I'm sure your correct, Larry but "a common occurence"? Doubtful. However, opinions like mine are worth what you pay for them. Until I see evidence of more than a few random cases I'm not going to sweat the phenomenon much like I don't worry too much about the wheel on my pick up falling off although I've seen it happen.Originally Posted by Larry Gibson
Is this another Cruise Missile thread?
I Am Descended From Men Who Would Not Be Ruled
Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum
Reason I ask is I feel I had a close call with a Mosin a while back. It was a well worn Finn 91/30. I was trying to seat out the Sierra 174gr HPBT matchking to reach the rifling. Well there was no way to reach it as to the type of throat these have and also being very worn. So that caused a problem.
I tried to seat the bullet out as far as I could, but could not. So I went by what some manuals say to seat the bullet at least 1/2 of the bullet diameter into the case.
And what was really weird was I was using RL15. Which is a perfect match for this cartridge and bullet combo. I was using 44 grs if I remember right. I don't have my notes here with me. But I had a hangfire. It was ever so slight. But from shooting black powder rifles for a long time I could feel and catch it. So I fire another round and this time it was a significant delay. I ejected the case and it was completely full of black powder all over the out side and the shoulder had a huge dent were it had collapsed.
I knew something was not right. I went back to seating the bullet a full caliber into the neck. And switched to a mag primer. It went away and it was a very accurate load after that. I feel I was on the edge of having a SEE by the way it was loaded with the bullet out so far.
I waiting on a design of experiments(DOE). Having worked on both FDA class 3 medical device failures (implants) and life critical automotive failures a proper DOE is mandatory. In both types of failures common tools are used to determine root cause that must be verified by turning on and off the failures. Those common techniques include fish bone diagrams that have main bones of man, machine, materials, process, environment plus numerous sub topics. The other is risk assessment usually using FMEA (failure mode and effect analysis). These tools become the basis for DOE design. A key element is that all possibilities are included and culled using risk analysis. I am available to comment to active participants by PM and then email.
This is getting too deep. Do things wrong, stuff goes boom in a bad way. End of story.
"Aparently you did not read nor pay close attention to the facts presented in the Handloader article(?) as evidenced by your statement; "However, i was more pointing towards your "well known in the 6.5x55 due to the long throat" part. Im not aware of that being stated elsewhere.""
This is about the fifth time in this thread that someone has addressed a reply that the original statement was made by someone else. ie, Jon's reply was to something that tomme said earlier. It was not addressed to you Larry.
I'm still reading conflicting reports to some extent, but what I'm seeing can be characterised as powder charges below listed starting points, at approximately 3031 burn rate and slower, in high(er) volume cases, and almost exclusively with jacketed bullets.
I keep seeing references to the oft quoted .243 investigation, but as it's written in German and I can find no translated work,,,,,,.
More "This is what happened when I,,,,," and less "What would happen if I,,,,"
Last of the original Group Buy Honcho's.
"Dueling should have never been made illegal in this country. It settled lots of issues between folks."- Char-Gar
As cast hand loaders, most of us are using loading data that was generated by doing things that were not accepted at the time. No 7383, no 10B101, no 700X cast bullet data. No learning about what not to do with certain powders. Understanding why is a big part of understanding what and what not. (at least for me)
More "This is what happened when I,,,,," and less "What would happen if I,,,,"
Last of the original Group Buy Honcho's.
"Dueling should have never been made illegal in this country. It settled lots of issues between folks."- Char-Gar
It would be nice if someone had access to whatever report convinced Federal to issue the first ever mass recall of rifle cartridges after the incident in which a Lee Endfield blew out its bolthead killing the shooter.
The article I read on this was printed in 1985 but the incident happened many years earlier. The bore condition and resulting pressure excursion sounds exactly like an SEE, though the term was not used in the article. The forensic investigator quoted was named Crosman, his father was also a famous forensic investigator. One of them went by "E C Crosman" I don't think they were connected with Crosman air gun company. The investigation was part of a drawn out liability lawsuit, the full details not publically available.
I remember from an older article on the case that it was said that a slightly more powerful charge could have prevented the accident. This seemed odd at the time but fits in with whats been said about reduced charges of certain powders.
