk DNR regs, and needless controversies, our failure to grasp that smokeless powder has always be a black powder substitute, our peculiar fascination with pellets, and perhaps a few cheap shots from jealous competitors, the Savage 10ML series never lived up to a fraction of its sales potential.

---

and he doesn't even touch on any of the lawsuit issues that surrounded the ML10

from: http://www.chuckhawks.com/savage_ceases_10ML.htm

From Randy Wakeman's site.

Testimony to Savage 10ML-II Quality & Strength

Sent: 12/4/2014 7:41:44 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Savage ML II Quality

Mr. Wakeman, I would like to share an incident that happen to me today at the range. What could have been a deadly mistake just turned into embarrassment, hurt pride, a messed up rifle and a lighter wallet. I just thank God no one was injured.
I had taken my Savage 50CAL. ML II gun hunting with me last week. It was loaded with Accurate 5744 powder, 3.4 dipper, 300 gr. Hornady bullet with MMP black sabot. I went to the range today to sight in a few guns and to shoot my muzzleloader. I accidentally double loaded the gun, powder and bullet and when fired the gun kick the S#*t out of me. Not knowing what and why this happened I tried several more shots only to find a gun that would not sight in. The bullet would almost drop down the barrel the last few inches.
I'm writing this to you for two reasons. First please keep reminding your readers to double check, triple check their muzzleloaders for instance such as this. Safety, Safety, Safety. Secondly I feel that with the quality of the Savage barrel that was the only thing keeping me from serious injury or death. Any other gun I feel would have blown up with unthinkable results.
Feel free to use this example for your readers. Just keep my name out of it. I've had enough embarrasment and hurt pride to last a for a long time.

Quote:

---

and he doesn't even touch on any of the lawsuit issues that surrounded the ML10

---

Now how many of these lawsuits have proven it was "operator stupidity or error " ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

Now how many of these lawsuits have proven it was "operator stupidity or error " ???

---

That's the problem...there isn't a Firearm manufacture in North America that is going to court in a "his word against mine" scenario...they have to settle and it gets expensive.

Mike the Savage is proofed to 109,000 psi. You can't blow this thing up unless you do something really, really stupid.

I can blow up your BP gun easier. Not even a close contest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmer

Yep, same thing I've read, and been told by the local gun shops. Many models are still backordered, and they made a commitment to supply guns for the new .17 cal round developed by Winchester. The 10ML-II apparently accounted for less than 1% of their sales. It wasn't sound business to tie up resources to produce it.

---

I toured Savage in Lakefield last year and was told the previous year they did about 65,000 rifles. Current year they were headed for 250,000 and were expanding this year. 95% were being sent to the US. Not sure how they did this calendar year but probably well.

Just like you said, it wasn't sound business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Jack

Mike the Savage is proofed to 109,000 psi. You can't blow this thing up unless you do something really, really stupid.

I can blow up your BP gun easier. Not even a close contest.

---

That's the 2nd post that insinuates that I have written something against the ML10...I never have, I have nothing against it, it was designed by Henry Ball...it's, if anything, over engineered to be the safest ML ever built.

I was only pointing out, as it was the topic of the OP thread, that it was put in the hands of guys who couldn't understand the difference in smokeless and BP and there were similar 'explosions' that were being blamed on the gun and was becoming a legal liability to Savage to fight the mounting allegations.

Jack...as good as it is....it still happens..."



note; if your interested there appears to be some legal progress in one of the lawsuits....interesting it contains some info on other claims ( 10 others before the courts) that were mentioned in this trial;

Quote:

---

Similar incidents. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of allegedly similar incidents involving other 10ML-II rifles, the appellate panel determined. In that regard, the Palatkas had identified two cases in which Savage Arms had been sued by individuals who allegedly sustained personal injuries when their 10ML-IIs exploded during use as well as eight other incidents in which 10ML-II barrels had failed that they had proffered for the purpose of proving that the rifle was defective, that Savage Arms knew that it was defective, and that the manufacturer had failed to warn users of the defect. The trial court excluded the evidence as inadmissible on the basis that: (1) the Palatkas failed to demonstrate that the other incidents were substantially similar to the facts of the instant case; (2) even if the other incidents were similar, the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury, etc.

None of the incidents cited by the Palatkas had been reduced to a judgment, nor had the incidents’ cause been determined, the appellate panel remarked. Furthermore, if the evidence at issue was admitted, mini-trials would have been necessary in order to determine causation. As such, the trial court appropriately reasoned that trying those incidents within the context of the case at bar would have delayed the trial, misled the jury, and directed them away from the dispositive issue in the Palatkas’ case, the appeals court observed, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the allegedly similar incidents.

---

http://www.dailyreportingsuite.com/p...ntiffs_experts