Removing WARNING LABELS off a firearm

[Rustystud]

Recently I had conversations with two reputable gunsmiths about the WARNING label on the new Savage Target actions. One smith said when he received his first new Savage Target action with the WARNING label and red trigger, he packed it up and returned it to the customer. He said he did not need any other new headaches. The second smith said he was not going to work on a factory product that the manufacture has indicated it was unsafe from the factory.

I have received my first Savage Target action with the WARNING label. The gun does have a very light trigger, The Accutrigger safety device did prevent ADs when the sear was tripped with out the trigger being pulled.

Yesterday, while reading the post on LongRange.com under the F-Class Forum, Topic Stocks for Savages, post #11 has a picture of a new Savage Target action polished up. The Manufactures etched Warning label has been removed. I questioned the legality, and common sense of the Warning label removal. I will agree that the Warning label is an eye sore. Was it a neccessary thing for Savage to do?

I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Paul,chief moderator) you are a gun friendly lawyer please chime in with your wisdom.

Rustystud

 

[Forum Boss]

The warning label exists as an effort by Savage to block potential liability for accidental discharges. You can't blame Savage entirely for the eyesore. Tort law imposes certain duties to warn consumers of potentially dangerous conditions.

Is there a problem with removing the warning? Potentially yes. Virtually all manufacturers have a clause in their express warranties which says that the warranty will be disavowed if the product is changed or modified. Tort law supports this and you can see why. If someone has a 100hp Toyota motor and then bolts on a Roots Supercharger, and runs it with 20lbs of boost and nitro and it blows up, surely Toyota shouldn't be liable for the ensueing damages. On the other hand if someone merely painted the camshaft cover and the engine blew up--that would be a different story.

A manufacturer's ability to "duck" warranty coverage turns on the issue of "substantial or material modification." In the case of the Savage, I don't think removing a warning label constitutes material modification. On the other hand if the original owner,who removed the warning) then sold the gun to an unsuspecting second buyer who has an AD, it would be an interesting situation.

The important thing to remember however, is that, if you DO have a problem with the action, and you send your action back to Savage to be fixed and they see an action with no warning label, they could simply say--"Sorry, no deal. You've modified our product and voided the warranty." Savage could also,probably rightfully) say, we can't ship this back to you because our lawyers won't let us send it out without the warning.

For example, if you have a nice trigger job on your Ruger and you send it back for repair, trust me, Ruger WILL remove all the modified pieces,including your nice stoned sear), and send you back a box-stock gun.

Recommendation--leave the warning alone, if you want to be sure that you can avail yourself of Savage's warranty coverage.

 

[Rustystud]

Paul:

Thank you for your quick input. I was thinking along your same lines. I also think the government could say in the case of a resale the second unknowing buyer that has an AD, this could be construed a mislabeled product. Putting liability on the person or company that removed and/or the person who sold the action with the warning label removed. It will be interesting to see if this issue causes Savage to remove these actions and triggers from the market.

Bottom line I dont think any insurer or manufacture would condone the removal of a warning label.

I would assume Savage is self insured for the first million dollars. There is only one firearms insurer in the United States. Most distributors and retailors will not carry a product with a manufactures liability insurance coverage. I would suspect there will be a forth coming corporate policy coming out about these actions and the warning label.

Rustystud

 

[Spotcheck_Billy]

I don't see what the big deal is. Many firearms have carried warning labels for years. I've never met a gunsmith who refused to rebarrel a Ruger, or a Remington for that matter, because the factory had a warning label on the barrel.

There is no law against removing the warning on firearms. Please don't provide our wonderful lawmakers with something else to think about

I've been told that stamp collecting is a very safe avocation!

 

[Rustystud]

SpotcheckBilly:

You obviously are not in the gun manufacturting or repair business. The lawyers and legislators are already at the door step. I agree we certainly don't need to give them another feeding frenzy. Our great Moderator at this fine web site is a gun friendly lawyer. Now isn't that an oximoron. Personally I think Savage opened some doors to the lawyers and legislators by putting the Warning labels on these new actions. I think this may force other manufactures to follow their lead.

Rustystud

 

[Spotcheck_Billy]

Oh heavens!

Mea culpa, mea culpa, maxima culpa

I'm guilty of removing many Remington and Ruger barrels that had warning labels roll-stamped on them as delivered from the factory and replacing them with plain ol' barrels that didn't have a thing stamped on them to show what a hazard they are!

And to think of the countless number of J-locks that I've removed!

In all seriousness, perhaps the warning label was what Savage's legal department thought it had to do when it realesed a rifle,and an action) for sale to the consumer that featured an 8oz. trigger. I think that Savage is to be applauded for having the fortitude to make these actions available. Do you feel that they're cutting into your business by doing so?

I really don't believe that the sky is falling, and I'm positive that there are plenty of more than competent gunsmiths who are very willing to work on these products. If a 'smith takes offense to the warning label he should do what he feels is right and refuse to work on them. I have a feeling that he won't be missed.

