Catastrophic failure in my SA15.7 - A happy ending from Colt Canada

Status
Not open for further replies.
Saryet

Saryet

Regular
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Location
Powell River, BC
So a while ago I had a catastrophic failure on my first round of the day while zeroing in a new optic on my Diemaco SA15.7. The result of that was about 30 rounds later, the two tabs which sit on the upper receiver sheared off and were held in place by the rear take down pin. Anyhow, after my initial shock wore off I packed up my rifle and contacted the retailer which sold me the rifle, Wanstalls. Wanstalls was quick to do their part and got it off to Korth and then onto Colt for investigation. I was in contact with Matt from Colt Canada via PM here and he assured me that they would do a thorough investigation into what happened and get back to me. Yesterday, I received a message that my rifle arrived late and that the engineers would look at it as soon as they could. Today I got another message for me to call Matt back.

When we were finally able to reach one another, Matt told me that the engineers had looked at my rifle today and concluded that the failure was 100% ammunition based but due to the fact they didn't have the actual casing (pics and lot numbers of the ammo in question was provided by me) they wouldn't release the report to me. Legally, it would be very difficult in holding the ammunition company culpable at this point and unlikely they would cover the costs of replacing the damaged components. Without any hesitation on their part at all, Colt Canada agreed they would replace the upper receiver at their cost in order to look after their customer.

I am so thankful that Colt Canada has stepped up to look after me despite the fact they were under no obligation to do so. The rifle didn't fail to any quality control issue but rather to a third party. Matt's communication was spot on throughout and after talking to him on the phone, it's readily apparent that he and the other staff at Colt Canada believe in doing the right thing for the customer, believe in their products, and want to set the standard for the Canadian firearms industry. I am unbelievably grateful for all their efforts and can't wait to have my rifle back soon! Thank you so much!

Now I know the question everyone wants to know is... The ammo I shot was MFS 55 grain. Never. Again. And just to show you why, here are a few pics as a picture says a thousand words, right? f:P:2:





-Saryet, out!-
 
If Colt Canada wasn't at the top of my list already they would move up with that service. And the same goes for MFS at the opposite side of that list. Thanks for sharing
 
wow

They made it right and made it right quick
Good on CC and good on you for waiting before jumping to conclusion when the incident occured.
 
Like I said, it was the first round of the day. After I cleared the casing, I looked the rifle over and saw no other indication of damage although truthfully, I didn't look at the tabs at that point. It fired the rest of the 30 or so rounds and functioned flawlessly. It wasn't until another shooter here asked to shoot it did we find the problem when it failed to go into battery and the two receivers separated in his hands.

-Saryet, out!-
 
As for the ammo itself and why it caused that level of damage, I am not sure. I have fired thousands of rounds over my 15 years in the Army and this was the most violent separation ammo failure I have encountered. Maybe it's the fact that steel doesn't blow out as easy as softer brass and thus the force is more noticeable, I really don't know as that's not my area of expertise. All I know is that it felt very different and it was a b!tch to get the casing out of the chamber.

-Saryet, out!-
 
Bottom line, Colt Canada fixed it.
They are responsible for whatever their report says. They have a right to control that information, and to treat it with respect to the other company involved.
This is how professionals behave.

Glad the shooter is okay, glad Wanstalls lived up to their reputation for helping their customers, and glad that Colt Canada will go the extra bit to help us.
Their dedication to us is quite amazing, and in the short time they have started dealing with the general public, they have made a huge effort to build up trust and respect that other companies have not yet earned in many more years.
We are lucky they are a sponsor and willing to deal with all of us.
 
And that beautifully sums up the point of me starting this thread in the first place - thank you.

Trinimon, it was just the two rear tabs that sheared. Front ones were still intact.

Stoner99, I can post that too if you wish but the image quality isn't so good so I went with the best I had that conveyed the damage done.

-Saryet, out!-



1000yards said:
Bottom line, Colt Canada fixed it.
They are responsible for whatever their report says. They have a right to control that information, and to treat it with respect to the other company involved.
This is how professionals behave.

Glad the shooter is okay, glad Wanstalls lived up to their reputation for helping their customers, and glad that Colt Canada will go the extra bit to help us.
Their dedication to us is quite amazing, and in the short time they have started dealing with the general public, they have made a huge effort to build up trust and respect that other companies have not yet earned in many more years.
We are lucky they are a sponsor and willing to deal with all of us.
Click to expand...
 
Are you indicating that Colt Canada engineers have indicated the upper receiver lugs for the take-down pins both sheared due to faulty ammunition?
Was there any other damage? Did you take other photos?
 
Was the bolt intact and undamaged??? Any signs of stress fractures or deformation on the upper receiver? What about the barrel?

This smells... CC repairs/replaces without hesitation when they apparently indicate it was the ammo that caused it. The only reason a company would do that is because they're trying to redirect attention elsewhere. CC doesn't need to buy brownie points with their fanboys nor do they need the money from the trivial civilian sales. What they are most likely concerned with is bad press which can affect future sales on a larger scale. Just my tinfoil theory, glad they got your squared away but I don't buy the "hot" ammo diagnosis.

