Modern VARMINTER .... ?

alberta tactical rifle said:
The problem is that even when the manufacturer is above any legal reproach they get dragged in to a legal action as a matter of course, that is pretty much SOP for lawyers today.

Case in point we got dragged into a legal action a few years ago when a fellow blew his leg off and killed his T.V.. The total exposure that ATRS had was re-blueing a bolt action rifle. ATRS test fired the rifle when it was final assembled after being blued and there was no issue at all until several years later.
ATRS had no part in the victims drinking and drug intake nor did ATRS load the rifle illegally inside the apartment where this occurred. At no point was ATRS ever in the apartment, nor did we supply ammo or point the rifle or force the rifle to be pointed at the victims T.V. while his leg was in the direct path of the bullet. Being as ATRS was never in said apartment it can be concluded that ATRS did not pull the trigger, so could in no way be held responsible for the rifle blowing off the lower leg of the person who was in possession of the rifle at that time or the T.V. that was killed.
Responding EMS and police found various hand tools and ammo scattered around close to the victim, the reason for these tools and assorted ammo remain a mystery to this day. How the rifle came to be in the possession of a person with NO PAL is also still a mystery, but the fact remains the victim was in sole possession of the rifle at the time of the occurrence. The suit was dropped after the victim committed suicide 2 years after the incident.

HOWEVER It still cost ATRS many thousands of dollars defending itself to point out the obvious.
We have to look at many factors before making a decision to do something. In the case of 300 Blackout, we looked deeply into the number of catastrophic failures that have been reported when either guys try and run sub-sonic ammo out of long barreled rifles. We concluded that the incidence was significant enough to NOT offer this.
We have also looked at the failure rate of bolts for the 6.5 Grendel and 7.62x39 and decided we did not want to have the hassle associated with warranty claims given the high incidence of failure that cartridges have in an AR style platform.

It is all well and fine for a huge conglomerate to "walk on the wild side" when it comes to questionable combinations. They have REALLY deep pockets and can easily ward off, or buy out lawsuits, and due to their volume of sales having a few hundred upset customers means nothing, either to them or the client base. A small manufacturer such as we are can not afford the litigation, nor a bad name in the miniscule market Canada has.

This is also part of the reason that only complete and tested rifles or uppers are being sold, as opposed to DIY kits.
Click to expand...

You know what, I like you guys even more now after reading that response.

I'll be adding the Modern Varminter to my "spend bonus money on" list.

Cheers!
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
The problem is that even when the manufacturer is above any legal reproach they get dragged in to a legal action as a matter of course, that is pretty much SOP for lawyers today.

Case in point we got dragged into a legal action a few years ago when a fellow blew his leg off and killed his T.V.. The total exposure that ATRS had was re-blueing a bolt action rifle. ATRS test fired the rifle when it was final assembled after being blued and there was no issue at all until several years later.
ATRS had no part in the victims drinking and drug intake nor did ATRS load the rifle illegally inside the apartment where this occurred. At no point was ATRS ever in the apartment, nor did we supply ammo or point the rifle or force the rifle to be pointed at the victims T.V. while his leg was in the direct path of the bullet. Being as ATRS was never in said apartment it can be concluded that ATRS did not pull the trigger, so could in no way be held responsible for the rifle blowing off the lower leg of the person who was in possession of the rifle at that time or the T.V. that was killed.
Responding EMS and police found various hand tools and ammo scattered around close to the victim, the reason for these tools and assorted ammo remain a mystery to this day. How the rifle came to be in the possession of a person with NO PAL is also still a mystery, but the fact remains the victim was in sole possession of the rifle at the time of the occurrence. The suit was dropped after the victim committed suicide 2 years after the incident.

HOWEVER It still cost ATRS many thousands of dollars defending itself to point out the obvious.
We have to look at many factors before making a decision to do something. In the case of 300 Blackout, we looked deeply into the number of catastrophic failures that have been reported when guys try and run sub-sonic ammo out of long barreled rifles. There "were" several bolt actions being offered, but it seems even they are no longer offered, and the chances of a gas gun failing are mush higher than a bolt gun where ALL the gasses are exhausted out the muzzle.
We concluded that the incidence was significant enough to NOT offer this.
We have also looked at the failure rate of bolts for the 6.5 Grendel and 7.62x39 and decided we did not want to have the hassle associated with warranty claims given the high incidence of failure that cartridges have in an AR style platform.
IF it the AR10 bolt could be employed, it would be better suited to the larger boltfaces these cartridges require,however it is a different platform.

It is all well and fine for a huge conglomerate to "walk on the wild side" when it comes to questionable combinations. They have REALLY deep pockets and can easily ward off, or buy out lawsuits, and due to their volume of sales having a few hundred upset customers means nothing, either to them or the client base. A small manufacturer such as we are can not afford the litigation, nor a bad name in the minuscule market Canada has.