 

[mikecr]

who would have an action WITH an ugly 'Warning' on it?
If it's yours, it's yours to do as you wish.

 

[Spotcheck_Billy]

who would have an action WITH an ugly 'Warning' on it?
If it's yours, it's yours to do as you wish.

You're absolutely right, it's yours to do as you wish. But to answer your question, I'd wager that at least 90% of the rifles and actions sold with this warning just get used as-is. Personally, if I was building a rifle from scratch with one of these new Savage Target actions as a base I would have the warning machined off and the metal refinished. If I purchase one of the F-TR or F-Open complete rifles I'd probably leave the warning alone. It's just not worth the bother.

Don't get me wrong, I hate this warning as much as anybody does but I seriously doubt whether the presense of the warning will stop the majority of prospective buyers from spending their money.

I remember the stink that some people made when they first saw the warning stamped on Ruger barrels. It didn't seem to stop their sales, did it?

I think that Shakespeare had the right idea to begin with

,just kidding Paul)

 

[tenring]

If you remove the warning and that action blows up in your face, will you sue Savage? Savage will, of course, contend that it was there when the firearm left the plant, and its removal negates their liability. Your eventual recovery hinges on whether the cause of the mishap is material to the warning. That is a jury question. Jurors love to "stick it" to big pocket manufacturers. Prior to retirement, I spent 22 years investigating product liability claims lodged against multi million dollar corporations. Most of my clients believe it is cheaper to settle quickly than risk opening the purse to a jury. The warning is a PYA.

 

[Spotcheck_Billy]

If you remove the warning and that action blows up in your face, will you sue Savage? Savage will, of course, contend that it was there when the firearm left the plant, and its removal negates their liability. Your eventual recovery hinges on whether the cause of the mishap is material to the warning. That is a jury question. Jurors love to "stick it" to big pocket manufacturers. Prior to retirement, I spent 22 years investigating product liability claims lodged against multi million dollar corporations. Most of my clients believe it is cheaper to settle quickly than risk opening the purse to a jury. The warning is a PYA.

If the action "blows up in your face" what in the world does that have to do with whether or not the warning is present on the side of the action? Aren't we going a bit too far by attempting to speculate about what might or might not happen in a situation that hasn't even taken place?

The warning stamped on the new target actions has nothing to do with blowing up the action. It was placed there to warn inexperienced shooters about the unusually light trigger pull for a production action/rifle in an attempt to ward off liability from a negligent discharge. Yes, the same liability that Remington has been sued for over and over again. Without any warning stamped on their actions!

 

[RickB]

Manufacturers are attempting to discourage product liability litigation in the first place by the warnings very that are required to successfully defend the litigation. In the case of a product which is, itself, marked rather than one which merely has tags and so on shipped with it, the manufacturer is also attempting to convey the warnings to subsequent purchasers/users.

In addition to the traditional product liability theories,defective product or "dangerous product" for example) there have been attempts to hold manufacturers responsible under a "negligent marketing" theory...and hence even more warnings when dealing with a specialized product such as this.

A certain manufacturer we all know maintained a trigger and its safety were "safe" for many decades when, as Little Abner would have said, "any fool can plainly see" that it was not. They won some cases and lost others and never bothered to improve the product even though they knew it would continue to generate litigation. The shame of it is that the original design was an after the fact modification of the design to avoid a royalty payment because of a patent issue that would have, undoubtedly, been cheaper than keeping a string of attorneys and expert witnesses occupied.

Yea, it is unsightly, but....

 

[cpttango30]

The first thing I did to my remington was to remove the bold shroud with that stupid Jlock on it. I lost the lock and did not feel like ordering new ones. So i spent the money on a new firing pen and bolt shroud that does not have them. I did not expect it to do anything other than remove the j-lock but it improved my trigger pull and the break is not clean and crisp where it was rough and felt like it had rocks in it from the factory. The next thing I am going to do is install a 2 to 8oz trigger on her.

As for warning I think they are stupid. But many people out there have more abality than they have brains. Too many people out there screw up and hurt themselves then sue someone else for their stupidity,remember the McDonalds lady) or,People suing ford because they did not know how to properley inflate tires on their SUV's) untill we rid the earth of people like that we are all goign to have to live with warning lables on just about everything.

 

[tripcrow]

I thought it was hypocritical that Savage sticks that big warning label on my LRPV,why not call it LRPRifle) action while they’re enticing me, with their fast twists, to shoot big target bullets instead of varmint bullets at the groundhogs in the fields of PA.

 

[JER]

Personally I think Savage opened some doors to the lawyers and legislators by putting the Warning labels on these new actions. I think this may force other manufactures to follow their lead.

Ruger's being printing books full of dire warnings on their guns for years and I have yet to see their practice become an industry standard.

What Savage has done is just a lawyer-dictated CYA.

There are no repercussions, real or imagined, from removing the "warnings".