S.E.S. Educate me Please [Archive]

ejjuls

12-13-2005, 01:59 AM

After seeing the question come up again - I have not shared this with many people - but it happened to me one year ago with a Carcano rifle. The load was IMR4831 @ 35.1 grns, Hornady 0.268 160" grn Jacketed round nose, CCI large rifle primer, OAL at Recommended 2.90" OAL, Cases at TTL 2.055" - brand new brass.

This was the previous owners favorite load in the gun - I duplicated what had been the firearms main diet. I fired 12 rounds with no ill effect what so ever. I was having fun and enjoying my new little rifle. Then the 13th round let everything go....literally.

There was a "whump" sound to the report - everything went black and I couldn't see. I felt the blast to my face and covered my face and threw the piece of stock I was left holding to the ground. To make a long gruesome story short and sweet - I am still alive with a face full of shrapnel still, and a new lens in my right eye. My synthetic lens does not focus closer than 4 feet - so now I cannot use open sights. I have a BB sized hole through my cornea (which is now scar tissue), iris and into the main "cavity of my eye" you can literally look at my retina. This causes me great problems when lights shine through the opening and blur my vision and causes double, shadowing images.

The firearm didn't fair very well either - the stock is in two pieces and the magazine well is shaped like a football - oval instead of rectangular. The bolt is bent and had to be beat to get it to open. The reciever is bent from the torque from the bolt and the gas dump. The extractor disintergrated. The bullet left the barrel too, which I found odd. Below is a picture of the rifle - hopefully I can get a picture in this post (my first time so bear with me)

The rifle was examined by two gunsmiths I trust - final conclusion is as follows:
1. Excessive headspace
2. Long military throat
3. Slow powder
The primary theory is a SEE event - baring me accidentally slipping Bullseye in the case instead of IMR 4831 (which I didn't do). The other theory was a kernel of tumbling media caught in the case slowing powder ignition by blocking the flash hole or by interfereing with the primer. Neither gunsmith could say for sure. I still have the gun too - I use it as s safety reminder.
I learned a lot of hard lessons that day. Never take anything for granted - always cast the chambers of unfamiliar guns - etc. the list goes on, and on.

All in all - never never never shoot any firearm without shooting glasses. This is my painful lesson. I was told by the surgeon who put me back together that the force of the blast was so great that if I were wearing "cheap" glasses the damage would have been more severe. I now where Wiley-X ballistic eyewear nearly 24/7 no matter what I do (they turn into sunglasses, shooting glasses and clear safety glasses by switching lenses) If they are good enough for the military - then they are good enough for me.

Hope this helps someone out there -
Losing your eyes is not worth the risk - no matter what, PERIOD.
Eric

BruceB

12-13-2005, 03:07 AM

Gents;

ejjuls' post convinced me that, for the sake of others who haven't read of the event which happened to my wife, describing it once again might be as educational as his experience.

She was hunting moose just south of Great Slave Lake back in the 1970s, and I was not right on the scene due to moving off to hunt another area nearby.

Her rifle was a Browning Safari-Grade Mauser in 7mm Remington Magnum, the brass was once-fired in that rifle, the projectile was the Bitterroot 175 bullet, loaded ahead of 66 grains of OLD H4831 with every charge individually weighed. This was our standard load, which had been fired in that rifle many times.

On spooking a bull at about 70 yards, she fired one round which was a fatal hit through the chest area, but did not put him down. She fired a second round and the rifle came apart, even worse than ejjuls' Carcano. The floorplate, mag follower and spring were gone. The extractor was gone. The bolt release was gone. The sides of the magazine box came out through both sides of the stock, bent out to at least 45 degrees. The locking plunger on the bolt sleeve, at the BACK of the bolt, was driven back into its hole and the hole crushed shut in front of it. The entire steel sleeve was also visibly distorted. The boltface counter bore was grossly expanded, and the cartridge headstamp was clearly imprinted on the bolt face. The ENTIRE casehead had melted and the inside of the bolt, the inside of the receiver, and the underside of the scope and forward face of the rear scope ring were entirely brass-plated.

The main locking lugs had set back into the receiver ring almost 1/8", and the third, or "safety" lug in the bottom of the action, was bearing HARD in its recess, where normally there is no contact at all.

The bullet was found in the barrel, only three or four inches ahead of the chamber. The fired case exhibited a VERY large collapsed area, a good half the length of the case, which clearly showed that a very low-pressure situation had existed before the charge blew out the back.

It seemed apparent that a hangfire had occurred, allowing the bullet to stop in the bore and collapsing the case, and then the HIGH pressure existed both inside and outside the case wall to preserve that huge dent in the case.

The classic condition for S.E.E. is a reduced load of slow-burning powder. When the bullet stopped, it created that exact situation, because the remaining 4831 WAS a "greatly-reduced load" for the ENLARGED VOLUME then existing behind the bullet.

Karen sustained a sprained left wrist with very serious cuts which nearly opened the artery in that area. Two broken fingers on the left hand were due to the magazine bursting through the sides of the stock where she was gripping it. Praise be, she was wearing glasses, which were deeply pitted and crazed but did not break. She had dozens of small pieces of brass and steel in her face, some of which were still working their way out even ten years later. Without the glasses......I refer you to ejjuls' description.

Being the trouper she is, and in spite of having only one useable hand, she drew a Super Blackhawk and dropped the moose with two neck hits at 65 yards...with CAST boolits. Fortunately, a friend made an unscheduled stop with a helicopter only a few minutes later and flew her directly to the Hay River hospital's parking lot/helipad.

Opening the bolt required a 4-foot length of pipe and a massive bench vise. The way the Mauser contained this disaster was educational and impressive to me. The power contained in less than 1/100th of a pound of smokeless powder was also pretty obvious....

BABore

12-13-2005, 10:19 AM

Well, I got one that maybe you guys can explain. I've only been casting for 6-8 months. Been reloading for twenty some years. The gun was/is a Marlin 1895 450 Marlin Guide Gun. It had probably 1,500 to 2,000 rounds of both jacketed and commercial cast through it. Most all loads were high end H322 loadings. Probably 50-75 rounds were above the rated pressure limit by 5,000 to 8,000 psi. I know this now from a commercial reloader that had the same loads pressure tested. This was all prior to my own cast bullets.

I started with a Lyman 457643 mould. Cast from WW's it was dropping at 420 grains. In my initial exhuberance I casted up a whole potfull of bullets and went about load developement. I was looking for a 1,000 to 1,500 fps plinking load. All bullets were AC and had 2 coats of Alox with MM dusting. My first loads were taken from the Lyman cast book and one from Greg Mushial's data that he developed with Lazer Cast at gmdr.com. The Lyman loads suggested a dacron filler which I did not use. These are the loads;

12.0 grs WW231 (Gmdr.com)
20.0-23.0 grs 2400 (Lyman)
30.0-33.0 grs H4198 (Lyman)
23.0-24.0 grs SR4759 (Lyman)
47.0-48.0 grs H322 (Hodgdon)

All loads used CCI 200 primers. Powder charges were weighed and flashlite inspected. Three to five rounds were loaded at each charge level. All cases were expanded with a Lyman M die and bullets were crimped with a Lee FC die. In total I probably had 75 rounds loaded up. Over half of these were the 12.0 grs of WW231. I've shot a bunch of these in the past, so it wasn't really a workup load, just used my own bullet.

As I started trying out these loads I noticed so-so accuracy and a bunch of leading. I kept brushing out the barrel and trying the next load. I finally gave up. Of the 75 rounds, I probably had 50 left to fire. All of the loads that I had fired were powder puffers. Not even a hint of pressure. The H322 load, while warm, were well under. These were all fired. I went home and finally did some measuring (duh). My bullets were a thousandth under bore diameter. Well I bagged all of the WW231 loads seperately and took all of the others and put them into one bag. I planned to pull the bullets. I ended up tearing the guts out of my inertia hammer without pulling a single bullet. I figured I could just fire them off to salvage my brass, leading or not.

I ended up lapping then Beagling my mold to get a nice round 0.460" bullet that was 0.0015" over bore. I again loaded up some rounds, but only the WW231, 2400, and SR4759 ones. These new loads were all fired with better accuracy and less leading.

Now comes the problem part (finally). I had the two bags of undersized bullet loads to fire off. The first bag, all 12.0 grs of WW231, were shot up. Maybe 20-25 rounds. They were leading big time so I cleaned every 10 shots. I then went on to the bag of mixed loads with a clean barrel. I fired another 10 shots and cleaned. Fired 5 more and checked the barrel. There was some buildup, but I've seen worse. I loaded a full magazine, chambered a round, lowered the hammer, and handed the gun to my shooting buddy.

His first round felt normal, sounded normal, and hit the target at 75 yards. The action was locked up tight and showed a few thousandths of protrusion from the frame at the rear. We tried everything to get it open without gun damage. I finally took it to the Smithy. After a strip down he couldn't remove the locking bolt either. I finally had to machine a custom pulling tool to remove the locking bolt.

The bolt recess and locking bolt showed 0.002 to 0.003" of setback. When we removed the case it showed a wee bit of excessive flow and expansion. The rim and belt were 0.060 to 0.080 larger in diameter and you could fit a 209 in the primer hole. He sent the barreled action home with me for a good cleaning. A couple passes with a brush and 4-5 patches and it was clean. That's when I noticed a shadow in the chamber. The smith confirmed this when I returned with the gun. I later checked out some older fired brass for any bulging. I found a few cases that matched the chamber bulge. I know these were fired prior to using my own cast bullets, but don't know how long before.

