Model 96 Swedish Mauser Accident

[Larry Gibson]

Rosewood

No it doesn't happen with small charges of easily ignited powders as they burn fast enough to keep pushing the bullet forward. I'm sure some here have experienced, with extremely light loads, a bullet sticking in the barrel and the gas pressure being released back around the non expanded case.....or it the case is expanded the pressure being released when the action is opened. Small amounts (not to be confused with a "reduced load") of powder in such loads you mention do not contain the energy potential to create catastrophic amounts of pressure in a 45 Colt especially since the pressure is vented via the barrel/cylinder gap. However, at least two S.E.E.s have been documented in 45-70 Contender pistols with 300 gr jacketed bullets and relatively light loads of 2400.

Larry Gibson

[Hamish]

Larry,

Do please tell me who I've criticised and what those criticisms were. And as far as "arguing", if you see my posts in this thread, especially after Mr. Humbles banning, as "arguing", instead of trying to frame the discussion, well, there's not much I can do about that other than your perception is a little hard for me to understand as I've gone out of my to way to keep this civil in an attempt to keep this discussion open to additional information.

[Larry Gibson]

Hamish

........"I've gone out of my to way to keep this civil in an attempt to keep this discussion open to additional information."


We are in complete agreement; that is all I, you and everyone else here should do.

Larry Gibson

[4570guy]

Regarding SEE - a good reference is the book Firearms Pressure Factors. Read the first couple chapters.

[EDG]

Hamish
Object all you want in the name of scientific method. But so far all you have done is object. If you want more proof go do the research to find it and prove your case.
You remind me of humbles in that you want to negate discussion without offering anything of substance.
You can call my experience anecdotal if you want but it is significantly more information than you have provided. You have not admitted to knowing much of anything about any of these pressure problems.
If you want a pressure trace cough up the money for that testing.
I believe the burden is on you since you are the one requesting a higher level of testing while turning your nose up at even the most rudimentary form of testing.
Even with a pressure trace the equipment will only give you time and pressure. It cannot tell you what caused the spike.
Can you detect poor ignition from a weak mainspring?
Can you detect poor and erratic ignition from powder position?
Can you detect poor and erratic ignition from a hard to ignite powder?
Can you detect a combination of all 3 of the above? The answer is no.
But you are ready to say only a pressure trace is acceptable information?

Whatever testing it is that you have been wishing for probably does not exist in the civilian world.
I have subscribed to Handloader Magazine since the late 1960s. There was an early series on pressure factors by a Dr Brownell PHD. But those tests predated all the advances that we have had in instrumentation in the last 3 decades. Since that time Handloader has published little beyond anecdotes which leads me to think there is very little information available to the public.

[EDG]

Hamish
Object all you want in the name of scientific method. But so far all you have done is object. You remind me of humbles in that you want to negate discussion with only your objections without offering anything of substance.
You can call my experience anecdotal if you want but it is significantly more information than you have provided.
If you want a pressure trace cough up the money for that testing.
I believe the burden is on you since you are the one requesting a higher level of testing while turning your nose down at even the most rudimentary form of testing.
Even with a pressure trace the equipment will only give you time and pressure. It cannot tell you what caused the spike.
Can you detect poor ignition from a weak mainspring?
Can you detect poor and erratic ignition from powder position?
Can you detect poor and erratic ignition from a hard to ignite powder?
Can you detect a combination of all 3 of the above? The answer is no.
But you are ready to say only a pressure trace is acceptable information?

[jsn]

So Humble got tossed, huh?

I'll put this out there, I can get the barrel borescoped if someone wants to send it to me. It might help answer some questions, but then again it might not.

There was something in one of the Lee reloading manuals about starting pressure required to "de-bullet" a round of ammo. Going from memory, the starting pressure without a crimp is something like 200-300psi, but the starting pressure with a heavy crimp jumps to 2,000psi. That might not explain the problematic factory ammo, but most reloaders I know do not crimp at all for any kind of match or accuracy loads.

One question regarding actions, from what I have seen (no pun intended), I recollect that small ring Mausers seem to let go at the receiver ring, and M98's generally let go in the barrel in front of the receiver when something goes bad. Are there any generalizations on this theme that are safe to conclude? Is the third locking lug on a Mauser really necessary, etc.?

[Ballistics in Scotland]

So Humble got tossed, huh?

I'll put this out there, I can get the barrel borescoped if someone wants to send it to me. It might help answer some questions, but then again it might not.

There was something in one of the Lee reloading manuals about starting pressure required to "de-bullet" a round of ammo. Going from memory, the starting pressure without a crimp is something like 200-300psi, but the starting pressure with a heavy crimp jumps to 2,000psi. That might not explain the problematic factory ammo, but most reloaders I know do not crimp at all for any kind of match or accuracy loads.

One question regarding actions, from what I have seen (no pun intended), I recollect that small ring Mausers seem to let go at the receiver ring, and M98's generally let go in the barrel in front of the receiver when something goes bad. Are there any generalizations on this theme that are safe to conclude? Is the third locking lug on a Mauser really necessary, etc.?

It is safe to conclude that the Mauser 98 receiver ring is a lot stronger, and probably only the use of heat treated alloy steels can make any bolt-action rifle stronger. It isn't just the thickness of metal, but the existence of the internal stop-ring which strengthens it.

I don't believe the bullet pull we can measure with a machine gives really useful information on how the bullet resists gas expansion at that point. at one time an issue of experimental tin-plated bullets was issued for the National Match competitions, because tinfoil strips in French artillery ammunition had been found to reduce metallic fouling. Well so did the plating, but Col. Townsend Wheeler found that it enormously increased the bullet pull, and even broke the test machine. Nonetheless it didn't cause unduly high pressures. What did, to the tune of causing several rifle explosions, was the combination of this with the illicit use of grease to lubricate the bullet.

We know that grease or oil in the neck area stops the neck of the case expanding. Liquids and semi-solids can behave just like solids when things happen fast enough - as witness the almost universal serious injuries among people who try to break high diving records. The logical conclusion is that bullets don't pull (or rather push) out against the full friction of the neck. The gas expands the neck off the bullet, like a surgeon blowing into a clinging rubber glove.

[Larry Gibson]

Ballistics in Scotland is essentially correct; in a cartridge with normal psi there are two forces at work releasing the bullet from the neck. One is the friction coefficient between the bullet and case neck tension (case neck tension can be a real variable). the other is the expansion of the case neck outward from the bullet caused by the expanding gas pressure behind and around the bullet.

However, should the force of the primer be sufficient to over come the frictional coefficient of the bullet/case neck and push the bullet out without there being sufficient pressure to expand the neck there is possibly sufficient area for gas to work between the case neck/body and the chamber. in many chambers, especially milsurp chambers or those with "free bore", with longer throats a bullet in a case with out powder can easily be blown out of the case to stick in the throat against the leade (rifling). In such cases, many times, we find little measurable neck expansion.

Larry Gibson

[EDG]

I have 2 cases with blown primers that have the outside of the cases covered in soot. The case necks did not expand due to the light powder charge. I believe the bullets slowed or stopped momentarily in the throat. With the gas pressure around the outside of the case the bullet stuck and the pressure skyrocketed blowing the primer.
At the time I was testing 2 rifles. One blew both primers the other also had sooted cases but did not blow any primers. I later increased the load in both rifles and they both functioned normally.
No more blow primers, no more soot on the out side of the case body. There was a normal soot pattern at the neck.

