m/41b Swede Sniper Catastrophic Failure

[Dutchman]

The comments below are in the words of the owner. He had just purchased this rifle. This happened in the last few days (March 20, 2011).

Let us accept as fact these separate factors. Let us not speculate outside these known factors. Let us work within these parameters to consider the cause of this accident.

Load data per Hodgdon 2009 Annual Manual using H4350: minimum load for a 129 grain bullet is 42 grains. Maximum load is 46 grains.

Hornady 3rd Edition: 129 gr using H4350: 39.4 grs minimum. 46 grs maximum.

Before you go further read the other note about the Kimber Swede. What common factors are there between these two incidents?

************************************************** **

* On the fourth shot it blew to pieces.

* Nothing was stuck in the barrel.

* first three shots made about an inch or so triangle at 100 yards.

* 39 grains of H4350 with130 grain Swift bullet. Primer was Remington 9 1/2 and brass was R-P.

* pulled a few rounds apart and all were what they should have been.... firing 10 more of them in my '96 without a sign of trouble.

* The case is in the chamber. Most of its base is missing and the rim behind the extractor groove has extruded out so it looks like a rimmed case.

* The bolt looks fine.... except for the extractor it looks useable.

* bolt lugs look fine

* Firing pin appears intact

http://images54.fotki.com/v1616/photos/4/28344/9597910/03A3leads009LargeWebview-vi.jpg

http://images53.fotki.com/v140/photos/4/28344/9597910/03A3leads011LargeWebview-vi.jpg

http://images54.fotki.com/v1615/photos/4/28344/9597910/03A3leads002LargeWebview-vi.jpg

http://images109.fotki.com/v146/photos/4/28344/9597910/03A3leads004LargeWebview-vi.jpg

http://images109.fotki.com/v146/photos/4/28344/9597910/03A3leads006LargeWebview-vi.jpg

[Bloodman14]

Looked at both;can you confirm or deny a misprint in the manual? Are the boolits/bullets the proper size? I can't imagine what would cause this kind of failure, other than an overload.

[Frank46]

Dutch, just read your swede mauser posts. I think that the remington case was common to two or three of the failures. The melted or heat damaged one that was mentioned
could have been damaged(altered heat treatment) when it was annealed. That and the fact that remington cases are undersized when compared to either lapua or norma. Frank

[Larry Gibson]

Swede

You show the same case in the 2001 Swedish incident and the Kimber failure. It is lined up well with the bolt in the kimber failure so I assume it is from that one?

Common factors appear to be;

M96 Mausers
6.5 Swede military chamber with long throat
Low end or lower than suggested starting loads (Unknown load in 2001 incident)
Several shots fired prior to "incident"


All are classic common factors of SEE which is obvious what happened in the 2 latests "incidents".

Larry Gibson

[skeet1]

I think I agree with Larry Gibson, 4831 and 4350 are both known to have this type of detonation with lite loads. I would also suspect that SEE might be magnified with a weaker pre 98 action design.

Ken

[MtGun44]

No visible signs of fatigue. All surfaces show straight overstress type of fracture.

Bill

[PAT303]

Maybe if the American ammo makers made swede cases to the correct size and not on 30/06 stock these types of accidents wouldn't happen. Pat

[Dean D.]

Dutch, you don't say in the report, I do hope no injuries were incurred. Scary stuff.

[Shooter]

7MM or .270 bullet mixed in the box?

[Larry Gibson]

Here is the text from the Handloaderarticle that explains how SEE happens, particularly in a M96 Swedish Mauser.

Larry Gibson

Handloader- readers have doubtless heard of a term called secondary explosion effect (S.E.E.). It is a theory that attempts to explain the catastrophic failure of some rifles while firing seemingly reasonable handloads or reduced loads using slow-burning powders. Theories have been offered and debated in these pages and elsewhere, but they have been just that, theories, because no one has been able to reproduce effects under laboratory conditions. The purpose here is not to debate S.E.E. but rather to report on a specific incident and the results of tests done to discover the cause of catastrophic failure.

One of the great problems with attempting to theorize on the cause of catastrophic failures is that we must do so after the fact. We have the corpse, usually with some parts missing and must try to figure out what went wrong. Learned theories are offered, sometimes conflicting, and we end up with a bunch of folks shouting in print, 'You're wrong.' "No, you’re wrong." Since the event they're arguing about what without benefit of instrumentation, either one could be right. The events I describe here represent the first instance of an event produced under controlled laboratory conditions and documented on industry standard pressure measuring equipment that provides a plausible explanation offered to explain S.E.E.

The following is simple. It goes all the way back to Shooting 101 where we learned that bore obstructions blow up guns. There are no explosions, no mysterious wave amplifications; it's just a case of several factors, combining in worst case conditions to create a bore obstruction with the bullet.

In early 1989 a major manufacturer began development of a load for the 6.5x55mm Swedish that was to be added to their product line. Development was uneventful and all work was done using the copper crusher pressure measuring system, for there were no standards established for piezo-electric pressure measurement in the 6.5x55mm. The copper crusher method of pressure measurement has been with us for generations, but it is not without its limitations. The results obtained are not true "maximum" pressures, and it provides only a single data point. There is no way that one can deduce what is happening during the period the powder is burning, nor can one see other significant ballistic events.

A quantity of ammunition was loaded using a relatively slow-burning, non-canister propellant with a 140-grain bullet. After load development in ammunition manufacturer’s pressure guns, it is common practice to function test ammunition in a variety of available rifles to ensure satisfactory performance before it is released for sale to the public.

As function testing of the 6.5x55mm ammunition was begun using Swedish Mauser rifles, they noticed some of the same signs of excess pressure every handloader is taught to look for - flattened primers, enlarged primer pockets and heavy bolt lift. All the ammunition fired in the pressure gun had been perfectly acceptable, but SAAMI test barrels and chambers are made to tightly controlled specifications so the first supposition was that some element within the test gun was contributing to high pressures. Then a "spontaneous disassembly" occurred that destroyed the action but left the barrel undamaged. The bore was clear and showed no bulges. It was immediately identified as a high pressures failure and an investigation was begun. The barrel from the wrecked Mauser action was fitted with a collar that allowed it to be mounted in a universal receiver, and an industry standard conformal piezoelectric transducer was installed. Another test was performed using the Oehler Model 82 piezoelectric pressure measuring system equipped with a trace hold oscilloscope.

(Fig !)
round pressure (psi) velocity (fps)
1 48,820 2,601
2 53,849 2,662
3 57,609 2,708
4 57,999 2,720
5 54,093 2,687
6 58,634 2,731
7 62,150 2,754
8 82,120 2,875

Pressure tests are commonly done with a 10-round string and as you can see from the chart, pressures increased very gradually on rounds I through 4. At the fifth shot, pressure dropped and then continued to increase until, at the eighth shot, pressure, went to 82,120 psi; and the technician wisely stopped the test. The raw data was then used to prepare additional graphs (fig. 1) which show that, after ignition, pressures dropped momentarily to near zero on the graph before beginning to rise again.

To interpret this data we have to first understand the ground rules applicable to pressure testing with conformal transducers. The key term here is 'offset" which relates, primarily, to the specific cartridge and the brass used therein and must be determined for each transducer and lot of brass. The offset is the amount of pressure required to obturate the case to the chamber and begin to exert pressure upon the transducer. In this case the offset was 3,800 psi so when we look at the time/pressure curves produced in the test; we must understand that we are not actually seeing pressures below the level of the offset. There is a distinct dip in the curve, however, shortly after the pressure begins to rise when it drops to a level somewhere at or below the offset pressure. All we can say for sure is that, at this point, the pressure is <3,800 psi. Engineers calculated that for the specific bullet being used it would take pressure of at least 5,000 psi just to keep the bullet moving.

As I said, there are a number of variables at work here, but the main culprit is a very long leade or throat erosion. It takes relatively little pressure to eject the bullet from the cartridge case (de-bullet), which produces a significant increase in volume. Unless the rate of gas production is fast enough to keep up with the increase in volume, pressure must drop. The simple equation is PIVI=P2V' where P = pressure and V = volume. It is helpful in considering the phenomena reported here to view the rifle barrel and chamber as a cylinder whose volume is determined by the position of the bullet at any given point in time. If the bullet is moving, the volume is continuously increasing until the bullet exits the barrel.

If P2 is at or below the pressure required to keep the bullet moving it must stop. Then we run into our old friend inertia. Bodies at rest tend to remain at rest, but all the powder burning behind the resting bullet doesn't know about that. It keeps burning and pressure rises. Sometimes we get lucky and the bullet starts to move and relieve some of that pressure, but in a worst case of a rough bore and/or soft bullet it doesn't, and pressure continues to build until something else lets go. Most of the time this will occur around the primer pocket and gas will be released through the flash hole, but we're talking about events that are taking place quickly (milliseconds); and if pressure rises at a rate faster than it is being relieved, a catastrophic failure is inevitable It has been theorized that many 'accidents" represent a combination of effects which combine, in worst case conditions, to produce a catastrophic failure. Robert Greenleaf (Rifle No. 146) presents convincing evidence to show that conditions rarely remain the same, and the condition of the barrel and throat combined with different bullet characteristics can produce markedly different pressure levels for the same load. This is certainly seen in this data where a series of eight shots of the same ammunition delivered pressures ranging, and steadily increasing, from 48,820 psi up to 82,120 psi, at which point the test was stopped. We can, from looking at this test data, presume that all rounds (except perhaps the first) displayed some degree of temporary bore obstruction, but that the bullet was blown out of the barrel. Fortunately universal receivers are capable of containing considerable pressures, and it is certainly possible that the pressure generated by the last shot would have wrecked a standard rifle.

One factor that cannot be accurately measured with this data is the possible contribution of fouling from the bullet itself. It seems reasonable to assume that some accumulated fouling was blown out on the fourth shot, which accounts for the drop in pressure at shot No. 5.

When the engineers were able to examine and expand the time/pressure curves produced during this test, it became obvious that each shot showed a pronounced drop in pressure very early in the ignition/burning cycle and, on the shot where the pressure reached 82,120 psi, it dropped to the baseline before resuming a climb to the stratosphere. It would be easy to think that the fire went out, but a more reasonable explanation is that the burning rate of the powder became even slower. We know that pressure is a major component of the burning rate of any powder, and it depends upon adequate pressure levels being reached and maintained. In fact, what is shown in this case is that the amount of gas being generated was not sufficient to keep the bullet moving. If pressures drop below some optimum level, burning slows down and is often incomplete. Of course there will always be a quantity of unburned powder from any shot, and this observation has led to some of the conclusions regarding S.E.E.

In order for the pressure to rise to catastrophic proportions some other adverse conditions must also be present. These involve the cartridge case, the bullet, chamber and barrel and need to be discussed individually.

Bullet pull: We know that an adequate amount of tension between the case neck and bullet is a prerequisite for uniform combustion. This term, called bullet pull, is independent of the firearm and is routinely measured in the factories. Crimps may or may not be used to increase bullet pull, but most centerfire rifle cartridges depend primarily on tension between the case and bullet. If you've ever committed the sin of firing a cartridge into which you have neglected to dispense powder, you know that the primer alone is perfectly capable of propelling the bullet several inches down the barrel. Pressure generated by a primer alone can be as much as 4,000 psi in a conventional centerfire rifle cartridge; so it is certainly possible, in a normal round, for the primer impulse alone to be sufficient to get the bullet moving before little if any pressure has been generated by the powder charge.

Chamber: In the area of the case neck there must always be some clearance between the case and the chamber wall, but if this area is too large there is little resistance and the bullet can be released with very little pres sure behind it.

Condition of the barrel and throat: The impact of conditions within the chamber and throat are difficult for the handloader to analyze, and a throat that appears normal under cursory inspection may be revealed to be rough and irregular when seen through a bore scope. Greenleaf's report (Rifle No. 146) details how pressure increased as the number of rounds fired through a test barrel grew larger. This can only be attributable to a deterioration of the throat and leade on that particular barrel. In this instance SAAMI standard barrels were used and showed no irregularities, and it was only when the same ammunition was fired in a 'field' barrel with more generous tolerances and wear in these areas that problems were seen.

Bullet hardness and stiffness: The shape and construction of the specific bullet used can be a major factor in the levels of pressure developed by any given load. Bullets undergo some degree of deformation as they enter the bore, and the force required for them to engrave the rifling and obturate to bore dimensions can vary considerably.

Temperature: We know that pressures tend to increase as the barrel heats up, and a round that produces perfectly normal pressures from a cold barrel might show signs of excess pressure when the barrel is hot.

Work presented here answers questions. Some of the findings support theories offered to explain S.E.E. some don't. We haven't, for example, seen any evidence to indicate that there is ever an explosion, and many authorities doubt that there is. Perhaps what we need is a better name. Taken to its most basic component, what we have is that most fundamental cause of catastrophic failures: a bore obstruction. The difference here is that the offender is the bullet itself effect rather than some external source is both predictable and reproducible in the light of this new evidence, but it is highly dependent upon a combination of factors that produce disastrous results. If one or more is absent, everything will probably turn out fine; but when all come together, pressures rise and, sooner or later, sooner or later, something will fail. While it would appear that slow-burning powders contribute significantly, until now we didn't exactly know what to look for. I think it's at least theoretically possible for a bullet to stop in a barrel if the other conditions are bad enough with propellants other than the slower grades.

Have you ever fired a load that you had used often and suddenly gotten signs of excess pressure such as difficult bolt lift or flattened primers, and then fired another that seemed perfectly normal? I think this happens with some frequency, and our normal recourse is to shrug our shoulders and also be a bright red flag waving in keep on shooting; h6wever, this could front of our nose that is telling us that something is wrong. In the light of these findings, it could be telling us that a bullet did a stutter step before it went on out the barrel. The question then becomes what should we do about it. My first suggestion would be a careful investigation of the condition of the bore, especially the throat or leade to see if there is any erosion or roughness followed by thorough cleaning. A chamber cast might be in order to get precise measurements. If the barrel shows obvious signs of wear or throat erosion, the cure is obviously to replace it or set it back and rechamber. If the barrel appears to be within specifications, however, a change of bullet or propellant may be enough to solve the problem. The importance of this information is that it explains, with laboratory documentation, what can happen when the wheels fall off in the worst way. It seems like such a reasonable answer to many of the mysterious ka-booms that good reloaders have had with good handloads, and it is something we all need to keep in the back of our minds in case we encounter something out of the ordinary. While the data here was generated using the 6.5x55 Swedish cartridge, the observations are not specific to that round. They could occur with almost anything.

[Larry Gibson]

Here is the first 2 pages of the actual article.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Last two pages.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

I've reposted the above to give everyone a sound basis for evaluation of these "incidents" based on labratory reproduceable SEE instead of "detonation" theories. Also note that SEE occures and destroys modern newly made actions just as easily. Don't shoot such loads in your 6.5 milsurp M96 Swedes and you should have no problems.

Larry Gibson

[Tokarev]

I can't find any fault in receiver steel, but bolt steel looks very porous.
That usually happens when steel production is rushed and molten metal is poured into ingots too soon before all gases boiled out, or de-gassing agents not added in sufficient quantity/at all. I am not suggesting that's the root cause of the failure, but still it's poor quality material in my books.

[leadman]

When I bought my Swede I ordered hornady dies for the 6.5X55 and receivered dies for the 6.5X55 Skan. Basically the same case but more of a match configuration.

These dies sized the entire case to a noticably smaller dimension that what came out of my rifle. I did not like this so ordered a different brand of die.

Could this same situation be occuring with others and they did not know the difference?? Take a case that is reduced in dimensions with a chamber on the large side with a minimal charge of slow powder. What could happen??

[MtGun44]

Larry,

Thank you very much for providing that excellent article. This is the first explanation of the
issue that makes technical and physical sense. I appreciate the opportunity to learn from
some laboratory testing with a properly instrumented system so that the process can be,
at least partially, understood.

Bill

[madsenshooter]

Interesting article indeed. Those Swift bullets have some really thick jackets that could've produced the stop. What a shame, trying to take it easy on the old girl and wind up with such a mess. http://www.swiftbullets.com/scirocco_intro

[405]

Thanks for posting the info Dutchman and Larry,
That phenomenon has been known for quite a while. I don't care if it is called SEE or detonation- the effect is the same. I've brought those issues up here on the forum and have noticed many denials or lack of understanding counter-posts. "Metal failure" and "just an overload" are the most often, simplistic parroted guesses. No denial that previously stressed/flawed metal and/or simple overloads cause many of the disassemblies but sometimes it appears that something else is going on. That picture of (and explanation in the text) of the double pressure spike should be a dead give away. Everytime I've seen that in a pressure trace it gives me the heebee jeebies. I also believe and have stated here on the forum that something similar can happen in a revolver (the start-stop-start thing) with the bullet stopping in the forcing cone. I'm convinced (and don't care if no one else is) that a very real potential exists in revolvers shooting certain loads with slow powders of having a similar "SEE" condition develop. After all if two of the contributing factors for a "SEE" are long throat and slow powder then simply look at the design of the revolver combined with a mild charge of a slow or ball powder. :shock:

[MtGun44]

"Previously stressed" or "flawed" are NOT metal fatigue. It is a very specific, well understood
fact of life with metals under repeated stresses, that involves an initial point of crack formation
and progressive crack growth as the cyclic stress is repeated. Eventually the majority of
the load bearing material is cracked through, so the small remaining material fails suddenly.
Fatigue cracking is understood very well, and there are specific design criteria (now) to avoid
it, but these were not known 100 years ago.

Bill

[Bret4207]

Okay, so if I understand what the article is saying, they are theorizing that the bullet moves, stops and becomes a blockage?

[3006guns]

Larry, that was probably the most useful post I've seen in quite a while. Over the years there have been many theories used to explain SEE but this is the first explanation that makes sense and, as the article says, we go back to reloading 101.....bore obstructions. I'n grateful as I own two Swede Mausers and love them dearly, but I love my face even more! Thank you!

So, I would interpret this informaton to mean no reduced charges with slow powders, combined with longs leades or eroded throats. Actually Bret just said it best....bullet starts, stops and becomes a blockage while the remainder of the powder is still generating pressure.

Edit: There's another reason I'm interested.....I have two 8lb. jugs of River Valley Ordnance's surplus powder. I bought it years ago at a gun show for $8 each and it came with FREE loading data. What a deal! Well, I looked at the little slip of paper inside the boxes and the data included 30-06 (The powder appears to be some sort of coarse machine gun powder). I don't remember the charge offhand but it was fairly healthy, close to max to my thinking and covered all bullet weights from 125 grains to 180 grains WITH THE SAME CHARGE! That really threw me so I haven't used it in all these years....but your post explains why. Now maybe I'll give it a try.

[Larry Gibson]

Bret and 3006guns

That pretty much sums it up; Bullet starts moving through the long throat when pressure is very low, gets stopped in the leade, pressure then builds before the bullet can get moving again and essentially a bore obstruction occurs.

Larry Gibson

[WineMan]

Larry,

Do you think this situation could occur with the reduced amounts of slow powders and cast that we use with loads for the M1, and M1A?

Wineman

[Larry Gibson]

Larry,

Do you think this situation could occur with the reduced amounts of slow powders and cast that we use with loads for the M1, and M1A?

Wineman

I am not aware of a confirmed SEE with the use of cast bullets. A cast bullet does not offer enough resistance when stuck in a bore to become an "obstruction" in such cases. Not to say it can't or hasn't happened but it is unlikely. Remember we "slug' our bores with lead and it is relatively easy to push the lead slugs through. Even a stuck cast bullet is easy to push out. Try push a jacketed bullet through a fouled bore some time (recommend you don't though). Or if you have ever stuck a jacketed bullet in a bore you know some are easy to push out and others are real problems.

I also recommend the use of a dacron filler if the "reduced" amount is less than 80% case capacity. In measuring psi's with "reduced" amounts of 4831 under a 311299 in the '06 without the dacron filler I've found a wide variation of pressures but none were even close to the PMAP for that cartridge. Mostly it just indicates very poor ignition charactoristics which at a certain level of load the dacron filler solves. Also with denser loading densities the slower powders achieve sufficient psi to burn efficiently and give the heavier 311299s and 311284s and excellent velocity for accuracy in the 1800 - 1950 fps range in the 10" twists.

Larry Gibson

[linotype]

"Previously stressed" or "flawed" are NOT metal fatigue. It is a very specific, well understood
fact of life with metals under repeated stresses, that involves an initial point of crack formation
and progressive crack growth as the cyclic stress is repeated. Eventually the majority of
the load bearing material is cracked through, so the small remaining material fails suddenly.
Fatigue cracking is understood very well, and there are specific design criteria (now) to avoid
it, but these were not known 100 years ago.

Bill

My comments are by no means a down play sound information about SEE.
I used to be a machinist in a RD department. One of the RD factors we watched for was the cumulative effect of repeated stress, at whatever level, over a period of time on machined equipment. \

With a firearm receiver assembly, I would expect that there is a planned amount of stress from daily use at "service levels" and some wiggle room for variations of ammo pressures. Every round fired induces some amount of stress on the assembly. As pointed out, chamber and bore wear at more factors to the stress. In time, it all adds up.

With the metal aging of vintage firearms and the state of metallurgy at those years ago, there was no way of knowing that we would still be using firearms at plus one hundred years later.
That is a true credit of excellent design and good metal work.

[felix]

I wonder why the "lab" did not gently push a condom down the barrel within a commensurate distance mimicking an obstruction, filling a primed case already expanded to fit the chamber with some slow stuff like 860, and then filling the barrel likewise down the barrel before firing. ... felix

[Larry Gibson]

I wonder why the "lab" did not gently push a condom down the barrel within a commensurate distance mimicking an obstruction, filling a primed case already expanded to fit the chamber with some slow stuff like 860, and then filling the barrel likewise down the barrel before firing. ... felix

Probably because they value the very expensive pressure measuring machine and probably their jobs with it if they purposely blew it up.:-D

Larry Gibson

[felix]

Yeah, need someone like Robert Oppenheimer to run the labs. ... felix

[WineMan]

Larry,

That was my feeling that soft lead and lead alloys are not liable to stick but my experience is limited. I did stick a jacketed 185 grain Speer in a 45 Auto, many moons ago. My buddy did not see a strike and kept me from pulling the trigger again. Even in that short barrel it was no easy chore to get it out.