This same little saga went to my buddy the commercial loader. He sent it on to the lab guys at Hodgdon's. They reported back that none of the data suggested that I would get the results that I did. They therorized that the chamber bulge may have been preexisting and could have contributed. I'm not so sure of that.

As I stated at the beginning, I checked each weighed charge with a light. I'm not so green to say missing one is impossible though. I keep coming back to the lack of recoil or anything to suggest that the grenade round was excessive. Did a lead build up, in the throat area, cause SEE. I don't know, but sure as hell would.

I ended up getting Marlin to rebarrel the gun for under $120, so I'm back in business. To date I've lapped the barrel and only fired jacketed bullets in it. I will soon be loading up some of the same 457643's of the correct size. I'm planning to use SR4759 and RL7 to start with. Still a bit gun shy.

felix

12-13-2005, 10:43 AM

Maybe, maybe not. My speculation has it that the boolit was slowed down too much at the leaded section, and the powder changed burning speeds at that moment causing a combined wave action. The mistake you made here, was not paying attention to the various boolit speeds. You can't tell much about ES when you are shooting a mixed bag of ammo. Best to have a chrono to check what is happening after each shot. Perhaps, and only perhaps, you could have detected various points of impact while shooting only ONE load until no more ammo of that load. ... felix

BABore

12-13-2005, 11:17 AM

Felix,

That's pretty much what I do when working up a load. Remember these last loads I fired were just to reclaim the brass. I had already benched these loads before discovering I was shooting undersized bullets. They were all low end starting or just above loads. Based on the loading data, I knew I was in the 45/70 trapdoor range with all of the remaining rounds. The hotter ones had already been fired in a previous outing. The only thing I was concerned about was getting the bullets out of the cases. I was keeping an eye on the leading and cleaning every 10 rounds or so.

I pretty much came to the same conclusion as you in regards to the lead buildup causing a spike. So far your the only one that says that.

All of this also brings up another question of sorts. Using an inertia hammer, I have been able to pull all jacketed and commercial GC hardcast from my 450 Marlin cases. They were all crimped with a Lee FC die. Since I started using my own cast, I also got the Lyman M die. After I tore the guts from my original hammer, I got a RCBS inertia hammer with magnum collet. I ended up pulling 7 bullets with the RCBS before the hammer end went airborne. Each loaded round took 7-8 killer whacks on concrete. Do you think this is a problem or contributing factor? I discussed this with RCBS's cast bullet guy, Larry. He said that they may indeed be almost impoosible to remove when processed this way. Is there such a thing as too much bullet pull? They seemed to seat fine after expansion with the M die.

felix

12-13-2005, 11:47 AM

StarMetal

12-13-2005, 12:37 PM

As far as too much bullet pull I believe once the powder gets going it expands the neck pretty fast. I think for the first micro second the powder lights off is the only benifical time of a crimp or bullet pull so I doubt they were too tight. Look at some of the military rounds, crimped and sealed. The old ones were sealed with an asphalt. That's alot of pull.

Joe

44man

12-13-2005, 12:45 PM

It seems we are getting more information here about a stopped or slowed down bullet causing the problem!
Felix, you did not state what caliber you were shooting the 311291 boolit from or how soft the boolit was, with the 322 load. Was it just too hot? 322 can peak very fast with a small overcharge. This can be due to the individaul guns chamber dimensions and I would have backed off on that load. Doesn't sound at all like SEE. The first indication of SEE ( short of blowing the rifle) is that the primer pocket will be expanded very large and the primer will not even be found in some cases.
You did not say what condition the brass was in and I suspect it was OK after sizing. There is quite a difference in too hot of a load and SEE.
The case that killed the lady was not due to SEE but impact on the powder that set it off with the bolt open. She was walking behind the rifle, not in front of it. The case was blown from the rear and killed her. A clue that maybe powder should not be pounded on!
I respect you very much Felix, and really like you. But I have to stand by the bullet stopping theory. No one has been able to explain the problem but this makes the most sense.
Please give us more information on your load, caliber and gun.
A hot load with hard extraction is no where near as dangerous as too light a load of slow powder and SEE.

StarMetal

12-13-2005, 01:03 PM

That case where the woman was killed, where did or are you reading that at?I suppose they investigate whether or the firing pin slipped and set the round off. Most guns have a safety to keep the firing pin from doing this such as the 98 Mauser wedge shaped striker that doesn't match up to it corresponding hole until the bolt is fullly closed. I'd like to read about thin.

Joe

BABore

12-13-2005, 01:15 PM

BAB, too much boolit pull? Not likely, but that much boolit pull you have been getting with that factory crimper die is not warrented. It won't hurt condom boolits because they are considerably harder and therefore resist the "extra" punch that would be given to real boolits. ... felix

I guess I should reclarify. I am not getting the increased bullet pull from the Lee FC die. I stated that I have always used it. The bullets started pulling hard, or not at all, after I started using the Lyman M expander die.

Back onto SEE. It sounds like what happened with my Marlin. A lower end load that went wild, possibily due to the leading stopping or slowing the bullet. After we got the bolt out, the biggest piece of primer that I found was a piece of anvil petal. The rest appeared to have vaporized.

felix

12-13-2005, 01:23 PM

Sorry, 44mag. The cartridge was 308W unmodified, which is as you know a 50 grain case. So, the charge was circa 50 percent. ... felix

felix

12-13-2005, 01:26 PM

A SEE is a SEE by any means necessary to cause a wild explosion. ... felix

felix

12-13-2005, 02:21 PM

Joe, the primer was unfired. The case was the projectile. The case penetrated the woman's chest, and she died in the hospital. Don't know if it was a heart shot or not. Yes, bolt was unlocked, having been cranked, but the bolt was still intact together with the cartridge in the chamber. Vibrations set off the powder, and that is no doubt. ... felix

Wrong... the bolt was extracted off of the case by brute force, but the case remained intact, when the round fired via the ramrod. The wife was holding the gun on the bags. ... felix

StarMetal

12-13-2005, 03:14 PM

I know from FBI information on bomb making that smokeless powder can be pounded into a solid mass and not explode. They detailed this in a bomb a mad bomber made. The un-nerving part is where this bomber took primers apart to get the explosive mixture to fill a ball point pen up for the detonator. That sir takes some balls.

Joe

swheeler

12-13-2005, 03:50 PM

"Keep away from heat, sparks, or open flame.Avoid impact and friction." This comes right off the front of a can of Hercules 2400. Impact constitutes pounding for me!

StarMetal

12-13-2005, 04:10 PM

The bomber the FBI were discussing pounded Red Dot into a solid. Impact can be interpreted in different ways. I bullet's impact is much different then a hammer's impact unless you can wield a hammer at say 2500 fps. I can see a bullet impacting a drum of powder and maybe, maybe lighting it off and I'd say from friction.

Joe

Char-Gar

12-13-2005, 04:18 PM

Hooh Boy! The SEE again..when we get tired of fillers, SEE is always good for a round or two.

SEE has been around for generations and is a well known things among the artillery folks. Among the rifle crowd there seems to be several schools of thought and some science and some guess work to back each up.

Me? I hold to the slowed or stoped bullet school of thought.

StarMetal

12-13-2005, 05:05 PM

How about you're using a real slow powder and a very small amount so there's lot of space left in the case. Primer goes off, starts the powder burning, but not good, the bullet moves out to the barrel and stops cause there's not enough pressure yet, then the powder really takes off, instand pressure, stuck bullet...BOOM.

Joe

Bass Ackward

12-13-2005, 06:01 PM

There is a .... certain amount of risk each and every time you pull a trigger. We accept that risk. It can be argued that weaker older arms or weaker action designs could be more vulnerable. And any responsible person .... should monitor this closely.

I would think that I am particularly vulnerable because I use pistol primers for everything. Yet, I have never experienced the early warning click / bang using slow powders. I know, there is always the first time. And this is something I try to monitor closely. This is the risk I accept.

StarMetal

12-13-2005, 06:48 PM

Although the fellow got hurt with that Carcano letting go, the rifle wasn't nearly destroyed as bad as I thought before looking at the picture. Darn that Springfield Buckshot blew up came apart alot work in my opinion. Boy and how the Carcano has been badmouthed all it's life. I don't think it's that bad of a rifle, this blow up shows it stayed together.

Joe

ejjuls

12-14-2005, 10:35 AM

Guys I have to run to work - so this is gonna' be quick.
I haven't read all of the posts yet - just skimmed through.
From my knowledge - SEE is most liekly going to happen from a "obstructed bore" condition or the detonation from a pressure wave - i.i "shape charge explosion".
This is the theorys I have run into so far...right or wrong I don't know.
My incident is most likely the bullet obstruction scenario in my opinion. Others have concluded the same thing after examining the gun and hearing my story.

What is odd to me is the bullet actually left the bbl. Maybe this isn't all that weird - but I thought it was.

Yes the gun held together - quite adequately. Gas handling characteristics of a firearm is the most important factor to safety (besides overall design safety - mechanical, etc.) in my opinion anymore.

The Carcano lacks adequate gas handling - thus my injuries are what they are rather than likely lessoned if I were firing a Mauser or other type.

My opinion with Carcano rifles - not worth messing with. I say that due to many factors about the guns - I can go into great detail later. The design in my opinion is poor on the safety end of it. Innovative on others....