[Multigunner]

This thread has convinced me that I should go through all my handloads and check the neck tension and that while I'm at it I have around 200 rounds of .303 I handloaded on fresh Remington cases about 15 years ago that I did not crimp.
I'd found the most accurate load I have worked best with the 150 gr Hornady deated out past the crimping cannelure. The neck tension from the Lee Loader die I was using seemed extra tight and I had no problem with bullets working loose. I could not twist them loose with finger pressure, but about two years ago I took a few out for test firing a rifle and did find one loose bullet. I set it aside, seated the bullet to the cannelure and used the Lee Loader crimping feature to set it in tight before firing it.
At the time I was only concerned that a bullet might get pushed back into the case on loading, but now I see there may be more important concerns.

I had intended to fire off all this old ammo and reload all the cases with fresh powder charges in any case.

I'm not sure if the powder I used ,IMR 4329, could cause any problems. I've heard this powder can be tricky in heavier .308 charge weights. Charge weight used is far from a light load at 43.5 grains.

I remember my dad always checked how tight a rifle or pistol bullet was in the neck before loading by twisting hard between thumb and finger. He didn't reload, he checked all his ammo like that even if fresh off the shelf. That might be something he picked up in training during WW2.
I must have picked it up from him, otherwise I would not have noticed that loose bullet.

[Multigunner]

Sorry that was 4320 , I still can't edit my posts for some reason.

[4570guy]

EDG - what powder did this occur with?

In the book firearms pressure factors the indication is that SEE is primarily a concern with powders slower than 3031. That said, the was not enough published data from which to draw a conclusion on that point. I would suspect that the powder speed that could cause trouble is a function of case volume.

I crimp all of my hand loads not because of this issue but because I've found measurably better accuracy when I crimp.

[rosewood]

Hmm, so maybe one of the the takeaways is to crimp all of your ammo? Especially if using light loads. I have always been one to crimp even though many say they don't crimp. I just feel better about it. Don't want them moving around when handling or under recoil

Rosewood

[Larry Gibson]

My advise (takeaway) has been to use a more suitable powder that ignites easily and burns efficiently at low end reduced load or "starting load" pressures for the weight of bullet used. There are many variables the reloader can't control, that is a variable the reload can control. I learned to follow that advise the hard way. Others need not learn it that way.

All too often we see here and on other forums; "I've got a jug, lb, etc. of XXXX powder I want to use up but can't find any load data for it in my XYZ cartridge. Think I'll start low and work up." Many times they get away with it and no harm no foul. However, occasionally just the right factors are induced and an S.E.E. can potentially occur.

Larry Gibson

[Soundguy]

Hmm, so maybe one of the the takeaways is to crimp all of your ammo? Especially if using light loads. I have always been one to crimp even though many say they don't crimp. I just feel better about it. Don't want them moving around when handling or under recoil

Rosewood

In the past I have , as a test, not crimped boltgun ammo for which i fed singally, however after a time or two of getting a flat nose projectile hang on a feed ramp and set the projectile back upon chambering, i abandoned the testing.

I crimp everything with the correct crimp type per case/cartridge/die, whether it is taper to close mouth bell, roll into a canelure, or a collet mouth squeeze.

Consistent crimps provide consistent neck retention, provides consistant pressure, provides consistant results.

Who doesn't want that.

Besides.. what if I have a box of non crimped handloads and forget and load them into my high recoil autoloader? Easy to avoid, non problem, by just following the procedures for safe reloading in the manuals.. the stuff we learned day one.

clean,deprime, resize (trim-etc), prime, charge, load, crimp, shoot, repeat....

[EDG]

The powder was Accurate 2495. Accurate touted this powder as an alternative to 4895. Most of us know that 4895 is very tolerant of loading density. Apparently Accurate 2495 isn't. The 7.65 Mauser case is not that much different than the .308 Win case. At the time I bought 2 lbs of 2495 it was a relatively new powder and Accurate did not have any data for it for the Mauser round. The each of the two cannisters came with a flier of the most popular data folded and stuffed in with the powder. Later Accurate did publish data for the 7.65 Mauser and the loads are a few grains hotter than what I had a problem with.
I was testing (2) 1891 Mausers. Both primers that blew were in the same rifle. Both rifles were sooting the case heavily - basically 100% of the case.
I noticed the offending rifle had a slow firing pin fall so I pulled the bolt apart, which is a bit of an exercise with an 1891 at the range. The main spring was packed with cosmoline so I cleaned it up and reassembled it.

To resume firing I swapped the non-offending rifle bolt into the primer blowing rifle and shooting went back to normal except for all of the soot on the cases.
Then I put the correct cleaned up bolt back into the primer blowing rifle and it resumed shooting ok too. My eventual "using" load in both rifles was about 4 grains higher than the primer blowing load. The "using" load is right in the middle of Accurate's data for 180 grain bullets.

My theory is this:
What we see when we think we have a SEE event often looks the same regardless of cause - blown up rifles and brass. That is not a very exact indicator of what happened.
I think there are a number of different things that can cause a blown primer, case and rifle. These causes may act independently or they may happen in some combination. We wind up scratching our heads because there are multiple things that cause the same result. Then we argue about them. Then someone that cannot reproduce these events just takes the easy way out and declares that they do not exist. They definitely exist but I think there are multiple conditions that yield the same result. Hence all the arguing.
In this case I think the slow firing pin fall, low pressure load and powder position in the case all contributed to the problems. I think the bullet started, stopped and started again. The momentarily stopped bullet acted as an obstruction.

The low pressure resulted in soot all over the outside of the case. The forward end of the case was not expanded (the neck never expanded in spite of a blown primer). The primer pocket blew out about .010 over size in very tough US GI SL-54 brass. The headstamp was nearly ironed out of the case head. There was a rectangle mark at the ejector slot. (no the case neck was not too thick for a 1891 Mauser chamber)

I have also had a bolt locked on a Rem 788 in .30-30 while using a reduced load of spherical powder (a no no now that I am a 45 years less dumb).
The 30-30 lock up was due to erratic ignition due to powder position and I could reproduce it too. Use the same loading density in a large overbore case and you might have a blown up rifle.

EDG - what powder did this occur with?

In the book firearms pressure factors the indication is that SEE is primarily a concern with powders slower than 3031. That said, the was not enough published data from which to draw a conclusion on that point. I would suspect that the powder speed that could cause trouble is a function of case volume.

I crimp all of my hand loads not because of this issue but because I've found measurably better accuracy when I crimp.

[Larry Gibson]

As posted on the S.E.E. Loading Data, Need Help thread;

Would appear with the departure of Mr Humble that this thread and the blown up M96 thread that led up to this one are dying. Yet some will come on and use the search function on the topic and still be able to read this and the other thread. Much of what Mr Humble has stated appears to have been gotten by him simply by researching the internet. While the internet can be useful we must remember that much information on the internet can also be false and misleading. This is simply because anyone can post just about anything on the internet, fact or fiction, without any liability. I don't wish to discuss the merits of that but am just pointing it out.

My point here is there are available information(s) from reliable sources on the topic of S.E.E. The technicians of powder manufacturers, reloading manuals and researches may not address it by that name but the premise of what causes an S.E.E. event is the same regardless of the name. There has been much research under controlled scientific testing taking place in the last 15 +/- or so years, especially since the laboratory testing as reported in the posted Hanloader article was made known. My point here is simply to offer a note of caution for those reading this and the other thread; don't rely on information posted by Mr Humble or anyone else who simply is surfing the net, can't find information and state it isn't so. There is information available and one should look at other sources than "on line". In this thread, as an example, Mr Humble posted this; .

"Could you share the details with us ? There is nothing unique about the 243 soooooo what works with it, should work for anything. In looking at the Hodgdon site 243 loading data vs my 10 year old Hodgdon book, I don't see any loads dropped, warnings etc. Nor has Hodgdon abruptly dropped any powders suitable for the 243. Looking forward to the information you have from Hodgdon."

He looks at one site (a well respected site), doesn't find anything related to the topic and assumes that to justify his position S.E.E. doesn't exist. Apparently Mr Humble did not research other reloading manuals that are readily available "off line". This information has been readily available for many years, many more that the 10 years Mr Humble only went back. I won't cite them all but just two examples from Hornady loading manuals.

In 1991 Hornady published the 4th Edition (a two volume set) of it's reloading manual. We may note the Hornady Reloading Manuals have been a staple to reloaders for many years prior to and to this day. The Hornady Reloading Manuals are one of the top manuals available containing scientifically tested reloading information. In Volume I of the 4th Edition on page 174 under the 243 Winchester cartridge we find this warning posted;

"Slow burning powders such as IMR4350 are not safe when loaded with reduced charges. Lighter charges of a slow burning propellant may cause unexpected high pressure, known as detonation. In some instances primers are blown, bolts stick, ore even stocks are splintered. At any rate, this detonation problem only exists with lower charges of slow burning powder and we do not recommend such use in the 243. Never use charges of slow burning powders lower than listed in our data."

Note the use of "detonation" as this was still the theory (60-70+ years old) of what was happening when an S.E.E. event occurred. The use of peizo-transducers, and more recently,strain gauge psi measuring came into use subsequent to the development of those theories. Transducers and strain gages are giving a much more complete picture of internal ballistics. With the advent of that type of measuring the cause of an S.E.E. event was first actually measured and reported in the Handloader article. Since the cause/reason for an S.E.E. event has became known we find the same warnings against the use of low charges of slow burning powder with the term "detonation" no longer used. It is now known smokeless propellant powders used for cartridges do not "detonate", they burn, albeit at a greater speed as pressures get extreme. We see this change in verbiage based on increased knowledge of proven scientific testing results are replacing the theories of old. Yet many like Mr Humble dredge up the old unproven theories regardless of what has been now proven.


In the 8th Edition of the Hornady Reloading Manual published 7 years ago under the 243 Winchester on page 247 we find the same basic warning with "detonation" no longer sued;

"Slow burning powders used with long bullets behave differently when loaded with reduced charges. These lighter charges may cause unexpectedly high pressure. On occasion primers are blown, bolts stick, or even stocks are splintered. This only occurs with lower charges of slow burning propellants and we definitely do not recommend such use in the 243 Winchester."

Obviously from the reports of S.E.E. type events reported in other cartridges the use of reduced charges of slow burning propellants can be as dangerous and the use of reduced charges of slow burning propellants should be cautioned against. Because a product such as a powder is misused by the consumer is not justification for the removal of said product by the manufacturer unless it is the product itself that is the problem. Mr Humble seems to think since Hodgdon hasn't apparently removed any powders that means, in his opinion, S.E.E. doesn't exist. We have to question just how would Mr Humble know if anything was deleted by just looking at Hodgdon's site is beyond me?

None the less I am providing this information hopefully to educate any readers of this thread that the problem of S.E.E., or whatever it is referenced as is very real and is well known in the industry even if they use another name or terminology for it. Just a cautionary word to the wise......

Larry Gibson

[EDG]

Since I cannot remember the publication that I read this article in. I will say it was probably Handloader since I have not subscribed to another handloading related magazine in 30 years or so.

The article was more of an editors note to the subscribers about the reduction of the SAAMI approved pressure for the 243. The reason for the reduction was largely due to older rifles eventually getting a rough throat after much use. With factory ammo these rifle would blow primers due to bullets developing excess friction in the rough throats when fired.

To spend 5 minutes on the internet and then say there is nothing special about any cartridge including the .243 is not exactly using good judgment.

[Mr Humble]

As there have been complaints filed about me, I will no longer be posting on this subject.
Anyone who wants to speak further, please PM me. Thanks!