A Las Vegas man says what was supposed to be a high-adrenaline outing at a tourist gun range turned into a real-life horror show when a Soviet-era PPS43 submachine gun allegedly blew in the chamber near his face, leaving him badly hurt. According to a recent court filing, the rental weapon suddenly malfunctioned and a round detonated while he was shooting, causing “significant” injuries and sparking a negligence lawsuit over what he claims was an unreasonably dangerous firearm.
The complaint, filed this month in Clark County, accuses the range operators of failing to keep the gun safe for customers or warn about known risks. The plaintiff is seeking money for medical treatment, rehabilitation, pain and suffering and other losses tied to the blast, arguing the incident shows the weapon was unsafe during ordinary use.
What the complaint says
In a 19-page complaint filed Dec. 11 in Clark County District Court, plaintiff Branden Colston alleges that the PPS43 submachine gun exploded while he was shooting at Machine Guns Vegas on Feb. 14, 2024, and that the chamber blast happened "in close proximity" to his face. The lawsuit names Waikato LLC and The Compound LLC, which do business as Machine Guns Vegas, and accuses them of failing to inspect and maintain the weapon and of not warning customers about the danger, as reported by the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Colston seeks damages including past and future medical expenses, rehabilitation, emotional distress and scarring in excess of $15,000, according to the complaint.
Why exploding guns matter in court
When a firearm catastrophically fails and bursts or explodes while being fired, judges and litigators often see the failure itself as powerful evidence that something was wrong with the product. In product-liability cases, that kind of dramatic malfunction can help keep a lawsuit alive in its early stages.
Legal reporting shows courts have at times allowed claims to proceed even without an immediate expert opinion when a product "does not operate in the manner reasonably expected," a line of authority plaintiff-side lawyers frequently cite in similar fights. That approach matters here because Colston’s complaint leans heavily on the allegation that the PPS43 suddenly and without warning failed during normal, routine use, according to coverage by Courthouse News Service.
Who’s named and what’s at stake
The suit targets Waikato LLC and The Compound LLC, identified as doing business as Machine Guns Vegas, and demands compensatory damages tied to Colston’s injuries and economic losses. He is represented by attorneys from Dimopoulos Injury Law. Court records and the firm’s public materials identify Steve Dimopoulos with the firm and show Sue Trazig Cavaco practicing with the same office.
If Colston convinces a jury that the range provided an unsafe or defectively maintained firearm, the panel could award money for medical care, lost enjoyment of life and other harm laid out in the filing.
About Machine Guns Vegas
Machine Guns Vegas markets itself as a full-service shooting attraction, offering indoor and outdoor packages that let visitors fire a roster of machine guns and high-power rifles under staff supervision. The business lists its location as 3501 Aldebaran Ave in Las Vegas and promotes guided experiences for tourists looking for a weapons-range thrill.
In this lawsuit, the company’s facilities and weapon inventory could come under a microscope, along with any records documenting maintenance or inspections. Those materials are likely to become central evidence if the case moves into the discovery phase.
Next steps in the case
Filed Dec. 11 in Clark County District Court, the lawsuit now heads into the typical civil-court grind. The defendants will have an opportunity to respond to the complaint and may try to knock out some or all of the claims with early motions.
If the case gets past that stage, both sides would likely enter discovery, where lawyers can seek weapon maintenance logs, employee training records and other internal documents that might shed light on whether the PPS43 was defective or improperly serviced. As the litigation moves forward, court dockets and filings will offer the clearest look at how this high-octane tourist outing turned into a legal slugfest.