This is also part of the reason that only complete and tested rifles or uppers are being sold, as opposed to DIY kits.
Click to expand...

How was the gun in this case even traced back to having work done at atrs years later when found in illegal possession of someone?
 
Brian46 said:
How was the gun in this case even traced back to having work done at atrs years later when found in illegal possession of someone?
Click to expand...

Simple process of elimination. There are very few rifle makers here that are or were set up for re-blueing. When called and asked if we had ever worked on the rifle described and provided the name of the person who brought it in, I answered honestly.
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
Simple process of elimination. There are very few rifle makers here that are or were set up for re-blueing. When called and asked if we had ever worked on the rifle described and provided the name of the person who brought it in, I answered honestly.
Click to expand...
has to be a lot more to the story, like how someone in illegal possession of the firearm even knew it had any work done years prior by the legal owner at the time.

Unfortunate how our system works, Our legal system is flawed in the fact that anyone at any time can be forced to spend thousands on legal bills in defense of the truth.
 
Brian46 said:
has to be a lot more to the story, like how someone in illegal possession of the firearm even knew it had any work done years prior by the legal owner at the time.

Unfortunate how our system works, Our legal system is flawed in the fact that anyone at any time can be forced to spend thousands on legal bills in defense of the truth.
Click to expand...

It is all public record now if all the details are that important. 1 cannot sue someone without there being court records after all.
Now how bout we get the thread back on track?
 
I'll get it back on track......

I promise to try to never ever be cracked out whilst dismantling my MH in front of the TV when in arrives this summer......

I'll try...

I'll only do that with my 6.5. It was a build from HiPro....!!!

-J.

hahahahahha......
 
Last edited:
Any chance that .204R might be offered as an option on the MV?
Just a simple barrel swap,no?
I'm thinkin fur friendly coyote rig/gopher laser.
 
Last edited:
griffin86 said:
They were having some feeding problems with the 204, I think they should be able to fix the issue . I'm holding out for one as well.
Click to expand...

Feeding issues with the 204 Ruger in an AR platform are well documented as being mag related. Given that everyone HAS TO have a rifle that is Pmag compatible chances are low unless Magpul changes their mag design, which then potentially opens yet another Pandora's box of mag fitment issues.
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
We have to look at many factors before making a decision to do something. In the case of 300 Blackout, we looked deeply into the number of catastrophic failures that have been reported when guys try and run sub-sonic ammo out of long barreled rifles. There "were" several bolt actions being offered, but it seems even they are no longer offered, and the chances of a gas gun failing are mush higher than a bolt gun where ALL the gasses are exhausted out the muzzle.
We concluded that the incidence was significant enough to NOT offer this.
Click to expand...

I can see a couple of ways around this:
You could put a disclaimer to use supersonic 300blk loads only, but we all know disclaimers hardly ever get followed. At least you did your due diligence to cover your ass.

Another option (I recall you offering something in the chambering too, but I could be wrong) is the 6mm-223/6x45mm. 6.8SPC is viable too, as bolts and barrels are readily available.

In a perfect world, we'd all have the option of hunting with an AR platform and the MH and MV rifles would be pointless. A guy could go from a .223 gopher getter to a deer suitable caliber with the swap of an upper. This is the closest thing we'll probably get to it any time soon, so it's obvious that many people want that.
 
Gunneegoogoo said:
Doesn't seem ATRS is into "getting around" things....

-J.
Click to expand...

Any "disclaimer" is not worth the paper it is written on. As we have seen, a good lawyer can even make O.J. Simpson walk a free man. Therefore I place no faith at all in a disclaimer, and it still won't prevent getting dragged into court when stupid happens. There are plenty of precedents even just locally of bullet proof disclaimers and contracts being defeated when stupid rears its ugly head and good council is hired.

Unfortunately we have to not only protect ourselves but the public from themselves in many cases. just because something is possible to do does not always make it a good idea to offer.
To offer up a bunch on potentially disastrous options that are either a poor plan to start with or known to have problems is simply setting us up for problems we don't need or can afford.
Our aspirations are to A) be around for a long time, B) produce a great product, C) offer rifles that are innovative and made for the Canadian market
and , D do this in a safe and responsible manner.
 
It seems my comment was taken the wrong way. To clarify, my sentiment was exactly what Rick just said. That was clear to me before the explanation, and I was responding to Grizz's post above suggesting way to "get around" the potential litigiousness of a retard.

-J.
 
I keep going back and forth on MV one day I'm in the next I'm out just wishing ther wear uppers in 7.62x39 and 450 bushmaster as well it would make my decision a lot easier
The modern Hunter was an easy decision with 4 or 5 different uppers available for it.
I am extremely happy with the modern Hunter and will be placing another order in soon for a third upper
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom