KABOOM through SEE, what truth lies in this?

[Outpost75]

RCBS list reduced .30/30 loads using H110/W296 in their cast manual. They are obviously comfortable there is no issue. Lots of CBA match shooters used reduced loads of both powder too.

I was also at the CBA Nationals when a fellow from out west came east and blew up his Remington 40XBR in .308 Win. on a cold PA morning shooting his favorite load of 18 grs. of H110 with a Saeco RG4 bullet which worked fine in California.

RCBS no longer publishes their cast bullet manual. The edition from the 1980s is a collector item. Olin, who makes the powder, warns against using 296 for reduced loads. H110 is nominally the same powder in non-canister grade. I've ringed M1 Garand chambers trying to use H335 in full charge loads with 150-grain jacketed bullets too. I am not inclined to experiment with spheroidal powders beyond the published manuals and that is generally good advice.

[JeffinNZ]

That went along with the "detonation" theory which is unproven. What was proved through thorough investigation and testing by Hercules, Federal and S&W was what actually was causing the blow ups. It was double and triple charges with the WCs seated too deep. I have posted the article on this and on the cause of SEE numerous times. Can do so again?

Larry Gibson

Bingo!

"Oh, but I couldn't have been a double charge. I wouldn't have done that. I have been loading for ever." Sound familiar?

[jayjay1]

I was also at the CBA Nationals when a fellow from out west came east and blew up his Remington 40XBR in .308 Win. on a cold PA morning shooting his favorite load of 18 grs. of H110 with a Saeco RG4 bullet which worked fine in California.

...

What was the reason?

Like Larry Gibson said, X grain of powder Y brings Z energy, not more, and not less.
That´s pure physics and logical to me.

[frnkeore]

It really bothers me that people make assumptions about 296/H110 w/o testing it. And at least one person has done limited testing of it, found it was safe and still makes negitive assumptions, regarding it.

Speer has published jacketed, pistol loads for 30/30, ranging from 14.5 to 18.0 gr, with 110, 130, 150 and 165 gr bullets.

I have used 296, since 1985 (30 years) in several calibers w/o any issues!!!! It was used for at least 8 years before that by MANY competitive shooters and is STILL used, today by some of them. It's not used as much today, because there are so many powders that compete with it, where 15 years ago and before, there where basiclly only two other powders that we (ASSRA) used. BUT, it still wins it's share of matches. There are only 12 people in the US that have shot a score of 1240+ out of 1250 at 200 yards in a fifty shot match (1.5 dia center equaling 25. 50 x 25 = 1250) and a shooter of 296 is in that group. Over the many years, he has shot thousands of loads of 296.

ALL the loads that I have tested, have had very low, or lower than most powders in ES and SD.

Some people confuse CBA with ISSA and ASSRA matches. There are many more shooters that use 296/H110 in ISSA and ASSRA matches. There have been literaly multi-millions of 296/H110 loads shot in matches, across the USA. I really find it very hard to believe that no problems have come up in all that shooting if, it's as dangerous as some people on this forum, lead us to believe.

I would have to suggest the 18.0 gr, 308 load was a double charge as it is the ONLY case of 296 use that I know of (other than reduced revolver loads) and that I've ever heard of. As has been stated before, most reduced (any powder) pressure problems and blow ups, are the result of double charges or the wrong powder.

It is a very safe powder to work with for cast bullet loads. When you get low ES and low SD you can't be getting pressure spikes, let alone SEE.

My suggestion is that the people that criticize it, actually try using it. It may not give superior accuracy in all applications but, it will not hurt you or your rifle.

Regarding Olins recommendations, they ALSO recommend not reducing 760 and 785 and I never hear anyone jumping on people, telling them it's dangerous to reduce those powders! Olin would also not recommend using them in cartridges that THEY had not published data on!!!

Frank
User of 296 for 30 years and still alive with all his parts.

[303Guy]

There was a case in which a new factory load for the 6.5X55 blew up a few rifles. The new load was thoroughly tested before release in the factory's test barrel. That barrel did not have the long free bore of milsurp rifles and therein lay the problem. The company was able to reproduce the blow ups in their lab. It was a case of true SEE. It did not involve a corroded or obstructed bore in front of the throat but did involve the bullet moving forward with no resistance then stopping (or slowing?) in the lead. I don't recall anything else about it.

H4350 is said to be a risk powder but I have used it in reduced cast boolit loads with no problems. Perhaps I didn't use it enough to have a SEE! I was careful in what I was doing but that's no guarantee. I used fillers.

Double charges are not the only culprit for alleged SEE's. Reduced charges of any powder can have them. The powder charge needs to be reduced enough to make room for a bullet to be pushed back far enough into the case to chamber the round with a bullet already stuck in the bore from the previous cartridge that no powder charge. It is good practice to use a powder that fills most of the case space. That will stop the next round from chambering should a bullet be in the throat.

Believe me gentlemen, I know that of which I speak. I've mentioned this event many times. I would not be alive and telling the tale had it not been for my policy of filling cases. Well, I may have been alive but I might not have been able to see so good or type with two forefingers. You think you will notice when a round has no powder? Most times maybe but it only take one time to get ugly and it can and does happen. My personal close encounter of the third kind with a 'SEE'. I still shudder to think of it.

[Larry Gibson]

"It really bothers me that people make assumptions about 296/H110 w/o testing it. And at least one person has done limited testing of it, found it was safe and still makes negitive assumptions, regarding it."

frankeore
As the one who did the "limited testing of it" I must say you really need to get the facts straight. I Pressure tested 16 - 19.5 gr of H110 in an 8x57 with a 195 gr cast bullet with and without a Dacron filler. Note the 8x57 has a larger case capacity than the 30-30, the 32-40 and the .308W. The 8x57 also has a smaller expansion ratio than those cartridges. All of which makes a difference with your suggested safe 18 gr load of H110 in the 8x57 under that weight of bullet.

The results of that test showed that 18 gr of H110 under the 195 gr bullet in gave uniform ignition and psi's if a Dacron filler was used. W/o the Dacron filler that load gave erratic results if the powder was not "pre-positioned". At 19 gr of H110 I told you the trace began to show signs of pressure spiking (pressure spiking does not mean the psi is exceeding the psi MAP for the cartridge however). at 19.5 gr the pressure spiking was becoming quite evident so I quit testing.

Based on the results of that test I recommended against the use of H110 in such larger capacity cases. Obviously Outpost75's last post regarding the SEE event with 18 gr H110 in a .308W proves I was correct in my summation of the test evidence. Actual SEE events are actually quite rare as several "conditions" need be present for one to occur. As I stated previously most blowups attributed to SEE are actually the result of over charges of powder. With reduced loads as commonly used with cast bullets a double or triple charge provides enough potential for a catastrophic event even though not an actual SEE. An over charge of powder is not one of the "conditions" for an SEE event.

User of 296 for 30 years and still alive with all his parts.

You might consider in making the above statement you have probably been driving for as long or longer(?) and have not yet been killed in an automobile accident......however, consider it only takes once. I, like 303Guy, have been very close to an actual SEE and a couple over loads. That was more than enough for me.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

303guy

"There was a case in which a new factory load for the 6.5X55 blew up a few rifles. The new load was thoroughly tested before release in the factory's test barrel. That barrel did not have the long free bore of milsurp rifles and therein lay the problem. The company was able to reproduce the blow ups in their lab. It was a case of true SEE. It did not involve a corroded or obstructed bore in front of the throat but did involve the bullet moving forward with no resistance then stopping (or slowing?) in the lead. I don't recall anything else about it."

The other "condition" that goes along with the corroded bore at the leade is the residue left from poor ignition. The SEE events many times occur after 2 - 4 rounds of the same load have been fired. Primer residue and unburned or partially burned powder in the throat/leade can be very abrasive and can "grab onto" the bullet.

Larry Gibson

[frnkeore]

The results of that test showed that 18 gr of H110 under the 195 gr bullet in gave uniform ignition and psi's if a Dacron filler was used. W/o the Dacron filler that load gave erratic results if the powder was not "pre-positioned". At 19 gr of H110 I told you the trace began to show signs of pressure spiking (pressure spiking does not mean the psi is exceeding the psi MAP for the cartridge however). at 19.5 gr the pressure spiking was becoming quite evident so I quit testing.

This just isn't true! Starting with the 195 gr bullet, it was the 185 gr SAECO that you tested. Please review and re-post those results and please when you do re-post the results, post it in larger than postage size attachments, for all to see!

The 18.0 gr charge in the 308, only proves that the guy double charged. Go back to your own statement that there has to be enough energy for that to happen! It just won't do it in a modern barrel (where the actual strengh is), let alone a modern bolt behind it.

Frank

[Prospector Howard]

303guy

"There was a case in which a new factory load for the 6.5X55 blew up a few rifles. The new load was thoroughly tested before release in the factory's test barrel. That barrel did not have the long free bore of milsurp rifles and therein lay the problem. The company was able to reproduce the blow ups in their lab. It was a case of true SEE. It did not involve a corroded or obstructed bore in front of the throat but did involve the bullet moving forward with no resistance then stopping (or slowing?) in the lead. I don't recall anything else about it."

The other "condition" that goes along with the corroded bore at the leade is the residue left from poor ignition. The SEE events many times occur after 2 - 4 rounds of the same load have been fired. Primer residue and unburned or partially burned powder in the throat/leade can be very abrasive and can "grab onto" the bullet.

Larry Gibson

So reading this thread and this in particular, a thought came to mind. Since an SEE event is most likely caused by poor powder ignition, wouldn't using small rifle primers in a large rifle case with slower burning powder help contribute to an event? I happened to try your primer conversion idea on some 8 x 57 cases and even using Unique (14 gr), I got poor powder ignition when I tried shooting some with 175 gr cast. In your thread on converting berdan cases to small rifle primers, the load you tested was 30gr of 4895 in a 7.62 x54R. Some food for thought here. Cuss at me if you want.

[Larry Gibson]

So reading this thread and this in particular, a thought came to mind. Since an SEE event is most likely caused by poor powder ignition, wouldn't using small rifle primers in a large rifle case with slower burning powder help contribute to an event? I happened to try your primer conversion idea on some 8 x 57 cases and even using Unique (14 gr), I got poor powder ignition when I tried shooting some with 175 gr cast. In your thread on converting berdan cases to small rifle primers, the load you tested was 30gr of 4895 in a 7.62 x54R. Some food for thought here. Cuss at me if you want.

No need to cuss at you as you are correct. The SR primer in the larger 8x57 case can contribute to an SEE event or at least create some of the "conditions". As with small amounts of faster burning powders in larger cases I recommend drilling the flash hole to get the larger flame of a LR primer into the case quicker and filling from the primer end with flash to better ignite the smaller amount of powder. As you note on my thread with the primer conversions I did use 30 gr 4895 but also used a Dacron filler in the 7.62x54R cases to hold the powder back. Those primer pocket modified cases work fine there but obviously you're having problems with lighter loads. I've not tried any lighter loads my own altered cases such as your load with Unique. Going to have to do some experimenting on that and perhaps put a caveat in that thread. Thanks for the heads up.

Larry Gibson

[frnkeore]

You might consider in making the above statement you have probably been driving for as long or longer(?) and have not yet been killed in an automobile accident......however, consider it only takes once. I, like 303Guy, have been very close to an actual SEE and a couple over loads. That was more than enough for me.

I like this quote, a LOT. I would guess by this statement, that Larry is suggesting that we band ALL cars.

I would also like to see the data on Larry's near SEE loads with 296/H110. I only know of him using it one time.

Not to mention that he hasn't address my assertion that you CAN"T have near SEE's with low pressuse, low SD and low ES's. And that has been my recorded results, using 296.

Frank

[jayjay1]

I think someone inhere wrote something about fillers in the Lyman book, can´t find it right now.

But I´ve read the book and don´t remember loads where fillers where recommended.

Can you tell me, where I can find this?

[frnkeore]

4th edition of the Lyman Cast Bullet Manual, pg 43. One sentence of many about the subject is:

"Neither Lyman or this writer (Mike Venturino) recomends the use of fillers in cast bullet loads."

Frank

[jayjay1]

But that´s what I said before and always do, no fillers.

Did I get it wrong?
Someone said inhere, that Lyman recommends fillers for some loads.

[4570guy]

Reduced loads (below published starting loads) with powders slower than 3031 can be prone to SEE events. The phenomena is definitely real and well understood by ballistics engineers.

[Larry Gibson]

Post deleted

Larry Gibson

[jayjay1]

Can you proof that?

That´s exactly that kind of rumour what I´m hearing all day.

[4570guy]

Read the book firearms pressure factors by Brownell.

[Motor]

I totally agree with Larry Gibson. I've been loading since 1985 and have read several warnings about reducing W-296 or H-110 below the published start data. These warnings were printed in the reloading manuals. That's good enough for me.

I don't load "reduced" loads with any ball type powder period. There are just too many very good and recommend powders out there for making reduced loads to mess with something that the manufacturer of the powder warns could be unsafe.

Motor

[jayjay1]

Isn´t that a different story?

Someone says that reduced loads are all unsafe, you now go down to two powders (W-296 and H-110).

Ah, ok, now I see, that Larry named those two powders in a quotation.
I´ve missed that one, sorry.

So I understood him totally wrong, not all reduced loads are unsafe.
Thought we all inhere use them.