Dangerous 22 ammo

[Molly]

Hi,

I'm Kenneth Mollohan, and most of you should know me as a man of some character and honesty. I recently had the very unpleasant experience of having a good quality standard .22 LR pistol (actually, a Tarus PT-22) literally blow apart using commercial CCI 22 ammo. I'd like to warn other shooters so they don't have a similar experience.

When I contacted CCI, I was polite, and warned them of a possible problem with their product, and asked them to make good the damage it had done. I didn't rant and rave about injury, reckless endangerment or any such nonsense. I tried to be as reasonable as possible.

CCI replied that their ammo wasn't suitable for my gun, as the label warning clearly stated that it was intended only for a standard ANSI chambers, and that the mishap was my fault for not heeding their warning. Interestingly enough, they did not take the position that my pistol had a non-ANSI chamber. They just insisted that using their 22 ammo in a pistol without asking them whether it was safe was poor judgement on my part, and that the accident was therefore MY fault. (Believe it or not: I have their e-mail reply!)

I replied that I'd read the label warning, but my pistol wasn't any special chambering such as a tight match chamber, it was just an ordinary, every day commercial 22 pistol.

CCI responded that there were many chamber standards in use, and it was the users responsibility to determine the safety of his gun with their ammunition.


What appears to have happened is that the case gave way at the unsupported feed ramp, and allowed gas into the pistol interior. The gas blew the left grip open, and some interior parts were ejected. The slide was blown back and partly lifted from the rails. There was a smokestack jam at the same time as a failure to feed, and the clip was ruined. Pieces of the .22 CCI case fell out when the gun was opened and the clip was removed. It was a royal mess.

I managed to find the parts, reassemble the gun and test fire with the damaged clip. To my great surprise, it actually still functioned except for more than 20% misfeeds due to the damaged clip. (Much credit is due to Tarus for a gun that will take such extreme abuse and come up working at all!)

All I asked CCI to do was replace the $22 clip. But since CCI has taken the position that their obscure warning completely absolves them from any legal or moral responsibility, I can't do much about it. They no longer respond to my messages.


I thought others would be interested in what appears to be a caveat emptor policy indicative of a complete lack of honor and character on the part of CCI Industries. I know that my own consumption of their products will cease with the consumption of stock on hand. And I've used their products for about 40 years.

I recommend that you view CCI products with a jaundiced eye. I particularly do not recommend that you use them in any firearm that you value. Note also, that if any personal injury should occur to your hand or eyes, I don't think CCI won't give a (BLEEP!), and you will have to take them to court for any satisfaction.

Ken Mollohan

Molly

[USARO4]

Sorry to here about your incident, glad you're OK. What type of CCI ammo was it? I've heard of similar incidents with CCI Stinger.

[floodgate]

Molly

I had almost exactly the same thing happen a few weeks back in a Walther PP .22, using a handful of Federal high-velocity cases that came with it (I didn't save the box or record the lot number). One case blew open on the feed ramp, and three or so others showed cracks in the firing pin indent and vented a bit of gas - so it looks like excessively hard and brittle brass. Fortunately no damage to me or the pistol, except a minor ding on the magazine lips which I straightened out OK. Since this was a post-war PP/.22LR I assumed it was OK with HV loadings, and it was almost certainly an ammo problem, but for safety I now stick with standard-velocity loads; these work just fine (but I still flinch a bit, now and then).

floodgate

[Scrounger]

That is interesting, considering that CCI and RCBS are parts of the same family.

[Catshooter]

Welcome to coporate America. I'm pretty sure that a attorney would tell you that CCI's attorneys have told them that buying you a $22.50 magazine is the same as complete assumption of responsibility on their part and then of course you will sue them and theirs for umpteen billions, and win.

"Admit nothing, deny everything." Don't you just love it.


Cat

[leftiye]

the old Casull AR-180 used to jam in only about a trillion different ways (everything imagineable). Some of those ways involved the ctg. getting crosswise of the feed ramp, and firing. I always attrubuted this to the .22 LR ctg not being designed very well for full auto feeding, as well as the firearm not feeding very well itself. From what you described, I think this is what you experienced.

Over pressure in a .22 will blow the thin head apart. in a bolt action this will possibly blow the extractor off of the bolt. But what you describe wasn't excessive pressure. Nor was it the brittle brass scenario that floodgate experienced. Looks more like an unfortunate accident caused by the basic facts of life as invloving .22 ammo, and automatic feeding mishaps.

[buck1]

Thats a load of bull$%^&!!!
22LR should be 22 LR period. I would have (and have) shot that ammo in any 22lr firearm I wanted. I was going to buy a few bricks of CCI primers on payday.
KEYWORD "WAS". Not now.
Its not like you wanted a billion dollars!
Im done with them.
Thanks for the heads up..................Buck

[9.3X62AL]

I lean toward Buck's view--and Molly's. That said, I have had a 22 LR round discharge while feeding with bolt coming closed on a Marlin Model 60 rifle. THAT was one impressive discharge, lemme tell ya! Some part of the ammo--the feeding process--or accumulated gunk on gun parts combine to produce these results.