Wineman

[Bret4207]

Okay, maybe I missed something, not unusual for me, but is there something in the article that points to the Swede action being any more likely for problems with this than any other action? Doens't seem likely to me.

[WineMan]

After reading the posts I would think the combination of a long heavy 6.5 mm bullet (lots of bearing surface), the wear on the throat, a cartridge on the edge of overbore and the slow powders used to get maximum performance add up to cause this combination to be more susceptible. The Mauser action does leave some exposed brass and 100 year old metal may also make this rifle more likely to fail under the SEE condition we are discussing.

If these rifles were still in a front line military role, they would be fed a standard round that was well tested. They would be subjected to regular inspections and maintenance, there would also likely be a log for each rifle. Any barrel that showed signs of throat wear would be replaced. Any accidents would be thoroughly investigated and if a cause is found that was not shooter error, the weapons would be removed from service or placed in an emergency reserve capacity. Even if the technology was sound, the 100 year old weapons would have been replaced with new production rifles.

We get to use them as is, with any ammo we feel is safe. We make our own ammo by reusing the weakest part of the system. They are not generally inspected on a regular basis by trained armorers who are intimately familiar with this design. To preserve their historical significance and collector value we tend not to make changes to the barrel or action components.

This is not a slap on Swedish Mausers, handloaders, gunsmiths, or Military rifle owners. Like many things in life there are risks and some things have more risk than others.

Wineman

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

I read one explaination that the smaller charge can allow the flame front to "dance" along the top of the horizonal charge in the case, and make two propagation stages.
I try to get PRVI brass for my Swede, and for Euro calibers when I can.

Hope no one got hurt with this one.

Rich

[Larry Gibson]

Okay, maybe I missed something, not unusual for me, but is there something in the article that points to the Swede action being any more likely for problems with this than any other action? Doens't seem likely to me.

Bret

Wineman is pretty close in his explanation. Years ago this problem came up with the 25-06 cartridge. Mostly the problems were when reduced loads of old 4831 were used with 100 gr bullets in chambers with longer throats cut for the 117/120 gr bullets and were probably eroded to boot. It then began to surface with other cartridges with the proliferation of slower burning powders.

I saw a beatiful custom Weatherby 7mm Magnum on a DWM M1909 action that suffered SEE when reduced loads of 4831 were used under a light varmint weight bullet. I've also seen an SEE in a 14" barreld Contender in 45-70 with 2400 under 300 gr jacketed bullets. I've seen SEE's in numerous cartridges with most every action available including "modern" and newly made ones with little use and no "aging" or metal fatigue.

None the less the M96 Swede is suceptable as it has a case that slow burning powders are regularly used in, a very long throat and possible throat erosion from years of use. As mentioned in the article; if the powder is not sufficiently ignited and buring with enough pressure to keep the bullet moving (as in reduced loads of slow burning powders) the bullet can be pushed forward into the long throat and then sticks in the fouled and possibly eroded leade. There the bullet is stuck enough that when the powder does begin to burn efficiently it does not get moving again until the pressures are greatly over the strength of the cartridge case to contain them. It is when the very high pressure gas (way above what a normal 6.5 load generates) lets go that the severe damage is done.

I've been studying this problem for 40+ years. In all the examples of SEEs I have seen (M98s, M70s, M700s, Rugers, Weatherby's, M1As, M1s, M16s, etc.), all sustained similar damage as that exhibited in the photos of the M96. All came apart pretty much the same regardless of the "age" of the action. The M96 that came apart in the same manner some years back a Paul Bunyon range was the result of a light weight 107 gr MK under a reduced load of IMR7828, an obvious recipe for a SEE. This is why I disagree with those who advocate "reduced loads" to be 'gentle" on these "old, tired" actions, particularly with jacketed bullets. That recommendation can be an invitation to disaster. Loading the 6.5 Swede to the European CIP standard of 55,100 psi (not CUP) with the slower burning powders is far "safer" than reducing loads with those slower burning powders when using jacketed bullets. That's just my opinion, of course, and you may do as you wish but how many M96s have we seen destroyed like this from documented overloads? We have seen a whole lot destroyed from documented "reduced loads" with jacketed bullets now haven't we?

Larry Gibson

I do not use nor recommend the use of reduced slow burning powders with jacketed in the M96 6.5 Swede because of it's propensity of SEE.

[linotype]

"This is why I disagree with those who advocate "reduced loads" to be 'gentle" on these "old, tired" actions, particularly with jacketed bullets. That recommendation can be an invitation to disaster. Loading the 6.5 Swede to the European CIP standard of 55,100 psi (not CUP) with the slower burning powders is far "safer" than reducing loads with those slower burning powders when using jacketed bullets. "

I have both a MN 91/30 (Tula 1936) and a Mauser 24/47. Before I read your posting, I was thinking I should pamper the old guns.

Larry, in that case, I could use some advice on what would you recommend for reloading vintage military rifles.

I am debating which direction to go - factory loaded ammo, or loading jacketed at a more reduced level than service load, or nothing but cast bullet.

If a jacket load is reduced so much that it invites a SEE condition, then what is a save range?
Should we stay with in the range printed in the recent loading editions, never exceeding the max and never dropping below the starting charge? I've notice that the recent manuals list a starting charge that is lower than the lists a few years ago, I assume because of legal concerns. How do we know how low is too low?
The Lyman Cast Bullet manual lists cast bullet loads hotter than the standard Harris loads I see recommended here. Could these loads cause a SEE condition?
Or, would I be save with the Harris standard reduced pressure loads?

[Larry Gibson]

linotype

I have both a MN 91/30 (Tula 1936) and a Mauser 24/47. Before I read your posting, I was thinking I should pamper the old guns.

Larry, in that case, I could use some advice on what would you recommend for reloading vintage military rifles.

I am debating which direction to go - factory loaded ammo, or loading jacketed at a more reduced level than service load, or nothing but cast bullet.

If a jacket load is reduced so much that it invites a SEE condition, then what is a save range?

Should we stay with in the range printed in the recent loading editions, never exceeding the max and never dropping below the starting charge? I've notice that the recent manuals list a starting charge that is lower than the lists a few years ago, I assume because of legal concerns. How do we know how low is too low?

While we may want to see smoke from the grassy knoll and suspect legal litigation as the reason for the reduction of some loads in manuals I have it on good authority that the reason is twofold; the change of some componants and the use of more sophisticated pressure measuring equipment (piezo electric means instead of the older CUP method) which gives a much more complete picture of the pressure inside chambers. It is almost always safe to stay within the loads in newer reloading manuals. However, all those manuals are adament that loads be worked up from the suggested start to the max stopping when pressure becomes evident. Too many jump right to the max load assuming it is safe....many times the max listed load is not safe in your firearm with your componants.

How do we know? My own guideline is such; if I am using a light for caliber bullet and a slow burning powder for that weight bullet then I do not go below a recommended "start" load. I most often will start with a middle of the range load with such a light bullet and slow burning powder. I also, years ago, learned it is false economy to use a "cheap" slow burning powder when a medium burning powder should be used for a lighter weight bullet.

Further I have been using a chronograph for 35+ years. While the chronograph can not tell you what the pressure is it can give an idea of what the pressures are doing. For example; if a load is expected to perform at 2600 fps and it is running at 2800 fps, that should tell you something! Higher velocity with a given bullet and powder means only one thing; higher pressure. If we take a look at the test string in the Handloader article I posted you will see the velocities increased almost directly in linear fashion some 274 fps in 8 shots. Had I noted that obvious trend on my chronograph at about shot 5 I would have stopped right there.

The Lyman Cast Bullet manual lists cast bullet loads hotter than the standard Harris loads I see recommended here. Could these loads cause a SEE condition?
Or, would I be save with the Harris standard reduced pressure loads?

Most of the powders used in Lyman's current manual are of the fast burning and easily igniteable type. Only in a few cases do they list even medium burning powders and those are with low loading density cartridges or with PP'd bullets in the .308W and '06. Also, as mentioned previously, I have not seen a documented SEE case involving cast bullets. They are just too soft to effectively stick in the bore and when they do it takes little pressure to push them out. I shoot lot's of cast bullets with the faster burning powders in numerous cartridges using lessor charges than listed by Harris or Lyman. I do not fear an SEE but am very careful to not double or tripple charge such. A obvious overload as such is not an SEE, it is stupidity or carelessness. Again I also work up loads. Just because i have a quanity of powder does not mean I will use it with a certain bullet unless the ES and SD are compatable. Too large and ES or an SD out of wack tells me that ignition is not consistent. I'll only use those powders with bullets that give consistent ignition. To do so otherwise, particularly with light for caliber jacketed bullets is an open invitation to disaster.

So if you stay with book loads or recommended loads that have been tested and work up to such loads in your own firearms you will be as safe as any of us. However, with light for caliber jacketed bullets and slow burning powders never go below any recommended starting load. If you can't find a tested starting load with your componants then my suggestion is; don't go there unless you have the knowledge, experience and equipment (good chronograph at a minimum) to do so.

Larry Gibson

[linotype]

Quote - Larry Gibson -

"It is almost always safe to stay within the loads in newer reloading manuals. However, all those manuals are adament that loads be worked up from the suggested start to the max stopping when pressure becomes evident. Too many jump right to the max load assuming it is safe....many times the max listed load is not safe in your firearm with your componants."
I've been reloading since '75, but with some exceptions, only for yearly hunting or occasional range time. It's been my reasoning that trying a max load for only a hundred fps gain is a foolish move. None of my game seemed to require a max load, compared to a mild round, and my guns shoot well at the lower end of the recommended powder range.

"My own guideline is such; if I am using a light for caliber bullet and a slow burning powder for that weight bullet then I do not go below a recommended "start" load. I most often will start with a middle of the range load with such a light bullet and slow burning powder. I also, years ago, learned it is false economy to use a "cheap" slow burning powder when a medium burning powder should be used for a lighter weight bullet."
I have rarely used light bullets, with the exception of 100/110 grain jacketed over 48 grains of IMR-4895 in .308/.30-06 for plinking or varmint control. This was taken from Speer #10.

"Further I have been using a chronograph for 35+ years. While the chronograph can not tell you what the pressure is it can give an idea of what the pressures are doing. For example; if a load is expected to perform at 2600 fps and it is running at 2800 fps, that should tell you something! Higher velocity with a given bullet and powder means only one thing; higher pressure. If we take a look at the test string in the Handloader article I posted you will see the velocities increased almost directly in linear fashion some 274 fps in 8 shots. Had I noted that obvious trend on my chronograph at about shot 5 I would have stopped right there."
A chronograph is on my wish list. Prices have come down enough to make it a must have tool in working up a load.

"Most of the powders used in Lyman's current manual are of the fast burning and easily igniteable type. Only in a few cases do they list even medium burning powders and those are with low loading density cartridges or with PP'd bullets in the .308W and '06."
That's a good bit of information to know. I expected Lyman to be conservative and professional.

"...I have not seen a documented SEE case involving cast bullets. They are just too soft to effectively stick in the bore and when they do it takes little pressure to push them out. I shoot lot's of cast bullets with the faster burning powders in numerous cartridges using lessor charges than listed by Harris or Lyman. I do not fear an SEE but am very careful to not double or tripple charge such. A obvious overload as such is not an SEE, it is stupidity or carelessness."
So it seems that casting is good safe way to reload, while protecting the vintage firearm. I have wondered about that, since lead bullets were the common projectile before jacketed bullets. Much of my long gun shooting has been muzzleloaders with cloth patch RB, REAL, Maxies and Minies over the years. I've seen my share of fouled bores. loose patches, and stuck lead. It may have been a chore to clean out a barrel, but you are right, the lead does get out. And the BP ML pressures aren't nearly as high as these jacket bullet cartridges. I'm just beginning to understand that the high pressure jacketed bullets are more aggressive about filling the lands and grooves than ML, work against more friction resistance in the bore due to the pressures and speed, and seem to be more critical about a "clear channel" down the bore. As I have been finding out here on this forum, there is more to CB reloading than stuffing brass.

"I'll only use those powders with bullets that give consistent ignition. To do so otherwise, particularly with light for caliber jacketed bullets is an open invitation to disaster.
However, with light for caliber jacketed bullets and slow burning powders never go below any recommended starting load. If you can't find a tested starting load with your componants then my suggestion is; don't go there unless you have the knowledge, experience and equipment (good chronograph at a minimum) to do so."
Makes total good sense to me.

"So if you stay with book loads or recommended loads that have been tested and work up to such loads in your own firearms you will be as safe as any of us. "
Which goes back to your point about the Lyman load information, in particular. there's no sense in guesswork about a load combination. The professionals print manuals of tested and evaluated combinations, including all the components used. I've used the same brands of primers, powder, cases, and bullets for years, and will not change unless I find a printed formula in a respected manual.

Thanks, Larry, for the education. Really glad I joined this forum. :drinks:

John

[Bret4207]

Wineman, that's the very first time I've ever seen anyone refer to the 6.5 Swede as "on the edge of overbore"! Most people consider the 6.5x55 a rather well balanced cartridge in line with the 7x57 and 257 Roberts. Maybe you could expand on your assertion a bit, I'm curious.

Larry, I can see the idea. The 6.5x55 responds so well to slower powders like RL 22 that I suppose it's ripe territory for people not thinking things through. I tend to get mixed thoughts on this because most of my 6.5x55 shooting has been in a rebarreled Kar 98 with a new barrel.

I suppose if nothing else this is a good lesson in using an appropriate powder rather than trying to make one powder "do it all".

[Larry Gibson]

Bret

Gotta still be careful, the M98 action will not prevent an SEE and is just as suceptable to that much damage as the M96. M98s, M70s, M700s, etc.....they all come apart like that from an SEE.

Larry Gibson

[Tokarev]

Was it lack of pressure relief holes in the action?

[felix]

A SEE condition builds pressure very fast by definition, and sometimes too fast for any kind of relief holes to work as intended.

As opposed to what Larry said, any kind of projectile, lead, copper, zinc can be involved with a SEE condition. However, a revolver with its natural cylinder gap is much less susceptible to any kind of pressure overload, no matter how generated. ... felix

[drklynoon]

I might be off the mark here but I don't think so. Hasn't the swede reciever had a groove machined off the top of the reciever? I think that groove goes al the way to the barrel face. Added to a "weaker" mauser action, any problem could be magnified.

[swheeler]

I think SEE is as good of an explaination as any for this rifle exploding.

[WineMan]

Bret,

I have no qualms that the 6.5x55 is a balanced cartridge. My reference to "on the edge of overbore", is just that: it is on the edge. To me when the cartridge performs best with slower powders or we try to improve performance with slower powders is a requirement for overbore. Compared to a 6.5-06, which most would describe as overbore, Hodgdon's MAX load of IMR 4831 is 1.5 grains less for the Swede than the 6.5-06 for about 2,700 fps with the same 140 grain jacketed bullet. For the 160 grain jacketed bullet the difference is only 0.8 grains. This is an average difference of 2% so fairly close to an agreed overbore cartridge. I am sure there will be differences of opinion and agreement with my statement. My intent was not to pigeonhole the Swede, but to just mention that like in most accidents it is a cascade of factors not just one.

Wineman

[BD]

To me, "Overbore" has a sort of negative connotation implying higher pressure, more rapid throat erosion and shorter barrel life. As the 6.5 x 55 operates at around 50,000 psi, and has an average barrel life of something like 100 years :), I have a hard time thinking of it in the same terms as the .220 Swift

I'd describe it more as a "Just right bore"

BD

[MtGun44]

Linotype,

Not to be too obsessive, but the comment "Every round fired induces some amount of
stress on the assembly. As pointed out, chamber and bore wear at more factors to
the stress. In time, it all adds up." is absolutely, scientifically proven to NOT be the case
for stresses below the 'fatigue limit' in steel. The problem usually comes when a machine has a
flaw such as a scratch, gouge, machine mark, stamped number or letter, etc which locally
concentrates the stresses to higher than intended - exceeding the infinite fatigue life stress
level locally and leading ultimately to a total failure if enough cycles are completed.

For steel alloys with cyclic stresses below a well defined stress limit (usually about 50% of
yield stress) there is NO maximum number of cycles to failure. Failure will NOT occur, even
a many, many millions of stress cycles. The topic is extremely important in engineering
design and many people have been injured and killed over the years due to ignorance
in this area, so that there has been a lot of well funded research in the area. The key
point is that stress in steel less than the critical value is totally harmless and is NOT
causing some sort of invisible damage. Above the critical value, it IS causing damage, but it
is not invisible, except very early in the process. The fatigue process is a microscopic cracking
and steady, incrimental crack growth every cycle. These cracks are detectable with non-
destructive testing methods many, many cycles prior to a catastrophic failure. A fatigue cracked
gun part that is anywhere near failure can be detected with dye penetrant or magnetic particle
inspection methods, and often with an extremely good inspection with 10X magnification. It
CANNOT fail without a crack, if it is a fatigue failure. A sudden overload failure is a totally
different situation. Examination of the fracture surface will identify which type of failure occurred.

Note that aluminum has NO infinite fatigue life limit stress level and ALL aluminum structures
WILL eventually crack if cycled enough times, regardless of how low the stress level is. BUT
they still will crack LONG before they suddenly fail, and can be detected with non-destructive
inspection methods like dye penetrant inspection.

Bill

[swheeler]

The slow IMR single based powders, most notably IMR4831/sold as surplus 4831 when I started loading are notorious for this in greatly reduced loadings. It is noted in reloading manuals 40 years ago, guess until psi testing got more prevailant they never understood why, what was going on. I remember reading the warnings in IMR handloader guide when 7828 was introduced mid 80's do not reduce listed loads. I do not believe in flammable solids-as in smokeless propellant- detonating like a class A explosive, be it single base or double based powder, but I do however believe in the bore obstruction theory, although that looks to be closer to fact than theory now. SEE senior

[linotype]

"Not to be too obsessive, but the comment "Every round fired induces some amount of
stress on the assembly. As pointed out, chamber and bore wear at more factors to
the stress. In time, it all adds up." is absolutely, scientifically proven to NOT be the case
for stresses below the 'fatigue limit' in steel. The problem usually comes when a machine has a
flaw such as a scratch, gouge, machine mark, stamped number or letter, etc which locally
concentrates the stresses to higher than intended - exceeding the infinite fatigue life stress
level locally and leading ultimately to a total failure if enough cycles are completed."

Bill, first and foremost, let me defer to your knowledge and experience on this topic.

My comment was intended more to agree with the SEE topic.
I may be mistaken, but I feel that vintage firearms should be handled with consideration, such proper safe load ranges, and to be mindful that there will be wear on the components over time.

I am not suggesting that the firearm will fail due simply to stress. Considering the age of the firearm, wear from usage, and lacking a knowledge of all the previous history of the firearm, an owner should follow a routine of safety inspection and reasonable use. The unexpected failure may happen, but I expect that it would be due to carelessness or mishandling. Because these old firearms were well designed and well built, does not mean an owner should be reckless or foolish about reloading.
I agree with you about the longevity of a machine operating within design tolerances. I have seen this in auto engines and machining equipment. It all comes down to good design and proper care.

[Tokarev]

I am always astonished by the folks who throw around phrases involving 'safety inspection' because I have never found a gunsmith capable of that or simply willing to take responsibility. Have you?

[Mike Venturino]

I found this passage on the last page of the book THE MAUSER BOLT ACTIONS: M91 through M98: A Shop Manual by Jerry Kuhnhausen.

It reads, "Paul Mauser elected the simplest, most logical solution which was to design a practical, common sense rifle action with features that overcame the existing state of the brass metallurgy art and the limitations of the then readily available low/medium carbon industrial steels. What is key here, is that the M98 action was engineered with the above metallurgy and almost every other imaginable field use and manufacturing problem in mind. Mauser designed and produced a case hardened action that was tough, but not brittle, so that it would not shatter when stressed or when high pressure gases were suddenly released."

What I read is that in pre-Model 98 actions if a case failed then the gas was likely to shatter the action.

Because I have two defective Remington-Peters 6.5x55mm Swede cases that came from a single bag of 100 cases, what I fear happened here was case failure.

MLV

[Larry Gibson]

Mike

Look at the primer pocket and extrusion in the extractor slot. Case failure does not do that. Over the years i have had numerous case head sperations and case failures in the web area from faulty brass. I also have examined quite a few other case failures and several documented SEEs. Got some gas back int the actions but never seen blown primer pockets or extrusion like that into the extractor slot. What you see there are obvious signs of very high pressure and either are from a very serious overload or an SEE.

BTW; how are your 2 R-P cases defective?

Larry Gibson

[madsenshooter]

Could very well be a case failure, I have some SL56 brass that has a combination of thick walls and soft head. They weigh about the same as an LC case, but putting the same charge into the SL as the LC will cause the SL to blow the primer, and extrude a bit into the extractor of my M1. So a soft head can give premature pressure indications like you're seeing. They were only softer than the LC, what if some got by that were near dead soft? The rest of the failure could be attributed to the case head size of US made 6.5x55. The dimensional differences are the same that Hatcher warned about when using 30-06 to make 7.7 Japanese. Having said all this, I voted for SEE in the poll, but with these thoughts nagging me.

[Larry Gibson]

After thinking it over, the case obviously failed. So the real question here is was the failure induced by poor quality of the case where in it failed with a "normal" load or was the failure from extremely high pressure caused by SEE?

Larry Gibson

[Mike Venturino]

Larry: We have to take photos this week for deadlines so I'll have my wife take photos of those two cases and post them here. I've never seen new cases that look like them.

By the way has anyone tried putting 39 grains of H4350 in a R-P 6.5mm Swede case? There's not much room left over.

This stuff is very puzzling. Also worthy of note is that Hornady's manual in the 6.5mm Carcano section recommends ONLY Winchester LR Mag primers. I asked them before loading if Federal 215s could be substituted cause I didn't have any WLRMs. They said it was ok.

Also I like that fellows suggestion about using Prvi brass of the correct dimension. I'm hunting some of that up too.

MLv

[Mike Venturino]

Larry: You hit the nail on the head there.

Another thing that puzzles me is that we're seeing this with several 6.5mm Swede rifles. Are we just hearing about them and not the other rifles types and calibers that let go or is this thing happening more often with Swedes of late?

If so there are other factors involved about which we need to know.

Way back in the '70s there was a powder from Hodgdon named H205. I read in one article where it was blowing primers in 6mm Remington with loads recommended in manuals. About that time I got a .300 H&H and used it in that Model 70 with complete satisfaction. Then I decided to try it in my .257 Roberts Model 54 with above a starting load but certainly not a hot one and the primer blew on the first shot. It was discontinued shortly thereafter. I still have the rest of that can around here somewhere.

Back in the heyday of the cowboy action game lots of single action revolvers were blowing up. Even the vaunted Ruger Blackhawks and Vaqueros with their big cylinders and strong frames. I have several photos of such that people sent me. Some of the powder charges SAID to have caused the destruction wouldn't have been an overload even if double charged. When people asked me about it I had to say that I had not a clue but that it was best to not try to make a .45 perform as a .38.

To the best of my knowledge no one ever answered the question as to "why" sufficiently. At least some good came out of it with the introduction of Trail Boss.
MLV

[Larry Gibson]

Mike

Appreciate your efforts on the photo's, no problem with the wait.

I've seen and heard numerous people quote Kuhnhausen on that. It is true of the M98 but ponder this; Most M96s were made during the same time as M98s. Do we really think that they would have used inferior steels and heat treatment in one when the better steels (especially the Swedish steels) and heat treatment were available? Hardness testing and research has shown the manufacturing techniques for both actions to be the same. Granted the design of the M98 is such that it will better handle the escaping gas from a case failure. However, M98s come apart just like the M96s pictured here when an SEE happens.

We have seen on the internet in the last 10 years or so numerous actions (M70s, Weatherby's, Remingtons, M1As, Marlins and Rugers along with several milsurps) that have beed destroyed as the result of SEEs. Dutch just seems to be zeroed in on the M96 for this as some zero in on the LSN'd M1903s when someone asks about shooting them.

Remember, SEE has been proven and is readily replicated. That takes it out of the "theory" realm and puts it into fact. The "wave" and "detonation" theories are still theories as no one has been able to replicate them in controlled, measurable circumstance. The 6.5 Swede is very susceptible to SEE because all the conditions (long throat, use of reduced slow burning powders and possible rough throats, etc.) are there. The 25-06 has always been susceptible with light weight bullets, a reduced charge of old 4831 and an eroded and rough throat originally cut for the longer 117/120 gr bullets. The smaller caliber Weatherby's such as the 7mm are also very susceptible with light weight bullets and reduced or too slow burning powders. Again, those conditions, what causes SEE and the results are documented and proven....not theory but proven.

The "heyday" of cowboy action shooting with reduced loads was pretty much the same as with PPC a few years earlier. Numerous cylinders were burst and top straps lifted off K frame S&Ws with the 'classic load" of 2.7 gr Bullseye under the 148 gr HBWC. This seemed to be occurring all of a sudden with much frequency. Wave and detonation were thought to be the causes. However, Hercules and S&W did a very exacting research of the problem. S&W did a thorough study of several of the revolvers involved and determined it was not failure or defects of the revolvers but very high psi which caused the failure. They found there to be no indication of pressure problems with that load. They found a double charge while higher psi, was still not enough. However, a double charge with a HBWC seated too deep did produce potentially high enough psi. A triple charge did also and if the bullet was seated too deep then the psi were quite enough to take apart a S&W K frame. They then tracked down the suspected loads to whom and how they had been loaded. Turns out the culprit most often was the inline progressive C&H press. It is real easy to double or triple charge a case with one of those. The marketing and use of those C&H loaders coincided with the rash of blown up revolvers. Subsequently the C&H loaders were discontinued. Point here is with the advent of semi progressive presses it is all to easy to double or triple charge a case, especially a large volume one like the .45 Colt, with some of the "said used" powders.

A friend of mine recently blew a case in a Tauris M1911 .45 ACP. Fortunately it damaged the magazine only. He had used my suggested load of 5 gr Bullseye under a 200 gr cast SWC. He blamed my load for the problem. He had loaded the rounds (200) on a Dillon 550B in another friend’s gunshop. I ask him if he was interrupted at all during the loading. He said he was that people were coming and going and he was BSing with the gunsmith. I then pulled the rest of the bullets (a little over 100) and found one loaded with 8.5 gr of Bullseye and one with a full 10 gr of Bullseye. He was astonished to say the least. We then repared to my Dillon 550 and I watched him load 50 rounds. During that he double short stroked the handle twist because he didn't get the bullet started straight in station 3. The result in each instance was a charge of 7.5 - 8 gr in the case. Now that he wasn't so about his own ability he remembered perhaps not rotating the star a time or two and thus probably double charge the .45 ACP case with 10 grs. He also recalled a couple rounds where the bullet seemed "hard to seat" which was probably the double charges rounds. So it wasn't the load, it was the "loading' that was the problem.

My point Mike is how many cowboy action shooters use progressive presses to load their ammo? You think perhaps they might have done the same thing? I know I have learned not to "short stroke" the handle on my 550B because it can add more powder, especially with the shorter pistol type cartridges. I was just loading 600 .30 carbine rounds two days ago and had it happen. It's why I got a Dillon SDB to load most of my handgun ammo with; it automatically rotates the shell plate so a double charge is very difficult to make happen.

Anyways, always good chatting with you.

Larry Gibson

[Mike Venturino]

Larry: Right. Visiting is always enjoyable. I wrote a longer post to you and this stupid computer lost it when I was trying to enter it. (Then again I may be the stupid one instead of these computers!)

Anyway I have to agree about progressive presses. I don't attribute all blown handguns to them but it does seem they are involved in many instances. Back in 1991 I blew up a 1914 vintage Colt SAA .45. I didn't (still don't) like to think it was my own error that caused it but I admit to loading the ammo on a 550B. Two hundred rounds were put together and the revolver let go on #6. Wasn't a bullet stuck in the bore because I was shooting at a dueling tree and all five of the first cylinder full swung paddles. I pulled bullets on the other 194 rounds and no powder charges varied more than a couple tenths. Still......

Now I use Square Deal Bs for .45 ACP and 9mm to feed my subguns, but for my other full-autos in 7.62x25mm, .30 Carbine, 7.92x33mm, and .303 British I load everything the old fashioned way - one at a time.

What amazes me most is how often no one gets injured by these accidents - not always but often.

I do want to clarify one point. In his book Jerry Kuhnhausen didn't say anything negative about steels. His reference was to poor brass metallurgy in bygone days and that the '98 Mauser handled leaking gas better than previous designs.

Anyway, I better get to work.
Mike V.

[Larry Gibson]

Mike

I wasn't criticising Jarry's book at all, sorry if it sounded that way. I was criticising the misinterpretation of that by many. You are right, of course, about the brass metallurgy as it was in it's infant days back then. They had lots of problems up through the '20s or so before they seem to have got it right. If one reads hatcher thoroughly it was the defective case metallurgey of some of the WWI '06 ammo that caused most of the problems with LSN '03s. With good ammuntion of the correct kind (too many reports of 8x57 being fired in '03s back then) there didn't seem to be the problem.

Speaking of H205 I was involved in one mishap with it back in the '70s and it's what really sparked my interest in SEE. Friend had a very nice long range 280 Remington. Couldn't get factory brass or loaded ammo at the time so we were necked down some new R-P '06 cases leaving a slight crush fit on the new shoulder. The '06 shoulders were a little back and needed to be blown forward. We had developed what had been a good load in the 40 .280 cases he had. It was a 100% loading density under the Sierra 168 MK. So we figured a case full in the formed '06 brass would work fine. It was 2-3 gr less powder. On the 4th shot the left hand mauser M3000 action gave way, not complete destruction but the bolt was ruined and I had to remove the barrel before we could get the bolt open. The chamber was also swelled. the 1st three shots went into just under 1" at 200 yards (we were confirming the zero) and no idea where the 4th shot went as the bullet wasn't in the barrel. The R-P '06 case was almost identical in appearence to the 6.5 R-P case posted. Fortuneately my friend was not injured either. With in a month the recall notice came out recalling H205. Don't know whether it was the H205 or the fie forming '06 cases with it but I (actually we) don't do that with slow burning powders anymore either.

Having used an old C-H inline press, several 450 and 550s, a couple SDBs, the RCBS and the Hornady progressives one thing I've learned is to be careful and pay attention. If I am interupted or need to stop for a while I finish loading all the cases in the shell plate before stopping. My wife interrupts me all the time and I aggrevate her because, before I talk to her or pay attention to her, with the 550B I rotate the shell, don't have to with the SDB, set a bullet on the charged case and put a new case in station 1. I've explained the potential hazards if i don't but after 20 years she is just getting used to it.....I guess.

One of the benefits of retirement....I can ramble on.....:drinks:

BTW; I thought your article Bullet casting basics was excellent and should be pointed out to the new cast bullet shooter of which seem to abound these days.

Larry Gibson

[Dutchman]

The 6.5 Swede is very susceptible to SEE because all the conditions (long throat, use of reduced slow burning powders and possible rough throats, etc.) are there.

Neither of these two rifle failures were using a reduced slow burning powder. Both load levels were within published limits. A "reduced" load would be one below a published minimum load, IMO. You can argue about the burn rate of the two powders and while they lean more towards slow than fast I see no good evidence the burn rate was a factor here.

Neither of these rifles have any indication of a rough throat. You are introducing what you purport to be valid factors because they may have been valid factors in other cases at other times in other rifles. There is no evidence to support rough throats in either of these cases.

A good investigator considers all the factors and mulls over the possibilities. You have dismissed defective brass from the get-go despite multiple (that's more than one) reports of defective Remington 6.5x55 brass and repeated your S.E.E. theory ad nauseum.

The tangible evidence points directly at defective brass. By publicizing the fact that we have concrete proof of defective brass we may be able to save someone else's rifle and/or save someone from injury, the shooter or an innocent bystander.

To some readers your continued and repeated, along with unrelated "supporting" argument, could well cause some inexperienced handloader to dismiss the factual evidence of defective brass as being a valid cause or viable hazard in shooting Swedish Mausers using R-P brass.

I find oppositional conversation to be a mind game of the pathologically dysfunctional person. It proves nothing. It doesn't make one right if his is the last word. You've stated your opinion repeatedly. In the interest world peace and global climate change (excessive methane gases) move on.

p.s. You most certainly have trashed Kuhnhausen's Mauser book in the past. You stated your contemptuous opinion of his work in response to my quoting of his statement about the relative weakness of the 1893 Spanish Mausers in 7.62x51 Nato.


If one reads hatcher thoroughly it was the defective case metallurgey of some of the WWI '06 ammo that caused most of the problems with LSN '03s. With good ammuntion of the correct kind (too many reports of 8x57 being fired in '03s back then) there didn't seem to be the problem.

Well, this thread was about Swedish Mausers. We'll get into this subject of the low numbered 1903 rifles in another thread and another time.


Dutch

[PAT303]

In Australia both swedish mausers and Lee Enfield rifles are used on a weekly basis by thousands of shooters and in both cases it is uncommon for users to have American manufactered cases as in both types they are undersize and headspace and swelling are the end result.The case that it most common are Privi manufactured ones as they are of excellent quality and dimentionaly are very close to original specs and by far the most common powder used in both calibers is AR2209,Hodgden 4350,40grns under a 140grn bullet in the swede and 45grns under a 174grn in the enfield.In Aust we have had swedes for 30+ years and I can't find blown up rifles or any history of blown up rifles here and the one thing different between our rifles is we have always had a supply of European cases that are made to the correct spec. Pat

[swheeler]

Who says RP6.5x55 brass has the SAME base dimension as RP 06 brass, am still looking in notes, but I DON"T THINK SO! Come on somebody has to have a NEW UNFIRED lot of each, if I remember correctly, when I measured it, the 6.5 brass was about .010" larger just in front of the extactor groove than RP 06 brass was, .474 v.464. Let us not perpetuate more urban myths, gawd knows there are enough. My goodness- double base powders detonating like class A explosives, lead vaporizing at 750* F, burning all the tin out of an alloy if you heat to over 750*. Lets NOT let the voice of inexperience rule the air waves. OF COURSE THE BRASS GAVE OUT< IT'S THE WEAK LINK IN THE FIREARM, ANY FIREARM.

[beemer]

The undersized Rem 6.5 X 55 cases have been mentioned several times so here are some measurements. I measured the case body just ahead of the extractor groove. I also measured some old Herters cases that were made in Sweden. A Rem 30-06 was measured for comparison.

Rem 6.5 X 55 .474

Herters 6.5 X 55 .476


Rem 30-06 .465

The specs. in my loading books show the 6.5 X 55 at .478-.479 and the 30-06 at .470.

The rim is small enough to use a 30-06 shell holder.

Dave

[swheeler]

The undersized Rem 6.5 X 55 cases have been mentioned several times so here are some measurements. I measured the case body just ahead of the extractor groove. I also measured some old Herters cases that were made in Sweden. A Rem 30-06 was measured for comparison.

Rem 6.5 X 55 .474

Herters 6.5 X 55 .476


Rem 30-06 .465

The specs. in my loading books show the 6.5 X 55 at .478-.479 and the 30-06 at .470.

The rim is small enough to use a 30-06 shell holder.

Dave

So there you have it, if 6.5 cases are blowing, a hell of a lot of 06 cases should be rupturing at the head. .005 undersized for each

[Larry Gibson]

Deleting the post....after Dutch's personal attacks it's not worth pursuing here any longer.

Larry Gibson

[PAT303]

Both R-P and Winchester cases bulge in my swede and Enfields,Norma-RWS-Privi-PMC don't. Pat

[wiljen]

Dutchman,

You opened the door to SEE as one explanation when you posted the poll so attacking someone because they discounted the other choice amounts to baiting the field in my estimation.

How would someone have known the condition of the throats in the rifles you reference? I looked at both threads and all the pictures and can find no pictures or information on the condition of the throat either before or after the mishap.

Speculation about what the load was is also exactly that. Most destroyed rifles are from misadventures in loading either wrong powder, or too much of it, or both. So any poll that doesn't list incorrect loading as a possibility is either arrogant (All of us have made at least one mistake somewhere in our careers) or ignorant (to deny this is a possibility).

Fact of the matter is that dissecting a malfunction after the fact is about like trying to figure out what the house looked like before the tornado hit from the remains afterward.

All of us will have theories. Many times we will not agree, nor ever reach a consensus, on the event or events that caused a catastrophic failure. I've seen many of these written off as "Loading errors" by any number of people over the years without any evidence to back their position what-so-ever.

The nice thing about this board is that we can disagree and remain civil in doing so. How about we keep it that way?

[spqrzilla]

Good observations Larry and Mike.