Perhaps Federal chose to use a different powder in their .303 cartridges from then on due to the often eroded throats of surplus Enfields imported in those days.
jonp
"I'm sure your correct, Larry but "a common occurence"? Doubtful. However, opinions like mine are worth what you pay for them. Until I see evidence of more than a few random cases I'm not going to sweat the phenomenon much like I don't worry too much about the wheel on my pick up falling off although I've seen it happen."
I don't believe I've said an S.E.E. event is a "common occurrence" in this thread or any other. To the contrary, as I've stated a couple times before I believe the topic 6.5 Swede event of this thread was caused by a double charge. I have, in other threads, stated S.E.E. events are actually uncommon. However, "uncommon" does not mean they do not happen. Most such incidents such as this topic of this thread are the cause of reloading or shooter error; wrong powder, double or triple charges, bore obstructions (rods, dirt, mud etc.) or the use of the wrong cartridge, etc. It is human nature to want to blame something other than ourselves in events such as these or in an actual S.E.E. event. Most often we see with the advent of the internet the assumption that all such events are caused by S.E.E. Such is simply not the case.
"Is this another Cruise Missile thread?"
No, some of us are trying to have a thoughtful discussion on the topic. Are you trying to make it another Cruise Missile thread? I am not.
Larry Gibson
Multigunner
There also was an article in an older Guns Annual(?), maybe Shooter's Bible(?) from the '60s or early '70s about a 25-06 (prior to Remington adopting it) incident when varmint weight bullets were loaded over reduced loads of 4831. The article also mentioned several other such occurrences. Wonder if anyone has that article?
Larry Gibson
Last edited by Larry Gibson; 01-20-2017 at 01:11 AM.
Larry, I was referring to a previous comment which you did not make about the 'common occurrence". As for the Cruise Missile: should have been in purple. Seems to me some on this thread have gotten a little out of hand on the subject.
Did I miss the specific issue of Handloader on which was referenced? Anyone have a link to the article?
I Am Descended From Men Who Would Not Be Ruled
Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum
Seen, not just experienced, in 58 years? That is a lot of shots, with up to three destroyed by the effect in question. You don't always know what others have done, and very often they are coy about it. General Hatcher describes a shooter walking off whistling a happy tune with part of his fine Lefever shotgun embedded in the woodwork of the range. Hatcher considered the possibility, but was less than convinced, that he was too disoriented to be fully aware.
Language determines thought, and I think we would be better off calling it "secondary effect of explosion" than "secondary explosive effect" - unless you count first the powder exploding and then the metal as two. The real thing is extraordinarily rare, and it is much rarer to tie it down to something specific about the load, even when the rest of the ammunition is available for examination. That is why I don't believe information on anything that can make it happen one shot in six is really worth a phone call.
Other rifles are built with long throats, notably Weatherbys unless they changed that, and a lot of old military rifles get used with a degree of erosion that prevents the Swede from being distinguishable from the others. It can be argued that an eroded throat is different, for the bullet hits those initially oversized lands progressively. But that isn't always the case. The Lee-Enfield, while nots as weak as some suppose, is weaker than a Mauser, and yet I know of at least two detailed programs of testing, one with cordite and one with straight nitrocellulose, in which rifles were gauged and chronographed while firing a huge number of shots, and getting into a worse state of erosion than recreational shooters ever see. Eventually muzzle velocity was considerably lowered, and the bullets went a long way, acquiring high velocity before they hit rifling. That would be a classic situation for a pressure wave ring bulge or burst if such could happen from throat and bore alone, but it didn't. No anomalies were observed, and accuracy never became
impossibly bad.
Like the Lee-Enfield, I don't believe the Swedish Mauser throat was ever altered for the change to the spitzer bullet. This a photograph I took of a commercial clone of the Swedish military spitzer when I planned to use it for practice in my Mannlicher-Schoenauer. The caliper, set at land diameter, comes to the same place on both bullets. There may be light pointed bullets which give more freebore than was intended. But not as many as is often thought.
Real life destructive testing is expensive.
Can you explain how to provide any scientific evidence without testing?
I think your experience level has never exposed you to some of these phenomena. So you doubt they exist and you say prove it. The only way to prove it is with testing.
I have had both blown primers and a locked action caused by loads that were lighter than standard data. These events were plenty of evidence for me to stop using the load combinations in question. I know what the loads that I used were and I can reproduce them. The problem is you cannot send a little man to watch what happens in the cartridge case when the round is fired. When a primer is blown it is not possible to have exact knowledge of what happened every time. This is because the position of the powder can vary in a partially filled case. When the powder position varies there is the possibility of variations in the ignition occurring. Another problem is the possibility of the stick slip bullet phenomena. This is where a bullet starts and stops and then starts again. The bullet acts like an obstruction and causes a huge pressure spike before it begins moving again.
What you seem to be saying is that you want a proof the issue exists without any testing. If you want proof offer to pay for it.
I offered to run the tests free of charge if someone wants to provide the rifle.
This test would be fairly inexpensive to run if some one has a Swedish Mauser barrel that could be screwed into a ratty action.
EDG
I look at this and am wondering why the damage happened to the action only, when the cartridge should have been in the chamber. The action was split apart, not the barrel/chamber. It's almost like the thing was fired out of battery, partially in the chamber. Enough of the rear end of the cartridge hanging out of the chamber and lug not completely locked to blow the receiver up, blow a lug off the bolt, and fuse brass all over the inside of the receiver. The swede if I am not incorrect is cock on close. If he were chambering the round and the firing pin let go as it was cocking and fired the round on an incomplete lock up, I strongly suspect you would get the damage you see without damage to the barrel/chamber. I'm going with out of battery, or partial battery firing due to failure of cock on close or possibly stuck firing pin.
Last edited by rattletrap1970; 01-20-2017 at 08:49 AM.
There have to be things visibly wrong with the firing-pin or bolt cam for an out of battery firing of a Mauser, and also the bolt would have been driven back at great speed, with a likelihood of grave and distinctive injury. I think those would have been noticed and mentioned.
The situation we see isn't unusual when a case-head fails. The barrel is thicker than the receiver ring, and a larger diameter pressure containing vessel requires a thicker wall to resist a give pressure, than a smaller diameter one. Also the pressure inside the case on brass and bullet, builds up from nothing to whatever the charge will yield. The gas adjacent to the sides of the case scarcely moves at all. But when that elastic gas is released by case failure, it suddenly accelerates to great velocity and kinetic energy. You wouldn't think that thumb pressure on the button of your ballpoint pen could hurl anything across the room. But if you unscrew it, and release the spring that thumb pressure has pent up, it does just that.
Gas porting of the receiver ring isn't that useful in this regard. The purpose it serves is that after the receiver has resisted bursting and the gas is slowing down, the port should direct it away from your face and hands. High speed gases don't like changing direction, which is why the gases a revolver don't leak out of the cylinder gap much more than they do.
I think the lug was partially engaged upon firing. Enough to retard the rearward force to the shooter, but enough to take a lug off the bolt. the receiver split at the barrel threads or close enough to it. So to me it looks like the pressure release was just ahead of the receiver. And I would expect the case head to fail being not fully supported by the chamber.
Last edited by rattletrap1970; 01-20-2017 at 10:08 AM.
Ballistics in Scotland
"Like the Lee-Enfield, I don't believe the Swedish Mauser throat was ever altered for the change to the spitzer bullet"
The SMLE MkI when rebarreled for use with the MkVII bullet is marked SC for "Short Cone" denoting that the throat was optimized for best performance with the MkVII pointed bullets. SMLE rifles commonly bear the SC marking and the HV marking which I believe is to demote that the rear sight is altered for use with the lower trajectory of the MkVII compared to the heavier and slower MkVI round nose.
A long throat by itself does not cause SEE it just contributes to it if the wrong powder is used with light charge weights loads.
In a Canadian house of commons report on damaged Lee Enfield rifles I found reference to a gun destroyed by use of "Riflite powder" the powder apparently not being suited to the cartridge/rifle combination.
We already know that use of the wrong powder, despite listed burning rate and average pressures, can greatly affect accuracy by giving inconsistent velocity with extreme spreads.
If all powders were the same we'd have an easier time finding accurate loads.
According to many sources on early use of smokeless powders variation in qualities of different lots of the same powders destroyed many fine old rifles. A charge found safe as houses with powder from one lot could destroy a rifle if the same powder by the same manufacturer but of a different lot was used at the same charge weight.
Destruction of the deterrent coatings of granules before complete ignition is a prime suspect in the destruction of the test rifles mentioned in works I cited previously. The raw propellant without deterrent, and granules now broken up into smaller fragments is the source of the extreme pressure excursion, the long throat only adds to the effect by allowing to bullet to exit the case then slow or stop before complete ignition of the now damaged and preheated charge.
