Model 96 Swedish Mauser Accident

[Multigunner]

"I looked all over the net and the only pearls of wisdom I can find from you are compelations of other peoples' research. "

"As for Ackely, he forgot more than you will ever know. "

So you are relying on P O Ackley's research rather than actually doing any research of your own, Hypocritical much?

So far I have not had a failure of the heat shield of an atmospheric re entry vehicle but I understand what would happen if I did.

When it comes to documentation of any firearms related accident the only thing local authorities might look into is the blood alcohol level of the shooter.
There's an old saying "pilot dead? then its pilot error". Blame the crash on the pilot and the aircraft manufacturer is off the hook.

A double charge can certainly blow up most guns, but to immediately assume that each and every kaboom is due to a double charge is not very smart at all.
When a Low Number 1903 shattered like a jelly jar and fell apart in the hands of the shooter when firing a low powered guard cartridge the first assumption was that there had been a double charge. On close examination that explanation just didn't wash. The receiver didn't fly apart, it fractured in many places then fell apart. the cartridge case showed no signs of excessive pressure. The cause as near as anyone could say was that the low powered charge did not expand the cartridge case enough to grip the chamber walls so the case head moved back like a piston at high speed and gave the bolt face a very hard rap like a hammer blow. The receiver which had survived proof testing and thousands of service loads shattered because it was brittle all the way through. So a double charge is not the blanket answer to every action failure.

[EDG]

Anyone that has looked at several hundred blown up rifle actions will tell you that over charges and double charges are at the top of the list.
Shooters in general are really sorry about owning up to their reloading mistakes especially when the mistake they made was undetectable because of ignorance and poor work habits and poor loading techniques.
Yes you can keep an open mind but it is going to be very hard to believe anyone that says it just blew up....

"I looked all over the net and the only pearls of wisdom I can find from you are compelations of other peoples' research. "

"As for Ackely, he forgot more than you will ever know. "

So you are relying on P O Ackley's research rather than actually doing any research of your own, Hypocritical much?

So far I have not had a failure of the heat shield of an atmospheric re entry vehicle but I understand what would happen if I did.

When it comes to documentation of any firearms related accident the only thing local authorities might look into is the blood alcohol level of the shooter.
There's an old saying "pilot dead? then its pilot error". Blame the crash on the pilot and the aircraft manufacturer is off the hook.

A double charge can certainly blow up most guns, but to immediately assume that each and every kaboom is due to a double charge is not very smart at all.
When a Low Number 1903 shattered like a jelly jar and fell apart in the hands of the shooter when firing a low powered guard cartridge the first assumption was that there had been a double charge. On close examination that explanation just didn't wash. The receiver didn't fly apart, it fractured in many places then fell apart. the cartridge case showed no signs of excessive pressure. The cause as near as anyone could say was that the low powered charge did not expand the cartridge case enough to grip the chamber walls so the case head moved back like a piston at high speed and gave the bolt face a very hard rap like a hammer blow. The receiver which had survived proof testing and thousands of service loads shattered because it was brittle all the way through. So a double charge is not the blanket answer to every action failure.

[EDG]

Mr Humble this is the internet. Just because you say so means nothing.
I have had 2 SEE type events. I will gladly reproduce them for you with your rifle.

Larry, if as you claim, SEE is a proven fact in rifles, perhaps you can share links to the sources of this well kept secret research ?

You and MG sure have a lot of "facts" at your command but cannot seem to document any of them.

As for Ackely, he forgot more than you will ever know. But, perhaps I missed your 2 volume book set on handloading ? Your numerous published works on ballisitics ?

Were I you I not want to discuss the subject further for reasons clear to anyone. I looked all over the net and the only pearls of wisdom I can find from you are compelations of other peoples' research.

[Linstrum]

First of all, look through the archives here, Jumptrap, a few othrs, and I already hashed all this stuff out back ten or more years ago.

Sorry you had this happen. I didn't yet look over all 120-something responses, so pardon me if someone already said this.

I have a bit of reloading experience with my two Swedish Mausers, a M96 and a M96/38, that I've been reloading for since probably 1996, maybe earlier. Because of the small bore-diameter to high volume cartridge case ratio, the 6.5x55 Mauser demands that you use ONLY super slow powders like IMR 7828 and slower IF you want to get any reasonable performance from your Swede Mauser. This is for two reasons. One is because the small bore is also a small gas exit, and gas pressure goes sky high out of control after a certain load is reached, which is because powder burning rate and pressure increase logarithmically, not algebraically. General Julian S. Hatcher covers this phenomenon in his book "Hatcher's Notebook", which if you don't already have a copy you need to get one. The second reason for using super slow powders is because the high rate of twist used in most Swedish Mausers, which is about 7.9 inches per rotation, requires a gradual rate of acceleration down the barrel to keep the soft projectile from stripping through the fast rifling. The maximum velocity for hard lead alloy aged boolits in Swedish Mausers is ~2100 feet per second. Above that velocity, the rate of leading, flyers, keyholing, and boolits that just plain disappear in a puff of black smoke gets out of hand. The high rate of twist was used so the long thin 160 grain "redcoats" (copper jacketed) would remain stabile.

I use gas-checked Saeco 140 grain cast lead/antimony/phosphorus/copper alloy bullets in front of 46 grains IMR 5010, one of the common .50 BMG powders. I get high pressure signs above 48 grains, way before the case is full of this very slow powder! So, things can get out of hand quite easily with much faster burn rate powders in a small-bore-diameter to relatively high-case-volume cartridge, which if scaled-up just a bit would put the 6.5 mm Swede in the same class as the smaller belted-magnum cartridges.

Rich

[Larry Gibson]

Hmmmmm.....about the response expected......

I offer Mr. Humble an opportunity to assist with an actual test to prove or disprove the existence of S.E.E. (Secondary Explosion Effect), to prove or disprove that it is easily reproducible, to conduct an actual test to obtain factual evidence instead of relying on interpretations of others opinions and writings whether in books, magazine articles or on the internet. I have the equipment to measure the time/pressure curve and obtain other related internal ballistics as the test is conducted to a conclusion of creating an SEE or not.

I have already posted, several times, the report on the laboratory finding of S.E.E. andits causes on this forum. A search could find it but it can be posted again. Internet experts can debate with their own or others opinions the facts of that published finding. However, most all such internet experts lack any produced evidence of their own to verify their own opinions.

I have offered Mr. Humble the opportunity to obtain actual test produced facts whether S.E.E. is real or not and can be readily produced or not. Apparently Mr. Humble has decided not to participate to find a definitive answer through an actual test with a 6.5 Swede rifle. I will provide the test equipment, the time and the effort. Mr.Humble need only provide the test M96 6.5 Swede Mauser. I run the risk of damaging $6,000 to $7,000 worth of test equipment while Mr. Humble runs the risk of damaging his M96 if an S.E.E. is produced. I a S.E.E. is not produced then no harm or foul to either the test equipment or the M96 will occur. It is only I that would lose my time and effort. As the undamaged M96 will be returned to him and I will reimburse his shipping and related costs and return the M96.

I also invite Mr. Humble or anyone else to observe the test.

My offer to Mr. Humble still stands.

Larry Gibson

[Mr Humble]

EDG, Because you think you saw and attribute to the mythical SEE, does not mean it was the cause. An event that cannot be replicated under controlled conditions by a lab or the foremost reloading expert of the 20th century is VERY suspect.
I don't know why you have such a vested interest in supporting a myth that has no support from any real ballistic's expert.

LS, you raise some interesting questions. Your core premise that small bore, fast twist rifles have a very real limit in cast boolit performance is correct. However, fast burning powders may be used safely IF proven data is followed AND the reloader is VERY careful. BUT, as you point out. there is really no reason to.

I am not chasing hyper velocity with cast boolits in rifles. 1200 - 1700 fps is the range I stay in and have yet to blow up any gun. In those cases where I chose a powder that will not overflow the case if a double charge is thrown, I inspect all charged cases with a VERY bright LED penlight. THEN I add enough coarse Cuban cornmeal to fill the case 2/3rds of the way up the neck. When the boolit is seated, the charge is compressed and stays in place. Unlike some fillers the coarse ground cornmeal does not have the danger of becoming a bore blocking "lump". In my case, these are always 33 caliber and up. Good ignition always happens, the bore gets a light scrubbing and it smells sooooo good.

[Mr Humble]

Hmmm, guess Larry G. was not banned.

Funny how this "lab data" has vanished......

A long search of the net shows that all comments on SEE are in the "seen/heard/read" bucket. Those opinions expressed follow down the path of very slow powder light loads in large cases. NOT 2400 in a 6.5x55.

Larry wants me to send him my rifle so he can blow it up ..... proving nothing. I can blow it up easily with a case full of Bullseye.

A more realistic course would be for him to hire HP White to test his premise under controlled conditions. Maybe he could get MG to join him and also attempt to blow up some low number 03s that meet my criteria.

Sorry that neither of the myths (or damascus barrels) can stand the test of critical investigation.

Be sure to share HP's results with the rest of us........

[Larry Gibson]

Mr. Humble

Rest assured that if something can't be found on the internet is not a premise it does not exist. This published article from the '97 Handloader Magazine is not just "comments" in the "seen/heard/read" bucket". Also note that not a single professional ballistician has criticized or debunked the premise since that test was completed and reported on. That's why you can't find anything further on the internet except for self styled experts who opine on the topic.


Attachment 184321Attachment 184322Attachment 184323Attachment 184324

Yes, you could blow up your rifle with a case full of Bullseye as I could. Blowing up the rifle is not the object of the proposed test; creating a S.E.E. is the objective. Even then, blowing up the rifle is not necessary, though it is a possibility, as by measuring all the same data as was done during the test in the Handloader article I could stop at the same point they did and then we could agree a S.E.E was very likely to happen. That is of course you would agree to stopping with that assumption? If not then the destruction of the M96 would be the final fact of proof.

I do not need to hire HP White as I have all the necessary test equipment. All that is needed is your M96. Additionally I do not need to prove anything. It is you who have stated S.E.E does not exist and can't be reproduced. Ergo the burden of proof is yours. You seem to question the veracity of everyone who disagrees with your premise. That's why I've extended the invitation to you and/or anyone else to witness the load preparation and testing.

The offer still stands.

Larry Gibson

[swheeler]

humbling to say the least

[NoAngel]

Hmmm, guess Larry G. was not banned.

Funny how this "lab data" has vanished......

A long search of the net shows that all comments on SEE are in the "seen/heard/read" bucket. Those opinions expressed follow down the path of very slow powder light loads in large cases. NOT 2400 in a 6.5x55.

Larry wants me to send him my rifle so he can blow it up ..... proving nothing. I can blow it up easily with a case full of Bullseye.

A more realistic course would be for him to hire HP White to test his premise under controlled conditions. Maybe he could get MG to join him and also attempt to blow up some low number 03s that meet my criteria.

Sorry that neither of the myths (or damascus barrels) can stand the test of critical investigation.

Be sure to share HP's results with the rest of us........

I wonder if someone else could loan ya'll a big tire to shoot the test rifle in?

[Mr Humble]

FRAID NOT. An 11 year old article from handloader is not quite the same as contemporary research.

Who wrote the story ? His bona fidas ? Duplicated anywhere else ? After all people say Hatcher said 03s were blowing up all over the place. Those same "experts" can't seem to produce any crediable evidence that the rifles were at fault NOR duplicate the claims.

As difficult as it is to read the authors appears to say that the central problem is terrible throat erosion causing the bullet "hang up" thus raising pressures. An interesting theory, again never subjected to any in depth analysis. Don't recall the exploding Swede had a horrible throat ????

The silly proposal that I hand my rifle over to someone who can't seem to produce his creds as a reconized ballistics expert, so he can blow it up for grins really is amazing.

If, as he claims, he has $100s of thousand worth of ballistic test equipment, it would be chump change for him to trot down to Walmart and by an elcheapo Mossberg rifle to test his theories on.

He seems to have a small following here that do not engage in any critical analysis of the myths promulagated by our resident expert(s).

When(probably never) any credible evidence can be produced to validate the SEE, 03 and damascus myths, I'll be listening.

Here is a much more recent comment on SEE and how (if it exists) to avoid it:

But when it comes to the phenomenon known as secondary explosion effect, all the math and science in the world has yet to explain why reduced loads can sometimes detonate with volatility and unpredictability. Most shooters are aware of the dangers of packing a cartridge with too much powder, but what many may not know is that too little gunpowder can occasionally cause powder to detonate in an explosive manner (as opposed to burning evenly).
Those attempting to recreate these types of explosions in controlled settings have had little luck, and the exact conditions that lead to the phenomenon remain murky. But thankfully, the use of wool wads in reduced load cartridges seems to largely remedy the problem, a solution that brings to mind the old saying “It doesn’t matter how it works, so long as it works.”
And thanks to Beaver Grease, a New Zealand company that specializes in shooting products, handloaders can add an extra insurance policy by utilizing wool wads in reduced loads. The reasons why wool wads are so effective are debatable, but what seems obvious is that the use of such a wad helps to keep the powder evenly and consistently packed. In doing so, pressure within the cartridge seems to remain more constant, eliminating unpredictable explosions.

NOTE: "YET TO EXPLAIN" !!!



Seems that wool wads work the same as my cornmeal. Perhaps we should stop chasing a "will-of-wisp" and just ensure the powder is tight up against the primer ? That has always been smart.

[Larry Gibson]

Mr Humble

We might ponder where are the credentials or bona fides to the author of "but when it comes to the phenomenon known as secondary explosion effect, all the math and science in the world has yet to explain why reduced loads can sometimes detonate with volatility and unpredictability."....? Appears to be just a sales pitch to justify the use of the wool wads he is selling........

The real problem with that statement and your assumption is we know that smokeless powders do not "detonate" in a rifle cartridge when ignited by a primer, they still burn. It is this concept of "detonation" of smokeless powders in rifle cartridges that has not been proven. What has been proven is the conditions as stated in the Handloader article which lead to a bore obstruction where the pressure of the burning powder after the bullet sticks in the throat or barrel become to much for the brass case and action to contain. That is when the S.E.E. occurs.

Not really that difficult to understand.

Since you obviously choose not to find out through actual testing and simply criticize with no facts and personal attacks I shall bow out. However, should you change your mind PM me for an FFL address to send the M96 to (I will pay the shipping and other expenses and ship it back to you on completion of the test) or my address should you wish to bring the M96 and observe the test.

Larry Gibson

[Mr Humble]

And you excuse for not buying a Mossberg 308 to blow up is ? After all your cock-a-mayme theory should work as well on it as my 96.......

BTW he is NOT selling the wads. Your continuing problem with reading and understanding BEFORE slamming down a response, no doubt extends far beyond this thread.

[EDG]

Mr Humble
You deny SEE even exists therefore it cannot have a cause according to you. How would you KNOW or NOT the cause of anything if you deny it exists?
You only have an uninformed opinion. On the other hand I have the previous blown primers from the event and the original powder.
All you have to do is furnish your rifle. And I will send you the remains.
Unlike you I have enough experience shooting to know that the phenomenon does occur and how to duplicate it. You may not support it but you are hardly a ballistic expert.
In fact you even promote shooting low number Springfields even after seeing them crumble from minor impact forces.

EDG, Because you think you saw and attribute to the mythical SEE, does not mean it was the cause. An event that cannot be replicated under controlled conditions by a lab or the foremost reloading expert of the 20th century is VERY suspect.
I don't know why you have such a vested interest in supporting a myth that has no support from any real ballistic's expert.

LS, you raise some interesting questions. Your core premise that small bore, fast twist rifles have a very real limit in cast boolit performance is correct. However, fast burning powders may be used safely IF proven data is followed AND the reloader is VERY careful. BUT, as you point out. there is really no reason to.

I am not chasing hyper velocity with cast boolits in rifles. 1200 - 1700 fps is the range I stay in and have yet to blow up any gun. In those cases where I chose a powder that will not overflow the case if a double charge is thrown, I inspect all charged cases with a VERY bright LED penlight. THEN I add enough coarse Cuban cornmeal to fill the case 2/3rds of the way up the neck. When the boolit is seated, the charge is compressed and stays in place. Unlike some fillers the coarse ground cornmeal does not have the danger of becoming a bore blocking "lump". In my case, these are always 33 caliber and up. Good ignition always happens, the bore gets a light scrubbing and it smells sooooo good.

[EDG]

FRAID NOT. An 11 year old article from handloader is not quite the same as contemporary research.

You expect contemporary research but you want to quote long dead Hatcher and long dead P.O. Ackley. Come on can't you do better than that? jajajajaja

[Hamish]

Exhorting a member to send a firearm to be destroyed is about as no class as it gets.

[Blanket]

where is Bricktop when you need him, huh Larry

[Mr Humble]

EDG, I am not quoting Hatcher ONLY as a source of a myth.

As far as P.O. goes, anyone who can dispute his findings has yet to be found.

Maybe you and Larry can get together and come up with enough money with a Mossberg to blow up ?

Hamish is, of course, correct. What we have are two site big shots (as their post counts show) who are used to never having anything they say disputed. Neither can offer any contemporary support for their rehashed myths. But they really get upset when anyone points out the "Emperor's new clothes" syndrome at work.

Maybe next June when I head back to WY, I might dig around for some old whupped rifle to try a bunch of reduced loads in. It will be fun to enumerate all the loads fired and how it never blew up. LOL!

As for 20 gauge shells dropped in a 12 bore, followed by a 12 and then fired..... well it will take apart a brand new 870 too. Hey DUMMIES, ever wonder WHY 20 gauge shells are YELLOW ! DUH !!!!

[Blanket]

Guys, Someone here has a past of getting more and more abrasive and going way off the charts as far as how he behaves. Check out the 24 hour campfire on the past for Oldman1942. Best thing to do is add to the ignore list

[Soundguy]

As a casual observer now .. Is 10ys really old enough to make the article dated?

I have every handloader back to the first one. They occupy a place of honor in my reloading resource room. Very good info. Physical universe laws havnt changed much.. About the biggest change 'lately' to loading is using piezo sensors to calculate psi, vs C/L UP in crusher testing.