TDC
 
TDC,

I didn't find any obvious damage to the bolt, further damage to the upper receiver nor the barrel. In all fairness though, the barrel was covered by a Daniel Defense 9.5 FSP rail system so very little of the barrel is exposed for scrutiny. There may have been additional damage done to the bolt but nothing I could see obviously wrong with it. I didn't bother cleaning the rifle at all or look at it in any greater detail and shipped it exactly as it was to Colt for investigation.

Here are the two clearest pics I can provide of the upper receiver for those interested.





-Saryet, out!-
 
We are happy the shooter was unhurt.

The user reported an unusually loud bang and hard recoil. The case was difficult to extract. The case was steel not brass and did not burst as a standard brass case would have. The barrel and the bolt remained intact and there was no evidence to suggest a barrel obstruction.

The resulting high pressure caused a very energetic opening. The bumper on the rear of the buffer was mushroomed and deformed and the key recoiled hard enough to contact the lower receiver at the top of the extension hole.

All the evidence points to an overcharged cartridge. Similar damage was recreated in the lab supporting this. The upper receiver forging was examined by a metallurgist and there were no flaws or defects. There is no anodizing in the cracked metal to indicate it was cracked prior to delivery. We are satisfied that there was absolutely nothing wrong with this rifle at the time the incident occurred.

The fact that the user was uninjured despite continuing to fire after an abnormal ammunition incident would seem to show that the materials were more than up to the task. The manual does say that if you hear an abnormal sound you should stop firing.

Without having the actual case or having the evidence preserved properly, and with the tendency toward forum members making all the worst assumptions despite lacking any qualifications, we are not able to release a report laying cause on any particular ammunition manufacturer.

We chose to replace the components as a customer satisfaction gesture, despite a complete lack of liability on our part, and not because the rifle was made from pot metal and we were trying to hide a defect. It seems it will be much harder in the future to help out folks since we will also have to defend what we thought was going above and beyond for a customer to the experts on the internet.

Other folks might come to a different conclusion given the above incident. Perhaps they might note that Colt Canada is a world class manufacturer with an excellent reputation for quality and safety and that this is consistent with that. Perhaps they might notice that the consumer was able to contact the manufacture directly, someone was able to listen to their concerns. The equipment was able to be returned directly to the factory without an export license and the manufacturer went to the trouble of setting aside other work to conduct a thorough investigation of an relatively minor incident that in all likely hood had nothing to do with our manufacturing processes.

Some folks love to point out that the Diemaco rifles are expensive. Some folks might think that you get what you pay for.
 
COLT CANADA said:
We are happy the shooter was unhurt.

The user reported an unusually loud bang and hard recoil. The case was difficult to extract. The case was steel not brass and did not burst as a standard brass case would have. The barrel and the bolt remained intact and there was no evidence to suggest a barrel obstruction.

The resulting high pressure caused a very energetic opening. The bumper on the rear of the buffer was mushroomed and deformed and the key recoiled hard enough to contact the lower receiver at the top of the extension hole.

All the evidence points to an overcharged cartridge. Similar damage was recreated in the lab supporting this. The upper receiver forging was examined by a metallurgist and there were no flaws or defects. There is no anodizing in the cracked metal to indicate it was cracked prior to delivery. We are satisfied that there was absolutely nothing wrong with this rifle at the time the incident occurred.

The fact that the user was uninjured despite continuing to fire after an abnormal ammunition incident would seem to show that the materials were more than up to the task. The manual does say that if you hear an abnormal sound you should stop firing.

Without having the actual case or having the evidence preserved properly, and with the tendency toward forum members making all the worst assumptions despite lacking any qualifications, we are not able to release a report laying cause on any particular ammunition manufacturer.

We chose to replace the components as a customer satisfaction gesture, despite a complete lack of liability on our part, and not because the rifle was made from pot metal and we were trying to hide a defect. It seems it will be much harder in the future to help out folks since we will also have to defend what we thought was going above and beyond for a customer to the experts on the internet.

Other folks might come to a different conclusion given the above incident. Perhaps they might note that Colt Canada is a world class manufacturer with an excellent reputation for quality and safety and that this is consistent with that. Perhaps they might notice that the consumer was able to contact the manufacture directly, someone was able to listen to their concerns. The equipment was able to be returned directly to the factory without an export license and the manufacturer went to the trouble of setting aside other work to conduct a thorough investigation of an relatively minor incident that in all likely hood had nothing to do with our manufacturing processes.

Some folks love to point out that the Diemaco rifles are expensive. Some folks might think that you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

You contend that an improperly loaded 223 round detonated with more recoil than an M203 under-barrel mounted grenade launcher, causing a bending failure in an otherwise perfect part? I see.
 
The rear hole does not take any recoil force on an AR as is is oval as opposed to the front hole that is round for fit tolerance on uppers. The carrier impact at the rear imparted a force in a direction the lug was never designed to take. There is no porosity, and the evidence (and there is lots) all points to an ammunition failure. There is no big conspiracy here folks.
 
Last edited:
COLT CANADA said:
We chose to replace the components as a customer satisfaction gesture, despite a complete lack of liability on our part, and not because the rifle was made from pot metal and we were trying to hide a defect. It seems it will be much harder in the future to help out folks since we will also have to defend what we thought was going above and beyond for a customer to the experts on the internet.
Click to expand...

You don't have to defend your actions or your company any more than you have to send me a C8IRU-10.

You helped someone out when you didn't have to, doesn't really need to go beyond that. Don't get sucked down the CGN rabbit hole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom