Another name for SEE?

[Jim]

Got an email from a good friend that has been shooting and handloading for decades. He watched a guy blow up a rifle the other day. He suspects PDS. I wrote back. "What's that?" He says "Propellant detonation syndrome". Gotcha. Another name for what we call SEE.

[Larry Gibson]

Jim

Difference is PDS has never beed replicated in a lab and is still theoretical. SEE Is not "propellent detonation" but basically an explosion caused by high pressure resulting from the bullet becoming a bore obstruction. It has been easily replicated in labs and is well understood.

BTW; I'll probably be able to call, as requested, later today or tomorrow.

Larry Gibson

[swheeler]

How about KBM(Kaboom) The only detonation I believe in is with Class A EXPLOSIVES not with flammables like smokeless powder.

[geargnasher]

I thought nitroglycerine was an explosive.

BTW, gasoline isn't a class A explosive, but under the right conditions, can "detonate" with disasterous results to an engine.

Gear

[swheeler]

I thought nitroglycerine was an explosive.

BTW, gasoline isn't a class A explosive, but under the right conditions, can "detonate" with disasterous results to an engine.

Gear

When it is used in smokeless powder it is part of a flammable, which is not a class a explosive

[firefly1957]

In Greener's book on firearms he shows a double rifle that had a black powder charge detonate he blamed it on the powder being to fine and detonating instead of burning. I have not heard much on this lately a lot of the early reports if I remember correctly were very light bullseye charges and slower IMR powders well below minimum charge weight.

[mroliver77]

Larry, can you point to any published material on labs creating SEE. I am not looking to disagree or start anything. I have never seen any "proof" of SEE being anything more than a theory. I am always interested in solid evidence proving or disproving any phenomena related to our passion. Plus I Really hate blowing myself or my guns up.
Jay

[Jim]

What I know about SEE or PDS wouldn't a thimble. I DO know, though, that the resultant pressure of a BP charge will go through the roof if the case density is less than 100%. Even at that charge, there's a potential for disaster. BP is best compressed.
On the other end of the spectrum, BP can be loaded to a very low charge and made to work. I have proved this(only to myself) by experimenting with such small charges in my Lyman .54 Plains Rifle.
The chamber in the rear portion of a Lyman GPR where the snail is attached is bored .360 to 1.00" deep. I got this data from Lyman. I calculated the charge to fill that chamber, loaded it and placed a patched .535 ball over it. That is not a compressed charge. I found it odd that the report was more of a sharp crack, like a modern firearm, than the typical boom.
I can only surmise that the small charge developed a high pressure and resulted in such report.

That's my story an' I'm stickin' to it.

[Jim]

the evil double post twin!

[swheeler]

Jim you got a studder there, 2 fer one deal! By golly that'll rack up the number of posts!

[Jim]

It irritates me. Makes me do twice as much typin'.

[felix]

Consider the insurance implication of a SEE condition done on purpose. A SEE occurs more often than any one realizes it. It is by pure luck NOT enough power is released on any one occurrence to cause significant concern by most shooters. However, there are some of us who have damaged guns by tempting fate. I have a gun using a designated load that will deliver a SEE every time when fired within the same constraints. The entire implementation was offered to a lab and was promptly declined. ... felix

[swheeler]

It irritates me. Makes me do twice as much typin'.

LOL you funny guy you

[Jim]

Felix,
I know no one that has more experience with this phenomena than you. I thought of you immediately when I received the email.
I distinctly remember the very long thread, years ago, when this was discussed. I am now convinced that what happened to me the other day was an example of SEE, or what my friend calls PDS.
Next time I get ready to play with light pistol propellant loads, I'm gonna place it with Kapok. That's what I should have done to start with but, I never thought SEE would manifest with a light load like that.
I was fortunate. The rifle didn't blow that time.

[swheeler]

Consider the insurance implication of a SEE condition done on purpose. A SEE occurs more often than any one realizes it. It is by pure luck NOT enough power is released on any one occurrence to cause significant concern by most shooters. However, there are some of us who have damaged guns by tempting fate. I have a gun using a designated load that will deliver a SEE every time when fired within the same constraints. The entire implementation was offered to a lab and was promptly declined. ... felix

And probably with a single base powder taboot, yes?

[35remington]

Jim, what Felix is talking about and what you're talking about ain't the same.

Light pistol powder "detonation" is the most doubtful theory of all, and isn't SEE.

SEE doesn't manifest itself with light pistol powders, so in that sense you're both correct and incorrect.

I have never, ever heard of a rifle "exploding" because a very small charge of pistol powder was used in it. Curiously, it seems to happen to revolver and automatic pistol shooters when another cause of the problem is much more plausible. We, unfortunately, tend to believe in conspiracy theories and the least likely explanation for problems when pistol powders are used.

If pistol powder in small doses in large cases truly caused problems, those guys using two to three grains Bullseye under a round ball in, say, a '06 or 30-30 case would have blown themselves up repeatedly in the space of time this new cast bullet board has existed.

No such thing has happened. One has to wonder why.

[leftiye]

I disagree. I think all of these thangs, SEE, PDS, Black powder detonation, chamber ringing, are the same phenomenon. I think they all depend on something that acts like a barrel obstruction (and that usually being a bullet) occurring . Sometimes, as in the black powder example it is the ball/boolit/bullet not moving Quickly enough as the explosion (yup, black powder is an explosive) then impacts the bullet as it fills the space that was left behind the bullet by this loading scenario. Chamber ringing with a case filler that is tamped over the powder leaving a space between the filler and the bullet.is another example. In the smokeless examples again the boolit/bullet is moved forward by the primer or primer and abortive powder ignition, and then the powder ignites in the space behind this bore obstruction.

[35remington]

The "fast powder blowup" theory differs quite considerably from what you state and shares very little in common with those other things mentioned. In this case those who believe in such things think that the powder somehow "over ignites" and blows up rather than propels even though the powder charge is extremely light.....and the fast powder doesn't have the necessary kinetic energy to destroy the pistol if it burned in any normal scenario, so an "explosion" is mysteriously posited. With ideas of this type you hear such internet terms as "flashover detonation" and similar folderol.

Chemists who make the fast pistol powders discussed tell us that the chemical composition and molecular structure of the powder cannot support an "explosion" and the arms that have been examined in such "blowups" always show signs of overpressure, which is distinct from that of an explosion. Analysis of the metals involved in "blown up" pistols have shown this distinction. Overpressure is due to overcharging. An explosion is a much faster event and will show up in the analysis.

So far, no dice.

No barrel obstructions are involved according to these theorists, nor does the bullet cause a bore obstruction. The powder speed is much faster than that involved in SEE. The bullet is seated normally and often is lighter than normal which results in increased case volume due to shallower bullet seating (see Cowboy Action Shooting claims and practice). The defining factor is somehow that "too little fast pistol powder" is used with "too much case space."

That's how the "fast powder detonation" theory goes.

You know.......they didn't do nuthin' wrong, like over charged a case multiple times.

I must make clear I'm referring to "detonation" of fast pistol powders only, and not to SEE or those conditions found with slower rifle powders.

[felix]

Yes, a single base powder....H322, early TBird lot. ... felix

Yes, even small pistol charges in small cases can go bananas when least expected. With revolters we would never know it because of the rapid pressure loss at the gap; With autos the moving chamber volume helps the reduction of pressure from recognition of a SEE. ... felix

[gravel]

since I had to search for the acronym........... SEE = 'Secondary Explosive Effect'



http://www.exteriorballistics.com/re...e/glossary.cfm