I suspect that flash suppressant additives of military powders and coolant additives of some double base powders helps lower the odds of such occurances.
The early Cordite Mk1 strands could become brittle and break up causing similar effects. Later formulations gave more flexible strands.
The charges damaged by the above mentioned effects would burn like pistol powders or even more quickly.
SEE has also been reported in some Magnum pistol cartridges when low charge weights were used in large capacity cases.
I remember reading of an incident when a box of .44 Magnum cartridges was left in the glove box of an off road vehicle near the heater box. Heat and vibration over time broke up the powder in much the same manner, though by outside means.
jonp
"Larry, I was referring to a previous comment which you did not make about the 'common occurrence". As for the Cruise Missile: should have been in purple. Seems to me some on this thread have gotten a little out of hand on the subject.
Did I miss the specific issue of Handloader on which was referenced? Anyone have a link to the article?"
Be glad to help out; page 7 this thread, post #128.
Larry Gibson
EDG,
I've been skirting around this because I felt like I shouldn't have to waste the keystrokes saying it, but, oh well,,,,,
"Testing" can most certainly be done by you, me, Larry, or anyone else. But, for any kind of definitive examination to stand there are criteria that have to be met to be able to say "yes, that was the cause" or "no, that was not the cause."
One guy with a pressure trace and some rifle can most certainly come up with likely interesting information, and would be most welcome.
But that is most certainly not approaching the level of scientific, quantifiable examination using controlled test conditions. Through all of this, that has been my whole point, hoping that someone would be able to point to information done in that manner. (I've still got Larrys article to examine as I can't lay hands on my magnifying glass to be able to read it)
There is most certainly nothing wrong with the reporting of anecdotal evidence, we use it every day, and attempting to gather it up in one place for others to examine should be the defining parameter. But let us be very careful of calling it fact.
Larry,
Back in post #128 when you posted that you had all the equipment necessary to do the proposed testing of Mr. Humbles rifle, does that include the X-ray and any other equipment necessary to be able to eliminate defects in the rifle itself from giving false results?
As I said earlier in this thread, by all means, the reporting of testing and anecdotal evidence should be welcomed for examination so that we and any others who may follow can weigh it for themselves.
Last edited by Hamish; 01-20-2017 at 02:02 PM.
More "This is what happened when I,,,,," and less "What would happen if I,,,,"
Last of the original Group Buy Honcho's.
"Dueling should have never been made illegal in this country. It settled lots of issues between folks."- Char-Gar
Hamish
The parameters of the test will be scientific as per industry testing of firearms and ammunition. The loading of the ammunition will be as "reloaders" do it with the common equipment as used by reloaders. The testing will certainly be controlled. Perhaps you have some definition of "controlled"? Bear in mind few "laboratories" will allow something to be "blown up" in them. They do their "blowing up" on ranges where safety to personnel and equipment can be assured. That is what I would do, just as they would do.
As to X-raying the firearm prior to testing to ensure it is not defective; not necessary. If the firearm "blows up" without a measurement of excessive pressure then we can be sure the firearm was defective. However, if the firearm "blows up" along with a catastrophic measure of pressure then we can be sure of what caused the "blow up". Apparently you're not aware of that scientific method of cognitive analysis?
So we request a test by some lab somewhere and what do we end up with? A guy with a pressure trace and a rifle........who, if he creates and S.E.E., will look and the pressure trace and other data and say "yes or no that was the cause. So what is the difference between the same data a lab technician would measure and what I would measure? While your comments are appreciated wouldn't it be more productive if you added something to this conversation other than argument and criticism?
Larry Gibson
I still don't quite get why a small powder charge would cause it. I would think that would be more likely to cause a squib. For there to be an explosion that pushes the bullet then stops then pushes again, here is what I think would cause that: Possibly a contaminated powder would ignite near the primer and push the remaining powder and projectile forward, then the rest of the powder ignites as the flame gets around the bad powder to the remaining powder and then you get a secondary explosion.
Other thought I have is maybe the force of the primer explosion pushes the bullet forward into the rifling, then the powder ignites slower creating what some are calling a secondary explosion?? But if that is an issue, it would happen commonly in cartridges such as 45 colt with bullseye wouldn't it?
Rosewood
Evangelical, deplorable redneck and proud of it.
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote