Going KABOOM with undercharged loads?

[milprileb]

Well I suppose for all you unbelieving whippersnappers go out and commence experimenting. If you live through it give us old idiots an education. its never to late to learn.

I totally agree but it would appear some folks got to learn the hard way.

I would submit though, this is like proving one can live through a rattle snake bite

.....

[M4bushy]

I think I will choose to take Winchester Olins word that WW-296 H110 will Kaboom. What would they have to gain by telling you not to under load it? I paid too much for my revolvers and Equipment and I like my hands and face too well to ignore the manufactures warnings. hey Call me a paranoid Idiot but Listening to the Manufacturer has not resulted in my loss of gun ammo or limb in over 40 years of loading.

But Its your life you gun do what you think is right.

Have you ever talked to someone at hodgdon about this? I have the info I was given is h-110 takes a certain amount of pressure to ignite. I was told if I down loaded it the worst that would happen is sticking a bullet int the barrel. They said the whole kaboom theory with a light load is a myth. Now who to believe, a hodgdon powder tech or Internet experts.
FWIW I decided to not take any chances with either scenario and use trail boss for light loads and H-110 for full power loads in my 480 ruger

[Reload3006]

Have you ever talked to someone at hodgdon about this? I have the info I was given is h-110 takes a certain amount of pressure to ignite. I was told if I down loaded it the worst that would happen is sticking a bullet int the barrel. They said the whole kaboom theory with a light load is a myth. Now who to believe, a hodgdon powder tech or Internet experts.

I have not talked to Hodgdon. I have however read the articles published by Olin WW296 about it. The main issue is unpredictability. (as I recall) it was published by Olin around the late 70z At that time Hodgdon was still a surplus powder seller. Not a manufacturer I don't know it to be true but H110 supposedly was a pull down of 296? at any rate they are the same powder today. Olin reported SEE and Fizzles therefore recommending that you not reduce the load at all to load ww296 as published only. I have several old WW reloading pamphlets It will be about a week but I will see if I can dig them up.
In the interim I would email Hodgdon if I were you before I set out to prove anything Or perhaps read what Felix has written

And You Sir are perfectly correct I for one would not take anyone's word for anything when it comes to safety. On line or in person. I would adhere to published data. If I had a ballistics lab where I could safely conduct experiments I may venture out into untested territory. But since I do not and I would assume that You do not. In the interest of safety my health your health not to mention the legal liabilities of this site that you follow the tried and true advice of load manuals that to include the Hodgdon site and printed material.

[M4bushy]

I have not talked to Hodgdon. I have however read the articles published by Olin WW296 about it. The main issue is unpredictability. (as I recall) it was published by Olin around the late 70z At that time Hodgdon was still a surplus powder seller. Not a manufacturer I don't know it to be true but H110 supposedly was a pull down of 296? at any rate they are the same powder today. Olin reported SEE and Fizzles therefore recommending that you not reduce the load at all to load ww296 as published only. I have several old WW reloading pamphlets It will be about a week but I will see if I can dig them up.
In the interim I would email Hodgdon if I were you before I set out to prove anything Or perhaps read what Felix has written

And Your Sir are perfectly correct I for one would not take anyone's word for anything when it comes to safety. On line or in person. I would adhere to published data. If I had a ballistics lab where I could safely conduct experiments I may venture out into untested territory. But since I do not and I would assume that You do not. In the interest of safety my health your health not to mention the legal liabilities of this site that you follow the tried and true advice of load manuals that to include the Hodgdon site and printed material.

After re-reading my post I wasn't referring to reload3006 as an "Internet expert" just making reference to all the info out there about light load kabooms.......

Ron

[MGySgt]

I hearken back to the days when "everybody knew" that soldiers in formation should break step before crossing bridges because the harmonics of that many boots in step with one-another would destroy the bridge. .[/U]

My last tour on Okinawa (89-90) there was a flat bottom roofed building that had a ramp running up to the top at Camp Kinser

Most units liked to use the top of the building as a turn around point. The formation runs over the years had damaged the internal roof of the building and chunks of concret was falling to the floor.

Other buildings built at the same time did not have this issue.

Was it because of the flat roof? Or the vibrations setup by the troops running in formation in step over a period of time?

The engineers did a test with a 40 man platoon running in formation on the roof - one circle of the roof and the equipment registered vibrations.

You be the judge - the roof was placed off limits for formation runs!

[Larry Gibson]

SEE has been verified by reproducing it in a lab/test facility. I have posted the Handloader article several times that expalins what SEE is, it's causes and how it happens. I have been involved directly with one SEE that destroyed a .280 Rem on a Mauser 3000 action. It is not a BS myth but there are a lot of myths surrounding it on how it happens. However, while most kabooms are the result of something mechanical (either in the load or the firearm malfunctions) the real cause is hunan error most often, whether we want to admit it or not.

A search of SEE should locate the article.

Larry Gibson

[mmorris]

Detonation was a common problem that most everyone who drove experienced before cars were equipped with a computer to control timing in response to "knock" on acceleration.

Detonation in an internal combustion engine is defined as the spontaneous ignition of the last three to five percent of the unburned gasoline ahead of the flame front that moves across the combustion chamber. Total combustion normally takes about 3 milliseconds, but this spontaneous ignition releases the remaining energy instantaneously, causing an intense pressure spike so short in duration that the piston cannot respond with faster movement. It instead absorbs this energy into the top of the piston, resulting in physical damage if continued long-term.

This "instant ignition" of the remaining unburned gasoline is possible because the air and fuel are well mixed and evenly distributed throughout the combustion chamber. I suggest that the gunpowder is more difficult to disperse as well as this phenomenon requires, which causes it to be difficult to duplicate.

A) You don't get more energy out of less powder. The damage is caused by the rapid rise in pressure that results from igniting the entire charge at once instead of igniting smoothly across the volume of powder. The same amount of powder burning slower than instantly will have a pressure curve, not a spike.

B) Pressure spikes are undetectable with a chronograph. Chronographs can detect pressure that is applied to the bullet long enough to add to the bullet's velocity, but pressure spikes are here-and-gone too quickly to impart velocity changes.

Mike

[Swampman]

I believe it's a myth created by those who have double charged and don't want to admit it. I will continue to believe that the rest of my life. There are powders like 296/110 that should only be reduced so much but that is a different thing.

[rasto]

I believe it's a myth created by those who have double charged and don't want to admit it. I will continue to believe that the rest of my life. There are powders like 296/110 that should only be reduced so much but that is a different thing.

You have to be a "lucky man" to have the luck of experience it

Here you are my live through and no double charge at all.
I was punctually measuring every round on the digital scale and have a look what happened.


Here you are



American Eagle (the flash hole was drilled as necklace)
There was no necessity do deprim the case after shoot because there was no primer!
I do not know the exact amount of powder but something around 17-18gr.
For somebody it is a myth but for me it is a very real thing

[Swampman]

There is nothing here to indicate that this was due to a light charge. So I'm unable to relate it to the topic.

[Mooseman]

Some people couldnt be convinced if it blew up in their hand...

[Cap'n Morgan]

I witnessed a SSE from a few inches away and still carries the scar as a reminder.

[M4bushy]

I believe it's a myth created by those who have double charged and don't want to admit it. I will continue to believe that the rest of my life. There are powders like 296/110 that should only be reduced so much but that is a different thing.

Those are my initial thoughts too. I've spoken to powder techs from Hodgdon and Ramshot both assured me it's a myth. I've also talked to some reloaders that have more knowledge about reloading than I'll ever know that fully believe SSE is real. I hope I never find out first hand what a kaboom is like, caused by SSE or double charge.



Ron

[altitude_19]

SEE has been verified by reproducing it in a lab/test facility. I have posted the Handloader article several times that expalins what SEE is, it's causes and how it happens. I have been involved directly with one SEE that destroyed a .280 Rem on a Mauser 3000 action. It is not a BS myth but there are a lot of myths surrounding it on how it happens. However, while most kabooms are the result of something mechanical (either in the load or the firearm malfunctions) the real cause is hunan error most often, whether we want to admit it or not.

I've searched and only found theoretical discussion (sound theory, I'll grant). Could I trouble you to find the article documenting the lab experiment?

[GP100man]

Me & a buddy done some crazy stuff with H-110 & a Redhawk chambered for 357 .

All we got was unburned powder & stuck bullets , most boolits would at least pop out the end of the muzzle .

& we found out ya can put enuff H-110 in a 357 case to cause it to slow down , I think it was compressed so much it hendered ign.

His revolver & idea ,I showed em the basics of straight walled cartridge loading .

He bought a Lee Challenger anniversary kit & with in 60 days bent his 8 3/8" 29 to the point it would`nt open !!

Yes he bought a manual , BBuuuttt- - - - -


It does`nt seem like it was almost 30 yrs. ago !!!!

[JIMinPHX]

When loading Blue Dot in a .357 mag, I've seen velocity go up as my powder charge was reduced. That spooked me quite a bit. I didn't go any lower with the powder charge after that. I did not want to reach the kaboom point.

[35remington]

Larry Gibson:

What lab or test facility, please?

I think we need to hear from them. Directly.

[Norbrat]

I believe it's a myth created by those who have double charged and don't want to admit it. I will continue to believe that the rest of my life. There are powders like 296/110 that should only be reduced so much but that is a different thing.

Explain how "that is a different thing"????

[Swampman]

Some people couldnt be convinced if it blew up in their hand...

I would be convinced it was caused by anything else other than a reduced powder charge. Reduced H110 and W296 will squib when reduced. That can stick a bullet in the barrel. Detonation from reduced powder charges is a myth.

[wv109323]

This was a "wifestale" in NRA Bullseye pistol. Ever once in a while some one would blow up a .38 Revolver and claim it was charge of 2.8 grains of Bullseye powder.
Hecules now Alliant could never replicate the event. Most were double charges or a squib load (leaving a bullet in the barrel) then a regular load.