Later
Eric

44man

12-16-2005, 09:30 AM

Felix, it just might be that there are several totally different conditions that cause SEE but most seem centered around a light load of slow powder.
I looked up the load you used in the .308 and it appears as though you DID have a very light load of a relatively slow powder. What I mean by relative is that with the size of the case and the very small amount of powder for the burn rate of 322, you just may have set yourself up for SEE. Since the starting load of 322 with that weight of a boolit is 36 grs and you only loaded 25 if I remember without looking back, the conditions were ripe. I would predict that increasing the charge to near 36 grs would have solved the problem.
I would be leery of using too little of any powder, even in the center of the burn rate chart or lower if the case is too large for the powder amount until the point is reached where all the powder is consumed instantly without reaching an over pressure condition. No one can predict at what point SEE goes away or what powder will cause it or what case you should NOT load light charges of certain powders in.
This is why it is much safer to go no lower then starting loads in the manual, even with cast boolits.

felix

12-16-2005, 10:45 AM

Verrrrry true, my friend. I shot that load back in the late 70's when I was learning about things like this. ... felix

454PB

12-16-2005, 04:15 PM

BABore:
Many years ago I was experimenting with light loads of pistol powders in a Marlin 1895 45/70. Unique was the one I worked with the most, and I learned early on that accuracy and uniformity were enhanced by holding the rifle vertically just before the shot to settle the small charge of powder against the rear of the case. I then decided to use cardboard wads to hold the powder charge against the primer. For the most part, it worked well, but I had several incidents where the action was extremely hard to open. I figured out that this method of holding the powder near the primer was dangerous, and I'm lucky that I never ringed the barrel. I began using Kapok as a filler and quit using any cardboard wads.

I wonder if you may have experienced a similar problem.....the small charges of powder lying flat inside the case, and the flame front from the primer ignition passing over the top. There would be enough force to push the bullet into the rifling, then a full ignition of the main powder charge. Not only inconsistent ignition, but maybe a minor case of S.E.E.?

felix

12-16-2005, 05:40 PM

454PB, you got yourself into the SEE trouble. ... felix

Bass Ackward

12-16-2005, 07:14 PM

<<There would be enough force to push the bullet into the rifling, then a full ignition of the main powder charge. Not only inconsistent ignition, but maybe a minor case of S.E.E.?>>

Yes .... Sir ....ee. We get into trouble with small case loads not considering double charges.

So ......... I recommend using pistol primers and full cases of powder. Thus shooting boolits like ya mean it. This way the pistol primers don't move the bullet, the powder charge burning does. No SEE. No double charges.

Remember, if you ain't crammin, you ain't jammin. :grin: (Saw that on TV.)

44man

12-17-2005, 10:43 AM

Bass, I like your way of thinking!

454PB

12-17-2005, 03:18 PM

Yes, felix, that's what I was trying to pass along and save anyone else from the same mistakes.

David R

12-17-2005, 04:47 PM

I understand it a whole lot better.

Thank You

PatMarlin

12-21-2005, 01:22 PM

I'm reading very carefully, and appreciate all this. My heart goes out to the people who have had accidents. This is certainly what we all want to avoid.

Light loads and fast powders- what the heeeeek?... Lyman cast book is full of em'.

The only time I've had a scary situation was with 45grs of 4831 with a 311284 in my 3006. Primers started to back out. Now this bullet cast at .309 and my bore slugs at .312

I moved up in a few grs and used the Fat-30 sized at .313, and the primer still backed out, with horrible accuracy.

I'm bout ready to burn up my can of IMR 4831.. :groner:

StarMetal

12-21-2005, 06:16 PM

Until a very professional well educated with a super staff scienticfic company nails exactly what causes all these phenominon events, we can only speculate what we think it is.

Joe

felix

12-21-2005, 06:29 PM

Even these folks will speculate as well, Joe. I am sure they can manipulate the conditions correctly for some SEE condition given enough incentive, but I bet the results will not shed any new light. We have been there and done that too many times when considering all of us on the board. ... felix

45 2.1

12-21-2005, 08:02 PM

In other publications, specifically those having to do with black powder cartridge rifles, there has been much discussion on SEE and the wave theory behind it. There have also been letter writers with military backgrounds that state that the military knows what causes it, but is classified information due to one being able on demand to take a common material that is a propellant and turn it into a explosive material.

StarMetal

12-21-2005, 08:09 PM

Well shat (southern for poop), I'd say most of us know how you make a Red Dot pipe/nail bomb. The military must thing we're stupid.

Joe

45 2.1

12-21-2005, 08:13 PM

A cartridge partly full of powder don't blow up rifles, USUALLY!!!!! Big difference between that and what Joe just said.

rockrat

12-21-2005, 10:49 PM

Had the same thing happen to me(SEE) in an almost new M29 Sihlouette S&W using AA#9. Too light a load. Good thing I was shooting offhand instead of at a match the next day(shoot dead frog position). Took the top half of the cylinder off and bent the remaining top strap about 90 degrees upward. Never found the cylinder piece. Remember a little pop and a kinda pink flash and my target diappeared. Hardly any recoil. Unscratched(guardian Angel real busy with me). Still have the remains somewhere.

StarMetal

12-21-2005, 11:18 PM

I dunno. Look at primer mixture. This is some really potent bad butt stuff. I'll be it dang nears explodes when the firing pin sets it off rather then burn like smokeless powder. Take a real light charge of powder that some have spoken of here that blew their guns up. What is the total energy that charge of powder could possess? Could it be it's total energy is not enough to blow a gun up even is it detonated rather then burned like it's suppose too? Why don't primers cause trouble? Or do they? I wonder how much of or how many grains of primer mixture is in a large rifle primer. I'm just not sold on this too light of a charge blowing up a gun yet. Take the last example, here we have a gun destruction that barely even stung the shooters hand, why? Shucks, a magnum 44 mag load that performs like it is suppose to sure lets you know something went off, but yet there was enough force to blow this last posters handgun up, but it didn't feel like much. Just thinking out loud fellows. Seems the majority here are starting to think too light a charge is the culprit.

Joe

Bullshop

12-22-2005, 12:05 AM

Joe
For shure primer compound is a high explosive. It is subject to totaly different laws than smokless powder.
I once did a little test to see what a primer alone can do. Drilled a deep hole in a 2x4 and set a primer in the bottom. Used a tight fitting nail in the hole to just reach the primer. A little tap with a hammer shredded the 2x4 appart and sent long splinters flying. Takes more than wood to contain the shattering force of even a tiny bit of primer compound.
I heard a UPS driver was killed hauling primers. They were Federals in the old boxes, and is why they went to the newer thick colapsible boxes.
BIC/BS

PatMarlin

12-22-2005, 12:08 AM

That's interesting Joe cause there is sure a lot of light load shootin' that's been done.

Take Richard Lee. Had a whole section in one of his books on shootin' rediculousy light loads.

How much could be packed in primer to do something like this? Coulda been them bastreeds all the while... :evil:

StarMetal

12-22-2005, 12:16 AM

Dan,

I know a guy that had a Dillion auto press in his basement. His reloading bench was right under the kitchen above. He had that metal protection tube that is around the primer feed tube. Well he had a primer explosion that set the whole tube off. It blew a two foot hole in the kitchen floor above. Now imagine how far away the tube was from that floor and it blew a two foot hole in it! You better believe they are high explosive. Who knows, may a primer gets bad somehow and explodes blowing the light powder charge in the case up against the base of the bullet, bingo ringed chamber. Dunno

Joe

versifier

12-22-2005, 12:32 AM

Star,
I'm using logic here, and so likely to get myself into trouble again, but...
If the cylander blew up, the force of the blast would be directed up, and the reactive force downward, no? The cylander obviously didn't contain or direct the blast, but instead blew right apart, so most of the explosive force, having nothing to push upon just went boom? But there wasn't a loud noise. The softer sound suggests that the powder was not confined for the amount of time necessary to generate the gas that pushes the bullet that goes bang out the end of the barrel. Squib loads that lodge in the barrel are almost soundless. A primed case, on the other hand, with no powder or bullet makes a fairly loud sound when fired.
There wouldn't necessarily be any backward (recoil) force involved in such a blowup, would there? Also, if properly braced and prepared for the not insignificant recoil of the .44, would you really notice it getting a small kick in a different direction? That energy had to go somewhere, though. Where? Maybe the primer was the problem? Did the powder then just flash harmlessly unconfined? That's where I'm leaning from the evidence.
A friend who owned a gunshop in my neck of the woods had what he believed to be a double charge blow up a .38special he had bought and was test firing. He said he saw a bright flash but felt no recoil either, and was surprised, but uninjured, and didn't hear the round go off. Rockrat said "a little pop and a kinda pink flash and my target disappeared" - very similar, except he had it happen with a light charge. My friend was never sure exactly what had caused his blowup and it seems equally possible to me that it could have been the opposite problem. I can't ask him about it as he is now in a (hopefully) better place, but I clearly remember examining what was left of the revolver.
Does this scenario make sense to you? It's one of those things I don't ever want to have first hand experience with, but the circumstances do pose enough questions that we can maybe learn something important by examining the evidence and the experiences of others unlucky enough to provide us with some data for speculation. What do you think?

StarMetal

12-22-2005, 12:48 AM

Well I'm wondering why the bullet didn't exit. In a normal firing the presure generate takes the easiest route out and that is pushing the bullet down the barrel. Even if there was an explosing inside that case why didn't the bullet get pushed out the barrel? I've heard this double charge of a light charge of fast burning powder. Depends on how much the charge is to me. For example loading a hollow base wadcutter in a 38 special with 2.3 grs of bullseyes. I really doubt a double charge of 4.6 is going to blow that revolver up. Something else has got to be going on. I'm really looking hard at a faulty primer. I'm still wondering why the cylinder blows and the bullet doesn't go far. You know even if you throw loaded ammo into a fire, it still doesn't explode.

Joe

44man

12-22-2005, 09:43 AM

I have a friend that is afraid to keep a can of powder in his house. It is kept in an unheated garage, subject to every temperature and humidity condition. I wonder if a degraded powder can cause a problem. Maybe the coating will prevent the powder from lighting off right away if it is ruined, the primer pushes the bullet and powder out and all of a sudden it goes off in a much too large a space with a bore obstruction. With the coating ruined, there is no control over the burn rate any more.
The powder coating along with the shape and size of each granule is what controls the burn rate along with the powder composition. What happens to the nitro in a double base powder when the powder degrades?
I do not believe any primer has enough force to blow up a gun. I have shot thousands of rubber bullets with just a primer. A primer can blow the boolit and powder out of a case however and if there is any resistance to the powder igniting when it is supposed to or the primer pressure passes over the top of a light charge and hits the boolit first and moves it out of the case, there is sure to be trouble. There is a question about just how much flame is left from the primer out in the case and how much is just pressure.
We have all ignited some powder with a match outside to get rid of it. Ever notice that sometimes you have to hold the match in the powder and move it around before it flashes off? I have tossed a match into a pile and watched it burn for a short time before the powder went off. Could it be that the primer used up it's flame without the powder lighting and all that is left is a small ember that eventually lights up the charge?
Sorry Star, had to give you more to think about!

BeeMan

12-22-2005, 12:08 PM

Gentlemen,

I'll chime in with $0.02 worth. For background, I was involved with development of airbag stab initiators, including both design chemistry and manufacturing processes. These were required to function with a stab type firing pin that pierced a thin coined portion of the primer cup, at a much lower firing pin energy than is typical in firearms. I was also involved in studying propagation from the initiator to the subsequent stages of the airbag inflator. Of course this is all ancient history with respect to modern airbags. Electric squibs and later designs are much more effective and may even be 'tuned' for variable inflation requirements. I learned at that job that I can't answer the SEE question. That said, here are a couple relatively incomplete comments for your consideration.

First, primers are a combination of various compounds, both explosive and pyrotechnic. The lead styphnate component is a primary explosive, though not all that potent as far as primaries go. There may also be a sensitizer compound to achieve sensitivity to the firing pin. Pyrotechnic compounds (a fuel/oxidizer mix) were included to aid ignition of the propellant in airbag inflators. They are likely in our reloading component primers too. Both gas and solid components are useful in the primer ejecta for obtaining ignition of subsequent 'stages'. A key point with a primer is the energy release is fast even at low pressure, but total energy output is relatively low. I'm not convinced a cartridge primer alone can damage a chamber manufactured of proper materials even given a plugged bore.

Smokeless propellants are gas generators. Their reaction rate is progressive, meaning they react (decompose to hot gas) faster as pressure increases. Nitrocellulose powders were excluded from airbag use for various reasons, including degradation at elevated temperures over the service life of the vehicle. Still, we looked at them as a means to study effect of gas in stage to stage ignition. Some powders contain nitroglycerin, but not the older slow single base powders that were specifically mentioned in warning against reloading undercharges. We did not achieve apparent detonation of even the high nitroglycerin powders even when incorporating them directly into the initiator. This was likely because system pressure was too low relative to designed operating pressure.

It seems to me that pressure spikes are implicated in SEE, somehow causing an undue increase in rate of reaction beyond propellant design limits. This could concievably be induced by a bore stoppage, from wave action, or by an ignition profile that was too aggressive relative to design parameters for that propellant. I don't know which if any of these theories are correct, and no longer have access to the facilties or instrumentation to check it out.

For me, body and hard earned possesions are too valuable to tread very far on the edges. My load development is probably some of the more conservative you will find, though it was not always this way. What is the saying? There are old pilots and bold pilots, but not old bold pilots.

BeeMan

StarMetal

12-22-2005, 12:19 PM

44man,

You ever have a reload that didn't go off? I have, a 243. Pulled the trigger, just heard kind of a muffled pop. Held the rifle few a long time then dismounted and openned the bolt and extracted the round. Later at home I pulled it down. First thing interesting is the primer not only DIDN'T pop the bullet out, it didn't move it one iota. Power was all clumbed together and I finally got it all out it was all yellow, the graphite coating had all been blown off by the primer but not one kernel of powder begin to burn. In a way I'm glad none of it did burn, much have meant a disaster. So that right there shows that in alot of cases the primer doesn't light the powder charge off propperly. By the way this was long ago when I was young and my gunsmith was selling bulk powder and he put it in plastic butter dishes. I later told him I think the stuff was exposed to air and moisture too much especially with his lousy containers.

Joe

44man

12-22-2005, 12:48 PM

Yes, I agree with your assesment. If you had tight bullet pull as you should, the primer might not push out the bullet. The worst calibers for boolit pushout are the handgun cases with low boolit pull and magnum primers but it can happen in rifles too when a bullet is held too loose. I would think that a small portion of the powder starting to burn aids this and then the major portion goes off. Larger rifle cases with tight bullets might need some powder to start burning before the bullet jumps out. But then again, every shell and primer can act different. I am glad that the powder you had did NOT go off, could have been a disaster!
My friend blew up his .41 magnum by shooting a shell with no powder, the boolit went into the forcing cone from primer pressure alone. It was in the barrel far enough so that he could cock the gun. The next shot blew the top of the cylinder into the topstrap, bent the topstrap up and the cylinder pin down. Good thing it was a Ruger! The metal never cracked.
Ruger sold him a new gun at their cost even though it was not their fault. My idea of a great company!

PatMarlin

12-22-2005, 12:51 PM

Richard Lee writes:

Rules for powder charges-

1. Do not reduce a charge more than 50% except for squib loads.

2. The slowest burning powder should not be reduced more than 20%. Each preceeding powder may be reduced 1% more.

Example: 20%, 21%, 22%, 23%, 24%, etc.

It's unlikely you will ever need nor desire, to reduce a charge more than 50% unless you use a fast powder for ultra-light (squib) loads.

44man

12-22-2005, 12:56 PM

Star, in 50 years of reloading, I have never had a reload fail to go off but have had factory loads that failed in other peoples guns due to something wrong with the gun or very old loads. Grease or oil on the pin in cold weather or weakened mainsprings, etc.
The only problem I had was a .38 factory load that fired but only made it to the muzzle.

versifier

12-22-2005, 01:41 PM

Star et al.,
Are we assuming that the bullets exited the revolvers via the barrel? Is there any evidence that they did? (Or that they didn't?) What if they were simply blown out sideways with the pieces of the cylander as it came apart? My study of organic chemistry 30+ years ago was focused on biology, not explosives, so I really don't know any more about powder degredation over time than I've picked up reading a few articles in the gun rags - i. e. not enough to rate an opinion on it. I keep coming back to the question of why there was only a little popping sound and not a big boom. To me, that's the most obvious piece of the puzzle that doesn't seem to fit. I could be tilting at windmills here, but I was taught to postulate and test. I can't perform any physical tests, but with all the intelligent minds batting this around, maybe something will occur to one of us that I have been overlooking.
I have had my reloaded rounds fail to go off four or five times over the years, and a few ancient factory loads, too, but it has always appeared to be bad primers when I stripped them down to check, never any evidence that I could see of the powder being ignited.

StarMetal

12-22-2005, 03:05 PM

StarMetal

12-22-2005, 03:07 PM

I can only surmise the mini explosion took place inside the case inside the cylinder and then the shock tremors did their dirty deed, blowing the cylinder and top strap.

Joe

44man

12-22-2005, 06:16 PM

It's true, star, I never had a dud in a reload. Maybe just luck, who knows! I also pour the primers into the palm of my hand before pouring them into the Lee or Bonanza Co-Ax tools. Come to think of it, I can handle guns with my hands and have never, ever had any rusty fingerprints on a gun. Might be due to all the ridge ripple consumed over the years---desolves grease ya know!

StarMetal

12-22-2005, 06:18 PM

44man

Maybe you're, ah ...Neo

Joe

PatMarlin

12-22-2005, 06:47 PM

I've had three in my last couple sessions.

1- WLR in a 45-70. Dud.

2- CCI large Pistolas. Duds.

Fingers never touch the primers.

And- no I'm not a Homo.. :mrgreen:

...

StarMetal

12-22-2005, 07:32 PM

No wonder why me and Patmarlin get dud primers, 44man gets all the good ones. Really really hard to believe in 50 yrs of reloading you never got dud primer 44man. How about a dud 22 rimfire cartridge? A hangfire in a muzzleloader?

Joe

versifier

12-22-2005, 08:06 PM

I'm still thinking over BeeMan's posting. A lot to digest in it.
What happens to powder as it get older, exposed to O2 and moisture? How are the burning characteristics effected?
There HAS to be a pressure spike, and it appears to happen in the interval after primer strike and before the powder charge is normally consumed. If the pressure took too long to peak, the bullet would be in the barrel and at least some of the pressure would vent between the cylander face and the forcing cone. I would think that this would peel the top strap from front to back.
My friend's revolver (a five-shot S&W m36) had the topstrap blown off completely -it wasn't bent, it just broke off front and back, seemingly as the disintegrating cylander slammed it from below. You could almost fit it back in place. The cylander was in three pieces, the biggest stayed on the gun and contained two intact and still loaded chambers under the exploded one. The two other pieces of the cylander were found some distance away and neither seemed to have peeled or bent. Like the top strap, you could almost fit them back together, too. The case head was found about five feet away with a dented primer protruding from its pocket, about 3/8" of wall left on it, split and opened on one side. No idea what happened to the rest of the case or the bullet, but it didn't hit the target 15' away. The two other cases were also found, kind of smushed, but in one piece nearby. He took apart the two intact ones, but found nothing obviously amiss.
Rockrat, could you please possibly post a picture of what's left of your revolver? Or describe what happened to it and to you in more detail?

44man

12-23-2005, 01:24 AM

Star, yes I have had many rimfires fail to go off. Also a LOT of muzzle loaders fail to go off plus a lot that I forgot to put powder in while shooting the breeze or trying for a second shot at game. Then there are the times a primer would flip and go in backwards. I put the case in a shell holder and push them back out with a hand tool and never had one go off.
Yeah, I do get all the good primers!

BeeMan

12-23-2005, 10:15 AM

Versifier,

Yes, I think some sort of pressure spike is a given. One question is whether pressure rise alone causes the damage, or whether pressure fundamentally changes the type/rate of reaction in the propellant. If excess pressure causes a change to the chemical decomposition pathway, could we be seeing a change in primary stress from pressure overstress to shock wave damage? Are there differences between chamber ringing and a blowup, in terms of either energy release pathways or the firearm materials condition and susceptibility?

My opinion is we tend to try to solve the SEE and chamber ringing as though single causes have single effects. We know otherwise about internal ballistics from our load development experience. I wish I had the time and resources to really study this, but much better men than me have tried. My guess is that pure science falls victim to economic considerations most times.

Hey, its Christmas vacation! I plan to load some up with known safe data and take the kids out.

Merry Christmas!

BeeMan

Blackwater

12-23-2005, 11:00 PM

Guys, I've been reading this with great interest, and like Versifier, I've also been thinking, which he ALSO notes is dangerous. I'm no metalurgist, but did work in a cast iron foundry's lab for a while when in college, and got to talk to the metalurgist who DID have a whole lotta' education on the subject. Whenever he had the time, I'd corral him and ask him the best questions I could think of, and he showed me a lot of stuff. Also got into knifemaking in a very small way, and a guild member buddy has furthered my limited understanding of the matter, too.

Now with my limited but not insubstantial informal "education," the most striking thing about metalurgy that I've noted, is that even the best professional metalurgists can STILL only give you info on trends, tendencies and liklihood based on much testing data. They STILL come upon phenomena that they can't really explain, or at least can't explain to their or our complete satisfaction and/or certainty. Metals just do some wierd things on rare occasions, and even the best and most educated minds can't explain them all.

With that said, and also noting that the steels we use today are phenomenally better than they've ever been in mankind's history, I'm starting to wonder if this no recoil blowup thing might not just possibly be related to some sort of hidden metal flaw or condition? This would explain the mild recoil and the bullet left in the barrel. When the cylinder metal lets go, the pressure would drop instantly and severely, perhaps enough to leave the bullet in the bore, and maybe even lodged in the forcing cone .... maybe?

Only other thing I can think of that would explain the low recoil is that the blast going upward MAY act like a muzzle comp and counter the upward forces of recoil.

The big flash COULD (???) be the unburned powder igniting in air, and maybe the pinkish color might be due to a lower burning temp????

Thinking out loud here, mostly, but .... any comments?

We take our gun steels for granted, and understandably so, but .... there's always that "X-factor" that even the metalurgists can't always explain. I wonder .....????

felix

12-23-2005, 11:13 PM

All that you said Blackwater is true. There is always the X-factor in every science because we can only equate to what has been true in the past, and the x-factor deals with facts yet unknown, that is, undiscovered. ... felix

BeeMan

12-24-2005, 11:09 AM

Good points Blackwater. Progress in metallurgy, hidden flaws, and unknowns are all potential factors. I'm interested in knifemaking too and periodically check to see what steels are in vogue. Current alloys are impressive. It is also interesting that knifemakers like Ed Fowler have discovered benefits of thermal cycling for improving 'common' steels.

Older son wants to try blacksmithing, so a Christmas vacation project is making a simple forge with an expired 20 lb propane cylinder. Time to study the metallurgy enough so I can ask him some 'learning' questions... So much to learn and try, so little time.

BeeMan

Bman

12-24-2005, 12:54 PM

This thread has been very informative! Also the thread somewhere else here about spliting logs with powder charges. I have wondered how much power powder has. As in how much energy do we waste firing a gun? Obviously we need a good deal of pressure to propel a boolit. We also know that expansion ratio and case capacity determines powder burn rates or more correctly what burn rate to use in a given application. If your powder is too fast or gets that way in a given environment pressures spike quickly. Normally the volume of space for the gasses to expand increases as the boolit moves down and out of the barrel. I wonder how much is too much powder if this doesn't happen?

The explanation I can get my arms around best about this is where the primer pushes the bullet free of the case and then ignites the powder. The boolit is now a bore obstruction. So how much energy does that small charge of slow powder create now? And how quickly?

I read one of Paco Kelley's articles where 3 gr of BE was used under a 148 gr wadcutter in a .357. The boolit was seated deeper and deeper until the gun failed.

All I can say is that most of this is so far beyond what I know or can learn that for me I think I will stick to faster powders for my extra light loads, use some type of filler to keep the powder near the primer and crimp tightly.

StarMetal

12-24-2005, 01:31 PM

I'd really like to see that test of 3 grs of Bullseye and a 148 wadcutter in a 357 done. Hard to believe. Again...I can't see why the bullet wasn't pushed out violently instead of the gun fail. Makes me think about the 2.0 grs of bullseye I load in 32 acp's.

Joe

ejjuls

12-24-2005, 01:45 PM

Hey guys,

I have been reading this post and checking it almost daily - there is a wealth of info out there but yes...no concrete answers.
Every one of you who has participated has offered more insight and things for my (our) non-super scientific minds to ponder. I have to think that for the most part everyone has pretty much been on target with possibilities of this phenomenon. The things that stick in my mind is the fact that this is no secret, there are references to the SEE event in a lot of literature from way back. No one has yet to find the answer of how and why even to this day, definitively.

In my common sense approach I have to say in my mind that there is definitely a release of pressure. Parts fly - things fall apart violently.....large release of pressure. If there is something stopping the pressure from doing the action we intended, i.e. bullet down the barrel....then something didn't work together in the firing sequence. I personally think that the powder reacting "differently" to the primer forces is a very distinct possibility. Why this happens - I think you guys pretty much have the right ideas - degredation, bore obstruction, retarded ignition, pressure wave action, etc. I think all these things are a factor - maybe not for all specific cases - but they all seem to be a "reasonable" factor.

In my incident I did have excessive headspace, I did have a long throat, I did have a long bullet with extreme bearing surfaces, I did have a light charge of very slow powder. It seems to me that all of these "issues" combined are what lead to the gas release in an unintended manner.

I walk away from my experience with the notion of - light loads of slow powder, or in a "light bullet resistance" situation i.e. cast bullets with slow powder, and poor firearm condition are issue that should be avoided. By poor condition I am refering to headspace and throat condition. I wouldn't touch a "tomato stake firearm" and pretend I can safely load for it or shoot it!

Anyway - there is my odd 2cents worth. Mainly I wanted to say - I think everyone has the right ideas. Something happened that wasn't supposed to happen - it did so because more than one thing didn't go right. Like the old saying - "it takes two to tango". Anywho - Thanks for the opportunity to share my experience.
Eric

felix

12-24-2005, 01:47 PM

Joe, it's the tight neck syndrome. The boolit used was too easily expanded within the case. ... felix

StarMetal

12-24-2005, 02:39 PM

What gets me is why would anyone use a small charge of slow powder for cast? Are we that cheap? I love slow powder for cast because one it fills the case up and I don't need a filler, it's more gentle on getting the bullet started, and being slow it puts the bullet in the velocity bracket that I like.

Like I've said before, I don't shoot cast to save money. I shoot cast because I love making my own bullets, bullets that don't wear your barrel like jacketed. I added that because someone would say "Why don't you buy swaging equipment and make your own jacketed". I also like the power range of cast...don't need to be shooting full hilt with jacketed all the time. I never ever use fast shotgun/pistol powders in my cast rifle loads except the very very small cases like 22 Hornet.

Joe

Old Jim

12-24-2005, 06:37 PM

Joe most of the ultra light loads for cast are being done by the CAS people. Velocities in the vicinity of 450 fps are not unusual.
My take on this problem and maybe the best explanation in my book is the primer explosion moves the bullet without instantaniously lighting the powder. Then with the bullet in a bore blocking position the powder lights resulting in a confined explosion.
I seem to recall this thread on another forum and they deterrmined that a lot of these explosions had come from bullets loaded on progressive presses with auto bullet feed and the blame was laid at the feet of a double bulleted load.
The problem seems to be that no one can duplicate these accidents with other than the obvious overcharged cases.

StarMetal

12-24-2005, 07:16 PM

Old Jim

If you look at the Lyman Cast reloading books, those light loads with the powders I mentioned dominate the book practically. It's not just CAS.

Joe

44man

12-25-2005, 10:13 AM

Bass Ackward

12-25-2005, 11:42 AM

Old jim, Almost every case of SEE happens with too small of a load of slow burning powder. There would be no way to double charge these loads as they would overflow the case.
A double charge of fast powder is not SEE but a high pressure load that is too much for the gun. There is a great deal of difference between a high pressure load and SEE. Do not confuse the difference!

All,

During the primer tests I read a few years back a guy made a device for igniting primers and trapping the gases so that a weight was driven up a bar much like a strong man event at a carnival. You know, the one where you hit the pad and try to ring the bell. Fully 10% were well above and well below the average for that box. All brands were shockingly guilty. The worst at that time was standard CCI rifle primers. When they were hot, (these are standard rifle primers mind you) they were above the average for Fed 215s. When they were cold, they were below standard pistol primers. (not counting duds) (And how do we know that the duds never really ignited or that they just weren't successful.)

Who has the answers. Could just be the laws of probability too. Powder speed is both relative and deceptive. That's why you have to understand what you are looking at with a burn rate chart. That is also why one guy rates one powder as much faster than something else and another guy much slower. Think that doesn't affect their safe load judgements? But also understand, a powders ability to light (or to burn evenly) has nothing to do with speed. And everything can and sometimes will vary with temperature too.

Primers and poor flash hole burrs are still the main boogie man in my opinion.

felix

12-25-2005, 11:46 AM

Yep, ignition is everything! ... felix

David R

12-25-2005, 03:26 PM

I think it could be detonation. Small charge, case less than 50% full. Primer ignites one kernel in the back of the case and one in the front. The two flame fronts meet and Ka boom! Instead of getting ignition, the charge ignites all at once. It could not be contained by the gun because the spike is so big.

Slow powders in a full case burn like a cigar. Less chance for this type of ignition.

Red Dot is made to run at low pressures in a shotgun, so in a rifle, it has no problem.

Just my thoughts.

David

44man

12-25-2005, 06:05 PM

David, detonation might be a case with some loads but how do you explain the only instance of SEE that I had? 46 grs. of 4831 in the 6.5x55 case. This load comes up to the midpoint of the shoulder and almost to the base of a seated bullet. There is almost no airspace and no way for primer flash to ignite both the front and rear of the charge.
The only thing my rifle has that can cause a problem is a very long freebore made for the long military bullets. The rifle was made in 1919. I use a shorter bullet of 129 grs.
Like Felix says, if I did not get a good ignition to start with and the primer pressure blew the bullet into the freebore, I had a bore obstruction! In other words I had too much airspace with the bullet out of the case, the airspace now in the rear, and more powder would have reduced the airspace and maybe prevented SEE. I might have had a pressure spike that I would not notice but the case would have not blown the primer out. Did the primer blow the charge of powder foreward with the bullet before igniting it and causing the pressure to go towards the rear of the case first before turning around and slamming into the balance of the powder and bullet?

Now take a look at the latest inline muzzle loader from Ultimate Firearms that uses 5, 50 gr Pyrodex pellets----Yes, 250 grs of powder! They had to engineer an ignition system using LR primers so the entire charge is ignited all at once. This much powder did not work with the softer 209 primer and igniting the charge from the rear only. The primer must ignite all 5 pellets at once! How does a 300 gr bullet at 2500 fps sound from a muzzle loader?
My question has to be--- would a magnum primer with my SEE load have prevented it? Or would a very soft, low pressure primer that could not push out the bullet have been better? Is it better to light off the powder with a match or with a blowtorch? Do some primers in a batch burn out too fast and release pressure with very little of the flame needed to ignite the powder? Does the coating on slow burning powders prevent instant ignition and allow the powder to move foreward with too little in the case, maybe pushing out the bullet and maybe not, but shifting the airspace to the rear of the case, reversing the pressure surge, cause SEE?
More food for thought for all of you!
Felix has the answer, ignition is everything! Maybe what we need is a lot of FIRE and almost no PRESSURE from the primer.
I use large pistol primers with a wad of newspaper inside over the flash hole in my 45-70 BPCR with perfect results. The paper keeps powder ganules from entering and blocking the flash hole and impeding ignition. Maybe we need to block the flash hole with smokeless. Do grains of powder enter the hole and prevent fire from coming out until the blockage burns away?
Put on your thinking caps all of you!

StarMetal

12-25-2005, 06:21 PM

Let me bring up something here. A stuck bullet in the bore. Say you get a stuck bullet somewhere in the bore . How do you get it out? Some use a rod and try to pound it out. This can sometimes lead to disaster. We have a forum member named Larry Gibson, who hasn't been on lately. His method is to shoot it out. No, now with a bulleted round, but a case with just powder. He says that in theory with the bullet stuck up the bore somewhere you basically have a larger case with alot of airspace. He's done this successfully. So now.......where's that leave us with a primer blows a bullet up the bore some and then the powder starts burning? To tell you the truth I don't think many bullets in rifle cases are going to get blowed much out of the case alone up the bore. Pistols ..yes.

Joe

felix

12-25-2005, 08:34 PM

Joe, knock out a stuck boolit with a waxed dowell. If it does not easily come out, you would be taking a chance by powdering it out anyway. I've done both. The latter uses 2-3 grains of BE with a small and light toilet paper wad. A typical primer can shoot a boolit 2 inches minimum into the rifle bore; a forceful one up to 4 inches. Assuming a close fitting, many times fired case. ... felix

felix

12-25-2005, 08:39 PM

44man, do use a few grains of smokeless below BP. Others have done it safely. I personally have not. ... felix

44man

12-25-2005, 09:20 PM

Felix, we can't use a duplex load in BPCR silhouette.
Star, his powder will be against the primer and should go off properly. The space in front of the bullet acting like a larger case which should reduce the pressure. I still will not try this myself though. What would happen if the primer blew all the powder to the stuck bullet before going off? Just because someone did it and got away with it, puts it in the same class as the guy that shot hundreds of his load before that one blew up his rifle. No thanks!

StarMetal

12-25-2005, 09:27 PM

If the bullet is up the bore and there's all that space in front of the powder, what makes you think it's going to light off right and right away without it getting just blowed out of the case up the bore? Just some thinking.....nobody knows what is really happening, we've been on this a few days, and been on and off it before, same conclusion, nobody knows for sure. If some lab did know for sure they could duplicated it over and over again.

Joe

Blackwater

12-25-2005, 10:45 PM

Well now, y'all really have me scratching my head. There's an old gentleman I'm wanting to load some 7.62x54 for, and these loads need to be pretty mild, something like in the vicinity of a .357 mag power level. I'd INTENDED to use smaller charges of Red Dot, Unique, 2400, 4759 and 5744, and see what shoots best. I want to get something in the 1500-1750 fps. vicinity, and had thought that these powders would be the most likely vehicles to get me there.

Felix, I do think you have a very good point on the ignition thing, so though I'm not as fearless now, since reading this post, as I was before, I still think I want to try these. What's the best way to get good, consistent ignition in the 7.62x54 or similar ctgs. (like .303 & '06), and what primer is likely to give me the best results? Should I use dacron, and if so, should the dacron be long enough to fill the space all the way to base of bullet?

And 44mag, your experience with that 6.5 makes me again wonder - not think, but just wonder - if we're not looking in the wrong place for the answer to all this again, and that maybe at least SOME of these instances are from fatigued metal. If we ASSUME it's the load, then we just don't look elsewhere, and that ain't good sometimes. Sure is a puzzler, though, any way you look at it, and the fact that it's positively stumped some very professional, well educated guys with lots of sophisticated equipment just makes me wonder if the full answer doesn't lie somewhere other than where we're looking for it. As Alice said in Wonderland, "Curioser and curioser!"

StarMetal

12-25-2005, 10:57 PM

Blackwater,

Never make a wad of a filler, in other words, always fill the space between the top of the powder and the base of the bullet.....but don't pack it tightly.

Just because we all think we know about guns and reloading, including me, that we can jester at what the problem is that occurring. I don't think so. Like I said smarter men then us with labs and equipment have been trying to solve this and so far no good. Now Felix will say something about this and I say to that ahead of time...maybe they don't say anything about investigating this rare occurance, maybe they think if they do that they might just scare alot of people out of reloading, or even shooting guns anymore...after all , some of the ones I'm talking about work for reloading product companies. I'm sure if someone nails this on the head we'll hear and be reading about it. I know some knowledgeable people have tried to make a blow up with such loadings as small charge of fast burning powder like say Bullseye and 38 spcl with hollowbase wadcutters, to no good success, if you would call a blow up success.

All I know is if anyone comes up with an idea like me, alot of the fellows here are quick to jump on it and run it down, but yet they can't nail the problem on the head. All this is, is good talking and reading material here until someone does some lab controlled experiments. For one I'm going to load some different cases with jacketed bullets and just a primer and no powder to see how far those bullets will come out.

Here's another thing to think about, you can suspend a loaded factory 30-06 round from a wire so a flame heats it while all this is inside a cardboard box. When it goes off it won't really do much, even to the box. That sure is an example of a wrong kind of powder ignition.

Joe

Blackwater

12-25-2005, 11:12 PM

A lot of good opining there, Joe, IMO at least. I think one of the things that makes this pursuit so fascinating, as with all reloading, is that there's no way we'll ever know it all - a fact that I've been re-introduced to a number of times.

Back when I was 13 I believe it was, a buddy was given an old 8x57 Mauser, and money was scarce for ammo, so he and I bein' buddies, I offered to provide some help just for the opportunity to shoot the rifle half the time. We got a Lee Loader, a can of 3031, some 125 and 196 gr. J-bullets, and I, being the "math whiz," or what had to pass for it at the time, interpolated loads for shooting fish at his dad's pond, deer & hog loads, ALL customized to a virtual fair-thee-well. All this at 13! Thought we knew all there was to know back then, just because that old gun went "Boom" on our loads when we pulled the trigger.

There's an old story about the boy of 17 who thought his parents were fools, idjits and imbeciles all rolled into one. He soon left home, and returned at 21 to find that apparently his PARENTS had learned a LOT! I think the reloading game is a lot like that sometimes, and it's AMAZING how many developments there've been since I was 13! Funny how that works, ain't it? ;)

Oh, and yeah, will keep the dacron loose, and use just enough to keep the powder charge in place. I've always been leery of fillers, but looks like if I try the faster powders, I'll darn well be using them.

PatMarlin

12-26-2005, 12:26 AM

Cast Boolit shootin' goggles.

$20 shipped.

44man

12-26-2005, 11:22 AM

Blackwater, my rifle was not damaged! I used a leather mallet to open the bolt. The headspace was still where I had set it and the gun shoots half inch groups at 100 yd's like it always did. Only the brass was destroyed and they were new cases. I had shot about 1000 of those loads over the years with no problems and great accuracy until that one case went. I increased the charge right away and had no farther problems but they were not as accurate. I switched to Varget and gained back my accuracy. By the way, I weigh every charge.

Star, that shell hanging in a fire will do nothing! It is NOT CONTAINED IN A CHAMBER. When contained, the pressure builds, increasing the heat, the pressure and the burn rate. When the shell is out in the open, the pressure will only build high enough to split the case, dump out the bullet and then the remaining powder will only burn at the rate of a pile of powder on the ground. Even black powder is not explosive when not contained. Now, blasting powder is a different story.

StarMetal

12-26-2005, 12:39 PM

44man,

I know that about the 30-06 shell hanging in a fire, and alot more. Now on BP it depends on how much you contain it. That same 06 filled with BP will go off alot more violent then smokeless powder would have made it do. Wonder why DOT considers it an explosive....hmmmmm

Joe

StarMetal

12-26-2005, 01:04 PM

44man

Like I said, none of us can nail what happens 100 percent on the head, but there you went again running down the 30-06 test in a cardboard box. Think about this: a small amount of powder that's not anyways near over maximum, blows a gun up...that means somehow it became a high energy explosive, which does not require containment.

Joe

BruceB

12-26-2005, 01:41 PM

44 man, sir;

" Even black powder is not explosive when not contained. Now, blasting powder is a different story."

Black powder IS an explosive, officially classed (for shipping purposes) as a 'low' explosive, I believe. A heap of blackpowder on the ground in open air (meaning, unconfined) goes off with quite a violent WHUMP.

"Blasting powder"? Did you mean BLACK blasting powder, or the modern dynamites and other commercial explosives? I ask this because "powder" is still the term we use in mining for the current explosives. Every Tuesday morning, we lower at least ten tons of "powder" into our underground to supply our needs for the following week. It has been a standard industry practice to destroy un-needed or out-of-date MODERN commercial explosives by simply setting fire to them in the open. No explosions result from this practice if properly performed. Black "blasting powder" is just about exactly the same stuff as is used in rifle and handgun ammo, apart from perhaps a variation in the granulation.

From the Canadian Industries Limited "Blasters' Handbook":

"Black blasting powder is a deflagrating explosive."

"It is the slowest-acting of all commercial explosives, having a heaving rather than a shattering action, and hence tends to break the confining material (whether coal or stone) into large firm fragments."

"...is a grained, free-flowing material. It is usually glazed with graphite, the individual grains having a high lustre and polish. It is manufactured in a single grade (mill run) and packaged in 25 lb bags in fiberboard containers of 50 lb net weight." The description sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Destruction of deteriorated or unsafe explosives OTHER THAN black powder, from the same Handbook:

"It is recommended that not more than 100 pounds of explosives be burned at any one time..." "...great care should be taken to ensure that no cartridges are primed with detonators, as these will explode in the fire and detonate the remaining unburned explosives."

Just a bit more info to consider.

StarMetal

12-26-2005, 01:49 PM

Bruce,

Well done old chap!

Joe

floodgate

12-26-2005, 02:54 PM

Bruce B:

I was just reading basically the same info a couple of days ago in an old (1911) DuPont "High Explosives" handbook, before they were separated under the Sherman "Anti-Trust Act" into "Hercules" and "DuPont"*. But black "Blasting Powder" was normally based on sodium nitrate rather than potassium nitrate as used in BP for firearms. Sodium nitrate is cheaper and works equally well, but is very hygroscopic (i.e.; takes up moisture avidly). OK for mining use if kept in a dry environment, but more of a problem for shooters.

floodgate

* The separation resulted - in our field - in Hercules getting the double-base propellents, (Bullseye, Unique, Infallible, Hi-Vel, etc., etc.), while DuPont kept the single-bases (SR's, MR's, IMR's etc.). Incidentally, I got a nice (empty) old square can for DuPont SR #80 along with a fine new-in-box Lyman EZY-Loader the other day, from an eBayer. That EZY-Loader is a real kloodge, but came complete with a truly weird automatic priming system and two full sets of dies, in .30-'06 and .303 British. It came bolted into an original handsome steel "toolbox" with a Lyman / Ideal decal. Sometimes you eat the e-Bear; sometimes the e-Bear eats you. fG

BOOM BOOM

12-26-2005, 03:39 PM

HI,
Any of you guts see the myth buster eposode on the finger in the barrel myth?
It didn't work of course, but then they went on to do a bunch of experements w/ birfferent bore obstructions. the had to WORK to get both shotgun & rifle barrals to "expolde", . Acually if I rember right they only bulged the barrels.
WORTH WATCHING.

BOOM BOOM

12-27-2005, 12:59 AM

HI,
Well I mentioned before on an earlier thread about SEE, maybe on the old site, that I had experenced 2 cases of SEE. W/ IMR4350 & IMR4320 about a year apart. In a 25/06. Both were Lyman minimum book suggested loads for the respective powder & a 120 gr j-bullet.
I tend to hold w/ the too much air space allowing the primer flame to ignight all the powder, yieding a detonation rather than a progressive burn.
There was also a theory of both ends of the powder charge burning yielding 2 pressure spikes/waves that met in the middle= blown gun.
The primer blowing the buillet forward would produce the too much airspace = detonation condition as well.
I've seen some blown pistols, scary as h!
Of course my two 25/06 were too!
I WAS TOTALLY ASTOUNDED BY WHAT I SAW ON MYTHBUSTERS! Did not think a firearm could survive some of the stuff they did.

StarMetal

12-27-2005, 01:02 AM

What's a primer suppose to do, light one or a few kernels of powder??

Joe

bruce drake

12-27-2005, 11:03 AM

I watched that Mythbusters show and welding a carriage bolt into the barrel wasn't the smartest thing they ever did. :shock: Especially when they where using a Carcano action (probably the cheapest rifle at the gunshop) The slow motion film of the explosion wasn't very heartening as that bolt shot out that barrel quicker than snail snot.

Funny thing was that they were using Norma ammo that probably was almost as expensive as the rifle itself! [smilie=l:

Bruce

44man

12-27-2005, 11:08 PM

Yeah, I was talking any explosives that do not need to be contained to explode. Most need a blasting cap to initiate the explosion and of course a primer is also a blasting cap! Most any explosive will burn if just set on fire. I would be interested to know what rifle grade black powder would do if set off with a blasting cap when just piled on the ground.
Star, I agree that black powder in the case over a fire will blow the case with more force because it burns faster then smokeless. But would pieces of brass or the bullet penetrate the cardboard? Might be a good experiment! The thing about black powder is that a lot of it is turned into residue unlike smokeless that burns almost completely. It does not develop the high pressures of smokeless. It just does not contain as much energy as smokeless. To gain even a small amount of velocity increase in a gun, you have to add a whole lot more black powder until you reach the point where it blows powder out the end of the barrel to burn in the air. There is a load maximum where the velocity decreases with an addition of more powder because of the ejecta going down the bore with the bullet. I read about an experiment where a section of pipe was filled with black powder and both ends were capped. It had a touch hole for a fuse. All of the gas vented from the touch hole without blowing the pipe. Now, what happens without a touch hole is another story.
How about a pipe full of Bullseye?

StarMetal

12-27-2005, 11:46 PM

44man

As far as the experiment with shell casing full of BP, they blowup pretty good and will fragment and penetrate the cardboard box. I think you have alot more to learn about BP. You better read the Naval testing of BP where you can only get so much pressure out of it and it will be low...hahahahahah...it won't!!! Also even one of our great BP rifle builders Thompson Contender did experiments on adding powder and adding powder to a BP rifle...and guest what, yeah, you do blow some out...but you can also reach dangerous pressures and blow up your gun.

Joe

Blackwater

12-28-2005, 01:04 AM

44, sorry. I keep thinking about the blowups, since that's a real consideration to our safety. Your example surely points to the fact that SOMETHING wierd and unexpected and VERY un-planned-for is going on occasionally, and that's both a bit intimidating and intriguing. Ignition affects several potentials. Powder position several more. It's just amazing the way these things happen, like chasing a will-o-the-wisp, isn't it?

Good, experienced and generally careful reloaders DO make mistakes, and I guess I could be the poster child for that ad, but I really don't think every case results from the same root problem, and I suspect - don't KNOW, but just suspect - that we're dealing with several variables, as someone has already said, that when combining two or maybe more, CAN result in OCCASIONAL unexpected results. What those are, of course, is still a mystery.

I've always sorta' enjoyed being perplexed and/or challenged, but quite frankly, this whole subject is beyond my knowledge and imagination, and things that CAN HURT YOU most SURELY concern me now that I'm no longer 10 ft. tall, bulletproof or immortal! With such things, things that COULD hurt us, it's a little intimidating to know we just don't know what causes these results. Millions of rounds fired guarantee that these loads are GENERALLY safe, but then again, the few that blow up are still ANOTHER guarantee that it COULD happen at any time.

I can personally guarantee that blowing up just ONE gun will make a fella' really, really REALLY appreciate those few that go bad, and yet, I doubt any other type load will give the results I'm looking for. I feel kida' painted into a corner, with only the assurance of the rarity of the blowups being my only solace.

44man

12-28-2005, 01:58 AM

There is a new inline out that uses 250 gr's of Pyrodex pellets. It uses a LR primer to ignite all five pellets at once. There was a guy that filled his muzzle loader barrel full with just enough room to seat a ball. The gun had no damage (remotely fired) but made a flame out the front you would not believe.
We are not talking navy cannons here with huge powder charges behind massive projectiles.
I have chronographed hundreds of loads in the 45-70 and once a certain charge is reached, the velocity will start going down. There is NO WAY to get more powder in the case! There is NO WAY to blow up this gun with black powder, of course I will not try FFFFG but I have tested FFFG. My friend has compressed, in stages, as much as 90 gr's of powder in a 45-70 and got dismal velocity from the load. The same happened with too much Pyrodex where chunks were flying out of the muzzle like flares and burning in the grass. Now what about the 45-100, 45-120, 50-110? If you think any of these would blow up with a max load of black, I have news for you.
Once a certain charge is reached in a muzzle loader, the excess powder is blown from the muzzle to burn in the air. I have worked up to 150 gr's in a hawkin with LESS velocity then 100 gr's. If pressure was rising fast, I would expect all of the powder to burn in the bore and give more velocity. All I did was set all of the leaves on fire downrange and fill the bore with fouling. Yeah, maybe there was more pressure because of the weight of the powder added to the ball, but it sure did not hurt the gun any. If I was using a heavy boolit, I would never go that high, it is all relative to the projectile weight plus the powder weight.
Now if we added more balls down the bore, pressure could get out of hand. If we leave an air space between the ball and powder, the barrel can be bulged or split.
I have also proof tested a new barrel by remotely firing it with a double charge and three balls without any damage. I have been shooting black powder for 52 years and feel safer with it then I do with smokeless.
We have taken cheap Spanish barrels and remotely fired them with every charge imaginable without damaging a single one of them. I find no amusement in the HA-HA-HA stuff!

StarMetal

12-28-2005, 02:10 AM

That's why they had all those other longer cartridges back in those day...like the 45-90 for example .

Overcharging the BP rifle--
The claim that black powder firearms cannot be overcharged apparently derives from the use of metallic cartridge loads or revolver loads where the mechanical limits of a maximum charge fitting the case or cylinder would not produce excessive pressure. Yard found that indeed a muzzle loader can be overcharged. We should note here that modern smokless rifles are engineer to function in the realm of 50,000 CUP or more, while the muzzle loader is designed for about 10,000 CUP. Smokeless powder develops an entirely different pressure "spike" and has altogether different combustion features than black powder.

45 caliber loads range from 70 to 100 grains, and this load range produces (with FFg ) approx. 4400 to 7500 LUP. In .50 caliber, 80 to130 grains charges in ten-grain increments produce pressures of 4300, 4600, 4700, 5000 and 6000 LUP. The ten-grain increment from 120 to 130 grains increases pressure a full 1000 LUP, more than three times the increase brought about by 10 grains at any lower level. In heavy loads, increased charges elevate pressures exponentially rather than in a straight line.

44man, you're like the rest of us here, we don't know squat about what really blows guns up with this SEE stuff. Just be man enough to admit like Blackwater, myself, and the rest of us do.

Joe

44man

12-28-2005, 01:09 PM

Yes, I admit I don't know what causes it but I will not try certain things that others claim will cause no harm. There is a fine line between being safe and disaster. All of our black powder testing was done remotely because the guns could have blown up. Although we never damaged a gun or barrel out of the stock, there is nothing to say that it could not happen. Some barrels will hold a lot more pressure then others and I would never suggest anyone shoot the loads we tried.
And yes, I do agree that black powder can create a lot of pressure and old guns have blown up. The tests we made were never with old guns or barrels, only modern steels. But black powder seems to have a pressure limit where it can't generate much more but this limit CAN blow up some guns.
I had a fellow bring in a flintlock where the ball had been loaded for so long that it rusted in. (spit patch) He tried to fire it and all of the gas vented from the touch hole without moving the ball. That is strange and I kind of turned white when he told me. I removed the breech plug and had to drill out the ball. It took forever to clean out the rust and make it shootable again.
The only reason I brought up the blackpowder-pressure relationship was to explain that it takes a lot more of an increase with black powder to raise pressure when only 1/2 gr of smokeless can be an overcharge.
Think maybe that is the reason they say to never use smokeless in a muzzle loader? Not talking about the Savage rifle that was designed for smokeless! Goes to show that with the proper design, the brass case is not needed as with all the caseless ammo that has been tried.
Stop and think a second! The brass case does not contain the pressure and keep it from applying said pressure to the steel. It prevents the gas from leaking into places where it CAN cause damage. If the chamber is sealed, the steel can take as much pressure as it does with the brass case in it.

StarMetal

12-28-2005, 01:36 PM

44man,

Good man, glad you admit it. Nothing to be ashamed of because it really is a baffler.

I've done the smokeless muzzleloader stuff. Me and best friend clean back in the 60's. Even as teenagers we exprimented safely. The muzzleloading smokeless cannon we made ( 30 caliber) just fizzed out the fuse hole. We were off a good distance.

Joe

BruceB

12-28-2005, 01:57 PM

44man;

You're EXACTLY on the money, re: the brass case. All it is, is a gasket, preventing gas from flowing from where the pressure should be to where we don't want it to be.

Incidentally, blackpowder doesn'd need any kind of blasting cap or other initiator to explode; it'll do it just as in the old Hollywood movies, with a burning powder train leading to the pile of powder.

Bullseye sealed in a pipe, even with a touch-hole, is a very serious device, and make no mistake about it! We tried it with a 12"x 1.5" iron pipe with iron caps threaded onto the ends. Filled with Bullseye (about 3/4 pound, as I recall)and with a small-diameter fuse through a 1/8" hole near one end, it produced one HELL of a bang, a crater, and a pipe-cap screaming overhead at enormous speed. I have heard that Bullseye was used as the explosive filler in some WWII hand grenades, and after that experience I can well believe it.

44man

12-28-2005, 05:12 PM

Black powder can be funny. I dumped a pound of old stuff in a pile with a train to it. It burned very fast and I barely got far enough away to keep from getting singed but it did not explode. The whole pound went up all at once but it was just a very fast burn. I can see if it was just in a wooden keg or a can that it would explode especially if there was a lot of it. Then, think of a wagon load of kegs! Any hindrance to gas escape can be very dangerous.
Smokeless will burn progressively from one end of the pile to the other instead of going off all at once. Thus, it generates gas slower then black and can split a light container to just continue burning. Unless it is tightly contained, it is not as dangerous to ship as black.
I remember shooting the old bazookas in the army. They were propelled with black powder. I never figured out how they did it. The noise even from 100 yd's away would hurt the ears. I tried to make a rocket out of a piece of arrow shaft with vanes on it. I filled it with black powder and fused it. It went about 3 feet into the air and exploded sending aluminum everywhere. As long as the opening was close to the powder, the gas escaped but as soon as it burned up in the shaft where the gas could not get out the hole fast enough, it exploded. Lots of fun, just be behind something when doing these tricks.
Sounds to me like we are all still kids, looking for fun!

StarMetal

12-28-2005, 05:31 PM

44man,

Yup, you don't understand BP even though you think you do because you did all those experiments with it when you were young. As a rocket fuel it has to be slowed down by mixing it with something that will do that. My friend and I have also lit off a pile of BP and it just didn't burn real fast, it was between burn fast and explode. Never ever did we even have a slightly close call. Like I said, we were dumb kids, but we were safe. We knew we were fooling with something that could hurt you, bad. We also make quite a few bombs from simple to quite elaborate. We made a pipe bomb much like the one Bruce described, but ours was with BP. We set it off in the woods quite a ways from town. We had enough fuse to let us get out of Dodge too. It should all the windows in the buildings in town. We had to detour home through the dark woods and come out at the other end of town to avoid the police. After a few days we went back to the scene of the explosion and it was awesome. There was shrapel holes everywhere and some real serious ones. Al Quaida would have been proud of us.

Have you ever shot an oxygen bottle with a high powered rifle? I have.

Joe

44man

12-29-2005, 11:35 AM

Dumbest thing I ever did was to shoot a 5 gallon can of water with a 110 gr bullet from a 30-06. I was 50 yd's away and heard a piece of the can or a piece of bullet scream over my head.

StarMetal

12-29-2005, 11:57 AM

44man,

Here's a good one. When I lived in Denver I had this group of friends that were alittle crazy....illegal machineguns and bombs. Well one day they make this homemade plastic explosive. Won't list all the ingredients but there was vasoline and powdered aluminum. So they decided to go up into the mtns to set it off (good choice, in Denver could have been bad hahaha). The one friend was a camera buff so he was going to take pictures. They found an old gold miner's shed make from that corrugated steel siding. What are they like 4 foot by 6 or 8 foot sheets. Well the camera friend got 150 yards away and was behind a big boulder that he could see over standing up and ready to snap a photo when it went off. He said there was this giant BOOM and the next thing he knows is one of those sheets of siding goes sailing just over his head!!! So he drops behind the boulder and the hell with the photos. I said geez, first I would have gotten a hell of alot further then 150 yards, in fact told him I wouldn't have even gone, and tried to talk some sense into the other guys. Eventually he quit hanging with them durning experiments like that.

Two more things to not shoot close up: Bowling balls and old toilets.

Joe