CCI's "corporate response" is de rigeur for this graceless age. Lawyers will eventually succeed in completely paralyzing society from doing ANYTHING for ANY REASON. Reality becomes a courtroom presentation--not a real-world occurrence.

[No_1]

Ken,

I am one of those that does not know who you are. I did a google search and found a guy from EAHS Class of 80 but that was about it. With all due respect, could you please expand on who you are and why so many seem to know you?

Robert


Hi,

I'm Kenneth Mollohan, and most of you should know me as a man of some character and honesty.

[Molly]

Ken,
I am one of those that does not know who you are. I did a google search and found a guy from EAHS Class of 80 but that was about it. With all due respect, could you please expand on who you are and why so many seem to know you? Robert

Well, you put me in the awkward position of tooting my own horn, but your inquery is not unreasonable.

I've been an NRA lifer so long I can't remember when I joined, or how much it cost.
I am a caster of about 40 years standing.
Former pro gunsmith for about 15 years.
I was co-founder and former officer of the Cast Bullet Association.
I developed Cream of Wheat technology, enabling cast bullets to be shot without sizing or lubricating.
I developed the first coherent explanation of leading mechanisms, now almost universally accepted. Along with this was the explanation of how bullet 'lubes' function.
I've had numerous cast bullet articles published.
I've contribute substantially to the writing and editing of the forthcomng book on Cast Bullet Technology.

As a non-bullet aside, I'm also - though not lastly - a born again Christian who takes his faith very seriously. I have completed Lay Pastorial training.

I also have a few patents, and developed many new polymeric technologies and products in OEM industrial coatings. There is an excellent chance the the paint on your refrigerator is one that I developed (or is one derived from it). Chances are the rubber soles on your shoes and the tires on your car were made with some of my products.
Is that sufficient to establish my bonafides, or should I continue?
(VBG)

[Molly]

Welcome to coporate America. I'm pretty sure that a attorney would tell you that CCI's attorneys have told them that buying you a $22.50 magazine is the same as complete assumption of responsibility on their part and then of course you will sue them and theirs for umpteen billions, and win.
Cat

THAT, cat, is a load of horse s__t! Even if CCI really believed that, all they'd have to do is ask me to sign a statement that their 'good-will gift of $22' would in no way imply an assumption or admission of guilt on their part. I wouldn't have any problem with that. All I asked for was to be treated reasonably and fairly. All I got was an invitation to go pound sand - so to speak.

[Molly]

> I always attrubuted this to the .22 LR ctg not being designed very well for full auto feeding, as well as the firearm not feeding very well itself. From what you described, I think this is what you experienced.

Well, that's as may be, but the simple fact is that other brands seem to function without blowing up. So I'm afraid you are really mistaken here. I've had this little piece for several years, and it has never bobbled a round before - and I've not been particularly careful what brand I fed it either.

[ktw]

Just out of curiosity, which CCI 22lr product was it that caused the problem?

I used to shoot a lot of the mini-mags and still have a modest supply of them. Have been shooting mostly cheaper stuff ($10-12/brick) informally with the kids lately. Never had much use for the Stingers.

-ktw

[MT Gianni]

I have been told that CCI's position as to their target 22 ammo is that it is from a consequtive run. No more weight standards as to bullet or powder than any other run. With that in mind I think you experienced an ammunition failure rather than a wrong caliber/chamber mistake. I would spread this around until they are completley "Zumbo'ed". Gianni.

[Molly]

> Just out of curiosity, which CCI 22lr product was it that caused the problem?
> Never had much use for the Stingers.

In point of fact, it was with their Stinger brand.

In order to avoid misrepresenting CCI's response, here is a verbaitm extract from our correspondence:

Quote
> Kenneth: the package Warnings are put on the
> product to identify the potential for a problem.

I believe that a more realistic - or more honest
- reason for package warnings is to reduce the
liability risk for the manufacturer.

The simple fact is that in this instance, it did
NOT identify any "potential for a problem" to me.
And I am not ignorant of firearms: I've been a
gunsmith of many years standing, I founded the
Cast Bullet Association, and have authored many
published articles in the field.

> There are a number of chambers in the Industry
> and the shooter should know and understand what
> he has and what should be used, if in doubt,
> read the Owner's Manual and/or contact the
> Manufacturer.

Horse pucky! I'll make you a deal: We'll both
start out with say, $1000 in our hands, and visit
any number of gun clubs. Or we can visit a large
gun show: Your choice, and either will load the
dice in your favor with knowledgeable shooters.
We'll pick folks at random, show them your
warning, and ask them what it means. I'll give
you ten bucks for every one whose response
includes a warning about different chamber
specifications, and you give me a buck for every
one that fails to so mention. I venture to say
you know I'd bankrupt you before the day is out!!

If you really meant your liability evasion to be
a warning to shooters, it would read something to
the effect of "Warning: This ammunition is a
specialized product not intended or suitable for
some firearms. Chambers that engrave the
chambered round, or which fail to provide solid
support for all areas of the case head may result
in damage to the gun and/or shooter."
End quote

That's about when they decided that they didn't need to correspond with me any more. Need I say more?

[No_1]

Sir,

I am at a loss for words on how to respond in a way that would not be taken in the manner other then in a way it was designed. So here goes:

I figured you were involved in the sport in some way but was not sure. I am always on the quest for knowledge and was hoping that you had some published info that I could google and learn. I will say it is a pleasure chatting with you and hope the things you share will help me as well as other.

Robert


Well, you put me in the awkward position of tooting my own horn, but your inquery is not unreasonable.

I've been an NRA lifer so long I can't remember when I joined, or how much it cost.
I am a caster of about 40 years standing.
Former pro gunsmith for about 15 years.
I was co-founder and former officer of the Cast Bullet Association.
I developed Cream of Wheat technology, enabling cast bullets to be shot without sizing or lubricating.
I developed the first coherent explanation of leading mechanisms, now almost universally accepted. Along with this was the explanation of how bullet 'lubes' function.
I've had numerous cast bullet articles published.
I've contribute substantially to the writing and editing of the forthcomng book on Cast Bullet Technology.

As a non-bullet aside, I'm also - though not lastly - a born again Christian who takes his faith very seriously. I have completed Lay Pastorial training.

I also have a few patents, and developed many new polymeric technologies and products in OEM industrial coatings. There is an excellent chance the the paint on your refrigerator is one that I developed (or is one derived from it). Chances are the rubber soles on your shoes and the tires on your car were made with some of my products.
Is that sufficient to establish my bonafides, or should I continue?
(VBG)

[Catshooter]

Molly,

I agree, it is a load of bullpucky. I also agree with DeputyAl, this is very much a graceless age.



Cat

[Molly]

Robert,

> I am at a loss for words

(VBG) That's my fault, not yours. I DID lay it on rather heavy, didn't I? It was fun, but not exactly warranted.

> I am always on the quest for knowledge and was hoping that you had some published info that I could google and learn.

Then you're a man after my own heart. The best friend I have is the guy who teaches me something new. My second best friend is the guy who corrects me when I'm wrong.

Please feel welcome to e-mail me with any questions or comments you may want to discuss. My e-mail is kennethmollohan@yahoo.com.

[w30wcf]

Molly,

Sorry to learn of your problem and the stand that CCI is taking on this.
As Catshooter said, (unfortunately, applicable in this day and age) , "Admit nothing, deny everything."

From a mechanical standpoint, is it possible that since the CCI Stinger round
was designed to fit standard "sporting" .22 chambers that the bullet engaged the rifling and stopped the cartridge from chambering properly?

Thank you for getting the CBA started along with Howard Thomas. I remember TECHNICAL RAMBLINGS by Ken Mollohan (Secretary/Director Members Services) . Also, I remember Sid Musselman, Steve Myers, and Richard Hoch from the early CBA days.

Glad to learn that you are a brother (christian).

w30wcf

[buck1]

""Sorry to learn of your problem and the stand that CCI is taking on this.
As Catshooter said, (unfortunately, applicable in this day and age) , "Admit nothing, deny everything."


TRUE!!
But not all of them. If I'm a real person to them or just a number on a sheet tells me if I do my business with them.

[Molly]

Hi Brother,

> From a mechanical standpoint, is it possible that since the CCI Stinger round
was designed to fit standard "sporting" .22 chambers that the bullet engaged the rifling and stopped the cartridge from chambering properly?

That's one evasion that CCI proposed, but it's hard to see how that could be the case: A stinger will fall into the chamber of its own weight. ALL THE WAY into the chamber. It couldn't engage a whole lot of rifling.

> I remember TECHNICAL RAMBLINGS by Ken Mollohan (Secretary/Director Members Services) . Also, I remember Sid Musselman, Steve Myers, and Richard Hoch from the early CBA days.

Boy, THAT's a hatful of good memories. Sure wish they were still with us, Sid especially.

> Glad to learn that you are a brother (christian).

Amen!

[No_1]

Ken,
When I ask about you, your answer was exactly what was needed for those of us that do not know. I do not feel it was to heavy (the truth is always good).

I was at a loss for words because when I first composed my response, no matter how I tried, the words could have multiple meanings depending on the readers state of mind. I am glad it came across as intended.

Thank you for the offer of 1 on 1 chats via e-mail. However, if there is a question and it was shared here then others could gain too.

I look forward to your post.

Robert


Robert,

> I am at a loss for words

(VBG) That's my fault, not yours. I DID lay it on rather heavy, didn't I? It was fun, but not exactly warranted.

> I am always on the quest for knowledge and was hoping that you had some published info that I could google and learn.

Then you're a man after my own heart. The best friend I have is the guy who teaches me something new. My second best friend is the guy who corrects me when I'm wrong.

Please feel welcome to e-mail me with any questions or comments you may want to discuss. My e-mail is kennethmollohan@yahoo.com.

[Lloyd Smale]

I agree with the rest. If theres a .22 weapon that ammo shouldnt be used in cci should specificaly state that on the box. 22 ammo is 22 ammo and how many of us toss a box of 22s to the kids at camp figuring its completely safe. CCI needs to buck up on this one and make ammends and it should be more then a clip!

[sundog]

Molly, sorry, never heard of you. I don't understand how you could develop fridge paint and rubber goop for tires that all of us use, and not be a bazillionaire. You're really famous, huh? So, it kinda doesn't follow why you'd be shoosting the cheapo CCI crap when you could afford the premium stuff. I'm just a working stiff, so maybe you can help me understand. It's possible that while I was doing all my Army stuff is when you became famous, that's why I wouldn't know. Too busy doing Army stuff.

[Molly]

I just got a good request from one of the gang, and thought it was so pertinent I decided to post my response here so everyone could see it.

> I might be asking a lot of you at this time but could
> you tell me what CCI's warning says verbatim?

Sure. Typing directly from the box:
Quote:
WARNING
To avoid serious injury, only use ammunition that exactly matches the markings on your gun. Keep barrel free of any obstruction. If firearm fails to fire, point it in a safe direction. Wait. Unload carefully, avoiding explosure to breech. Wear shooting glasses to protect eyes from flying particles. Wear hearing protection to avoid hearing damage. know your backstop. Use only in firearms having standard ANSI barrel/chamber dimensions.
Unquote.

Note that the warning says "To avoid serious injury, only use ammunition that exactly matches the markings on your gun."

The CCI ammo box is clearly labeled "22 LR". My pistol is also clearly labeled "Cal 22 LR". You are welcome to look at a box of CCI's ammo and a Tarus PT-22 pistol to confirm same. 'Nough said?

My personal estimation of CCI has gone from quite high to so low it has to look up to see bottom.

[Molly]

> Molly, sorry, never heard of you.

Don't worry. Few have.

> I don't understand how you could develop fridge paint and rubber goop for tires that all of us use, and not be a bazillionaire.

Hmmm. You don't know much about how research chemists are paid, do you? Researchers are always the first to be fired in hard times, because they don't affect the immediate bottom line much, and thus they are not highly valued by management. Nor are they highly paid by management. Believe it or not, the ONLY compensation I got for turning my patents over to the company was 1) the privilege of remaining employed, and 2) ONE dollar each, to make the transfer of the patent legally binding. My retirement for 23 years of good work? $376 each month, with no health benefits.

> So, it kinda doesn't follow why you'd be shoosting the cheapo CCI crap when you could afford the premium stuff. I'm just a working stiff, so maybe you can help me understand.

What is it about $376 / month do you not understand? If it weren't for our savings, we'd be destitute. Can you understand that, bucko? You really shouldn't be quite so quick to jump to conclusions.

[waksupi]

A neighbor of mine developed Pyrex way back when. Anyone remember the name? He didn't get squat, either, as I recall.

[carpetman]

CCI warning seems to make sense---don't shoot .22 ammo in a 30-06 or vice versa---but their response to you doesn't make sense. You used the proper ammo in the gun. What really happened is anybodies guess without more careful research. My guess is that the round went off before being fully chambered---possibly a slide or something other than the firing pin set it off? I can understand CCI not just forking over $22. I'd also guess this probably would have happened with any brand of ammo that you were using at that time. To think that any semi auto is going to work flawlessly EVERYTIME would be a stretch.

[Molly]

Hi Carpetman;

> CCI warning seems to make sense---don't shoot .22 ammo in a 30-06 or vice versa---but their response to you doesn't make sense. You used the proper ammo in the gun. What really happened is anybodies guess without more careful research.

> My guess is that the round went off before being fully chambered---possibly a slide or something other than the firing pin set it off?

Umm. You don't seem to be aware of how a PT-22 works. It is a DAO, requiring a long, heavy and deliberate trigger pull to set off each round. The slide operates and returns to battery long before I can even release the trigger, much less pull it for the next shot. The explosion did not occur until I pulled that trigger. It was not a slamfire, or a stuck firing pin, or anything of that nature.

> I can understand CCI not just forking over $22. I'd also guess this probably would have happened with any brand of ammo that you were using at that time.

Well, since it wasn't a slamfire as you speculated, I'd guess not. It's fired about every brand of ammo you could come up with easily previous to the incident, and several different brands afterward - with only reassembly, not cleaned or lubricated.

> To think that any semi auto is going to work flawlessly EVERYTIME would be a stretch.

Oh, no doubt there are low velocity loads that won't function, and odd shaped bullets that won't feed, but until this incident I can assure you that it never once failed to feed, fire and cycle over the five or six years I've owned it. You may draw your own conclusions.

[carpetman]

Molly---Can't believe all these guys haven't heard of you---afterall you're Ken to everyone. Will have to admit I haven't heard of you,but I don't go to family reunions.

[nvbirdman]

I think you should threaten to sue.
Write a nice letter on paper explaning what happened and their e-mail response and tell them you only wanted to be compensated for your magazine and you hope you don't have to contact your attorney about product liability.

[Slowpoke]

Good grief ----Your Lyman 3rd edition Cast Bullet handbook on page 90 has a article by Molly

Good luck

[carpetman]

Ken---Was it the gun or was it the ammo? You stated 5-6 years of flawless operation for the gun and you also stated over 40 years experience with CCI ammo?????? You also said what "appears" to have happened---I read that as my best "guess". Did the case have a firing pin mark? With autos several things happening very fast,would make finding out for absolute very difficult if at all possible. If Tauraus or anyone else has made a product that is 100% fail proof you'd have a hard time convincing me. My gunsmith,also a Ken hates automatics and doesn't own a one,he figures keeping him in business is all they are good for. I suspect you would have even a harder time convincing him that you own a fail proof semi auto. Apparently CCI is in same boat.

[Phil]

I hear you on the "benefits" of being a research chemist. My dad invented and developed LOTS of stuff and didn't even get kissed. Same as you, turned over the patents and that was it. No handshake, good fellow, nada. Too bad, these businesses get away with murder!

Cheers,

Phil

[Molly]

>Ken---Was it the gun or was it the ammo? You stated 5-6 years of flawless operation for the gun and you also stated over 40 years experience with CCI ammo??????

Ahh, perhaps you should re-read that posting. I've used CCI <COMPONENTS> for a long time. Not their ammo.

> You also said what "appears" to have happened---I read that as my best "guess".

That's fair.

> Did the case have a firing pin mark? With autos several things happening very fast,would make finding out for absolute very difficult if at all possible.

Well, that's pretty rough to say with absolute certanty, because only a few scraps of twisted brass were actually recovered. But let me put it this way, and you can decide what probably happened for yourself:

1. The gun did not fire when the slide returned to battery, feeding the shell into the chamber.

2. The gun did not fire subsequent to that return to battery until I had released the trigger and pulled it again.

3. While I cannot establish beyond any doubt that a slamfire / hangfire did nott just happen to terminate with a startling timing coincidence, the gun DID fire at about the same point in the trigger pull as it normally did.

> If Tauraus or anyone else has made a product that is 100% fail proof you'd have a hard time convincing me.

NO product is 100 % fail proof. Autos can be forced to malfunction with poor ammo, damaged clips, poor maintenance and a host of less likely ailments. Revolvers can be rendered inoperable by sand and dirt entering the many openings into the mechanism. Even breakdown single shots can break springs and half cock notches. Any of them can be put out of action by a squib load leaving a bullet in the bore. I KNOW!! As a former gunsmith, I have fixed all these problems and more. You would be astounded at how many things CAN go wrong. But it is also a fact that some designs - though not perfect - are remarkably tolerant and reliable. In my experience, the Taurus PT-22 is one of them.

> My gunsmith, also a Ken hates automatics and doesn't own a one, he figures keeping him in business is all they are good for.

That only says that revolvers better meet his needs / preferences. And that's fine, but he shouldn't allow that to blind him to the advantages semi-autos can offer. FWIW, I tend to prefer revolvers myself. But he is apparently NOT a competition quality shooter, because semi-autos have come to dominate the field except for bench rest. They can't be totally useless, can they?

[Molly]

I think you should threaten to sue.

For $22 ?? A lawyer won't even let me walk in his office for that. And that's EXACTLY what CCI is relying on. Unless enough people take take warning at their conduct to touch their bottom line, there will be no change in their accountability - or lack thereof.

[Ohio Rusty]

This 22 thread perplexes me as I've shot hundreds of bricks of 22's in my lifetime and many of them CCI's thru many different gun. I've never heard of such a thing happening before. BTW .... 22's can go off without a firing pin hitting them. Back in the 70's I was in my parents basement piddling with my 22's. I had some 22 shorts and dropped one on the cement floor. It went off !! The bullet came back up and buried itself in the thick plywood bottom of the chair I was sitting on. That scared the bejeepers outta me. By some remote possibility could it have been that Taurus gun? ... I owned a Taurus once. It looked like the standard S&W model 10 with a 4 inch barrel. It was a new gun and I had just ole plain 38 specials with 158 grain round nose lead bullets, not +P loads. It took it out to the range, and on the second cylinder the left side of the frame cracked wide open !! The crack in the frame started at the hammer slot at the top, went down thru the retaining screw in the side of the gun and stopped at the trigger slot in the bottom. I returned the gun back to the dealer and for 35 years have refused to spend another penny on ANYTHING made by Taurus. Others may have luck with that brand of gun, but I've been pleased with my personal boycott not to ever buy a piece of junk like that again.
Maybe the 22 shell was double charged with powder? I guess something like this remains a mystery ......
Ohio Rusty

[clintsfolly]

i have given my last $ to cci!!!!!!!! glad your not hurt and safe clint nomore cci nomore cci

[Molly]

Hi Ohio Rusty,

> This 22 thread perplexes me as I've shot hundreds of bricks of 22's in my lifetime and many of them CCI's thru many different gun. I've never heard of such a thing happening before.

Yeah, I've used a lot of CCI products with good results too. I'm not complaining that one single item of the billions and billions of .22 shells they've probably made was bad. They are mechanical articles, subject to manufcturing tolerances, and human error. Anyone can make a mistake, including CCI - and ME - without destroying their credibility.

The issue here is how CCI responded to the situation. When politely approached with an eminently reasonable claim that accompanied a caution that they might need to review the lot of ammo involved, I was told that the problem was entirely of my own making bacause I used their .22 ammo in a commercial .22 pistol without asking them if it would be safe to do so. Having thus determined that they had no involvement or liability in the incident, I was (essentially) told to go pound salt when I asked them to belly up and make good the damage. On reflection, I decided that the best I could do under the circumstances was to advise fellow shooters of my experience so they could avoid similar problems. That's the reason for this thread.

> By some remote possibility could it have been that Taurus gun? ...

Doesn't seem likely. I've gone into considerable detail on other posts, if you'd like to review them.

> I owned a Taurus once. ... It took it out to the range, and on the second cylinder the left side of the frame cracked wide open !!

"They are mechanical articles, subject to manufcturing tolerances, and human error. Anyone can make a mistake, including CCI - and ME - without destroying their credibility." I assume that holds true for Taurus as well. Did the dealer or Taurus offer to make good your loss? Or did they deny any responsibility and tell you it was your fault the frame split? If not, then I don't think your experience is very comparable.

> Maybe the 22 shell was double charged with powder?

Not too likely either. There just isn't enough room inside a .22 LR shell for a double charge.

[leftiye]

Carpetman, Ditto!

[Dale53]

I have no reference (it has been entirely too long ago) but I DO remember that there were some issues with the "Stinger" version of the .22 ammo when it was introduced. There were some recommendations, at the time, as to what guns to use them in. However, I have NO reference that I can back that memory up with.

In my carefully considered opinion, Ken was doing a perfectly reasonable thing - using .22 Stingers to somewhat increase the "stopping power" of the .22 when used in a pocket pistol. the fact that CCI did not suggest that they NOT be used in certain guns (it that indeed is the case, as it appears to be) is indefensible. The LEAST they should do is replace Ken's magazine.

What appears to have happened here, looking at all of the evidence, is that this round had too much pressure for an unsupported breech (a lot of auto pistols have unsupported breeches). I, and I venture to say, most of us here have heard of a good many case failures in 1911 .45's when loaded to high pressure because THEY HAVE AN UNSUPPORTED BREECH. They are fine with normal cartridges, they just won't stand heavy loads much above the norm. Sounds like Ken's auto pistol, doesn't it??.

Seems to me that we shouldn't be using "Stinger" ammo in unsupported breeches. I, personally, want to thank Ken for reporting this to the shooting public. Ken is an experienced shooter and reloader (not his first time around the block) and I accept his facts as correct. I don't hold CCI in high regard, my self, and their approach to this doesn't add to their luster. I have had more failures with CCI primers than any other brand. It is a shame as for many years I could get them at distributor prices and wouldn't use them because of reliability problems (this was years ago and it cost them well over a couple hundred thousand primers that I would have bought).

At any rate, that is how I see it.

Dale53

[chuebner]

Molly,

Interesting thread about CCI. What caught my eye though is your avitar. It looks to me like a beautifully engraved Martini action.

Charlie

[BABore]

Sometime, way back in the early 80"s, I remember reading or hearing that you shouldn't use CCI Stingers in semiauto's. I was just leaving high school or there abouts. Only magazine I got back then was Guns and Ammo. Anyway I remember hearing about it. Could have just been a rumor. I think Stinger's came out around 1973 or 1974. The only thing I've seen since was a warning that came with my Voquartsen 10/22 barrel. It specifically states to not use Stinger's because of it match chamber.

[Molly]

What caught my eye though is your avitar. It looks to me like a beautifully engraved Martini action.

Hi Charlie,

Quite right. Sure wish it were mine. Belongs to a friend. None of mine have any engraving - yet. If some plans I've got going work out, I hope to get Ken Hurst to remedy that situation. I'm working on a Cadet Francotte in .32 S&W Long as the - or at least MY - ultimate squirrel rifle, and would like a tree trunk with a squirrel peeping around one side, and his tail sticking out of the other side.

[Junior1942]

Molly, get yo'self a 32 caliber Traditions Crockett Rifle for squirrel hunting. Mine put the fun back in hunting.

[Dale53]

Junior;
I bought a very nice Pedersoli .32 caliber muzzle loader for that very purpose. I worked up loads with various patch thicknesses and various charges and ended up with a Very nice accurate small game muzzleloader. However, my use of it ended at the range. I never did get around to hunting squirrels with it (I have a very nice Marlin lever 25/20 late issue that works extremely well).

However, my present squirrel ambition is to get my TC .32 H&R Carbine up and running for next fall. I am close but still have some work to do. Other projects have been interfering with me.

Molly is working on a nice .32 for small game, also. We apparently think alike on at least SOME things:mrgreen:.

The point of this discourse is I can understand where both you and Molly are coming from.

Oops! We are stealing the thread...:(

Dale53

[Phil]

My memory of the early problem with the Stingers was that the cases were a bit too long and in some chambers the mouth of the case would get up into the leade and "crimp" the bullet into the case. That caused real problems.

Cheers,

Phil

[Molly]

Molly, get yo'self a 32 caliber Traditions Crockett Rifle for squirrel hunting. Mine put the fun back in hunting.

Hey! Nice web site. Thanks!

As for your recomendation, I've been down the ML path. Wasn't a bad trip, and I've actually looked around recently for a set of underhammers, one for small game, and a twin for deer. (Turns out underhammers are spread pretty thin now-a-days) But, different strokes ... I am particularly enamored of the combination of deadly effectiveness and quietness of the .32 RF in a little Rem #4 I've got. I tend to go on a bit with my admiration, but let's just say that the difficulty and cost of finding decent quality 32 RF combines with the twin pleasures working up loads and the quiet peace of hunting to make this a particularly desireable outfit - for me. I suspect that much of the proceeds of the molds will go to this end.

[Buckshot]

............Hello Ken. Our rangemaster had both "Handloader" and "Rifle" magazines from their inception. We worked a deal where he'd bring 4-5 magazines a week to the range (every Tuesday is range day) and I'd take them to work and copy articles out of them that interested me. As a consequence I have several by you.

We had a pretty big thread going on here (or was it the old Aimoo site?) about how it was shame that "Handloader" had been dumbed down for the grocery store newsrack trade. However I still feel it's the best (and "Rifle" too) available. No more stuff the like of yours, Nonte's, Beverages, Harris's, et al.

Re: Your mishap. Have you contacted Taurus yet about what chamber they use in those pistols? I'm sure it's a standard one designed to feed and function with generic type over the counter ammo, and is the same as what Ruger, Remington, Savage, and any other manufacturer uses for the same expected ammo useage.

I did read the entire thread and I'm danged if I can remember if you mentioned giving CCI the lot number? If you did, sorry. Had they had any other reports of incidents with it specificly, or the previous or following lots their attitude might have been a bit different. Also, if it had been a very recent lot that would have just been expected to be in shooters hands, they also might have been a bit more interested.

I have read of a few incidents with centerfire rifles and factory ammunition having had various issues. Invariably the maker issues a UPS call tag and asks to have both the balance of the ammo and the firearm shipped to them. It seems that CCI's customer service dept simply took a pretty cavalier attitude.

Take RCBS for instance. I got feeling so bad about them refusing to charge my credit card for stuff I broke or wore out that I don't even call them anymore. I just buy a new one. That is, unless it's a manufacturing problem. Had a RCBS 2C mould for thier 7mm-168 that cast oval boolits. I sent it in with a note and they sent a new one (musta been from the same batch) and IT did the same. This time I sent it back with a couple cast slugs. They sent another one back and THEY shipped a couple slugs with it:mrgreen:

..............Buckshot

[Molly]

Hi Buckshot

> Re: Your mishap. Have you contacted Taurus yet about what chamber they use in those pistols?

No. I didn't see the point. 1) Their chamber works fine with everything else, and is obviously 'reasonable'. 2) I was within CCI's guidelines to use ammunition exactly as specified on the gun.

> I did read the entire thread and I'm danged if I can remember if you mentioned giving CCI the lot number?

Well, I don't know. I gave them what appeared to be a lot number, but it might have just been a product code or some sort of inventory control number. Did the best I could though ...

> It seems that CCI's customer service dept simply took a pretty cavalier attitude.

I think your conclusion is quite gracious. My own conclusion is somewhat harsher.

> Take RCBS for instance.

I've had some excellent experiences with RCBS too. Don't understand why CCI should be so different.

FWIW, someone sent me what seems like a pretty reasonable explanation for my experience: You all know how changing from a mild primer to a mag can really jack up pressures, especially if a load happenes to be a bit warm in the first place.

Well, 'a bit warm' is a pretty good characterization of the Stinger round, and I know that manufactured articles are never identical, due to manufacturing tolerances: The brass might be a few ten thousandth thicker or thinner, there might be a granule of powder more or less in the case, the bullet might weigh a hundredth of a gram different, and so on. This fellow speculated that the priming compound in the rim of the round that exploded might have been on the generous side, and combined with one or more of the other factors, ended up as a real hazard.

Seems reasonable to me, but it still doesn't excuse CCI's response - or lack thereof.

[Larry Gibson]

My two cents; 30+ years ago and occasionally since (usually around this time of year when squirrel shooting is in swing or when some article on a custom 10/22 comes out) the subject of Stingers not being used in match chambers and semi autos, especially those with match chambers, comes up. Many semi auto .22s will fire when slightly out of battery. It does not take much "out of battery" to expose some of the case. The Stingers have a longer case and match chambers have a shorter "case" length (as mentioned on the other thread) which means the bullet and/or case is jammed into the leade and the bolt may not be "closed", i.e. out of battery. Even in a regular chamber as the firearm is fired the chamber/throat gets fouled and the over long Stinger may not fully chamber in a semi auto. If the firearm fires out of battery and the case ruptures what happens is pretty much as Molly described it.

Were it me I would buy a new magazine, consider myself lucky I wasn't injured, consider myself lucky the firearm still works and consider myself lucky to have learned (or perhaps relearned) this lesson for only $22. I would consider neither CCI nor Taurus at fault so who do that leave - me..........and a lesson I would have learned for sure. But then that's me.

Larry Gibson

[chevyiron420]

first of all let me thank everyone for posting this info and possibly saving me injury or a ruined gun! when i think of the number of people shooting 22's out there it scares me, and with the number of second hand guns that the ouner ist going to know any more than the barrel say's 22l.r. the idea of a manufactor selling 22l.r. ammo that isnt safe in some 22l.r. guns is crazy to me and ill never buy cci ammo. if it werent for the fact i have been shooting down a massive supply of remington 22 i would have alwready bought it. i have to say that if this happened to me i would be mad as all get out! i dont think it is a resonable practice to make and sell ammo that is unsafe in some chambers that are marked for the cal. or am i missing something? i think cci should replace the gun and the ammo and opoligize and consider them selves very lucky.-phil

[carpetman]

Slowpoke--You are correct right there on page 90 of the 3rd edition of Lyman Cast bullet manual is an article by Ken Mollohan "Molly". Molly--I had not read the article but I too had used the example of passing your finger quickly through a flame. The time it takes is very long indeed compared to the length of time a bullet is exposed to the heat. Thats why I never bought for a second that a gas check is needed to prevent the base from melting.

[Molly]

> The Stingers have a longer case and match chambers have a shorter "case" length (as mentioned on the other thread) which means the bullet and/or case is jammed into the leade and the bolt may not be "closed", i.e. out of battery.

Umm. That's not a factor here. The PT-22 does NOT have a match chamber.

> Even in a regular chamber as the firearm is fired the chamber/throat gets fouled and the over long Stinger may not fully chamber in a semi auto. If the firearm fires out of battery and the case ruptures what happens is pretty much as Molly described it.

I suppose that might be a reasonable - if not necessarily correct - explanation for what happened to the gun.

> I would consider neither CCI nor Taurus at fault so who do that leave - me..........and a lesson I would have learned for sure.

Larry, you too seem to have missed the entire point of this thread. I have previously posted - in some detail - that I don't fault CCI because of an ocassional problem. My gripe is twofold:

1. Their own warning label tells me to be sure that I use their ammo (labeled 22LR) only in guns so labeled (the PT-22 IS specifically labeled for 22LR.) It seems to me that I was being eminently reasonable in doing exactly as they instructed in this regard. How does that make me at fault?

2. My major gripe is that when I went to CCI, politely informed them of the incident, and asked nothing more than they make good the damage caused by their product, I was informed that they had no responsibility, and was summarily dismissed. On refelction, I realized that others could be injured by a similar incident, and wanted to warn them of the possibility, and that CCI didn't give a BLEEP!

Neither of these complaints revolves around an explanation of the mechanics of the explosion. The appropriateness of my concern and warning is not dependent on the mechanics, nor is the conduct of CCI.

Regards,
Molly

[Molly]

Molly--I had not read the article but I too had used the example of passing your finger quickly through a flame. The time it takes is very long indeed compared to the length of time a bullet is exposed to the heat. Thats why I never bought for a second that a gas check is needed to prevent the base from melting.

Well, you're sharper than I was. I believed it implicitly, because it was what I had been taught. Just as a kid taught that 2 times 3 is 6 never questions the fact, I never questioned what I was taught for years. Leading was caused by lead rubbing off in the bore, 'Lube prevented leading by preventing lead from rubbing off, and the heat of shooting would melt the base of your bullets. But when I began digging out fired bullets, looking at the different types of bore leading, trying to duplicate leading and the like, I began to realize that there was some things that didn't add up. Since then, I've had a real ball, exploring cast bullets. The brevity of exposure is only one of the things that had me questioning my teachers. (They were SO often a pack of dopes!)

[Bigjohn]

G'day Molly, Thanks for the PM info, I can see the issue here as the CCI warning does not specify .22rf Target chamber, .22rf Sporting chamber or .22rf Match chamber and firearms are not marked with that level of detail.

Most shooters would not know there is any difference and automatically assume that .22rf LR means .22rf LR.

As a side note; being the Secretary of one of the local shooting clubs, I get to hear about and see a lot of the problems with firearms and ammunition on our range. Of late, from materials recovered at the time of the incident and after from the range floor noticed an increase in the number of minor incident with .22rf ammunition.
As all the firearms allowed on our range must be 'sound', I feel that the problem may be related to ammunition and maybe a little of the firearm as well.

Casings which have split lengthwise after being fired in a relatively new rifle, failing to fired inspite of a good pin strike etc. This is occuring with all brands of ammo and firearms, mainly recent production.
Could the manufacturers be starting to worry more about the bottomline than the insurance premium?

John.

[Paladin 56]

Back in the early 70's while shooting a 6" S&W 22/32 Kit Gun with CCI MiniMags, one round in the cylinder full was much louder than the rest, and actually recoiled more than the others. After opening the cylinder, I had to use a cleaning rod to extract the offending round, which had split the case and ruptured the edge of the rim part way around.

I don't recall having any others do that since, but don't shoot many CCI's other than Stingers anymore.

That being said, I have a S&W Model 41 that I have shot well over a thousand rounds (probably closer to 2,000) of Stingers through, without a hitch. The same gun went through 25,000 rounds of ammo one year in the early 80's, mostly Remington Thunderbolts. The biggest problem with them was a guaranteed failure to fire at least one round per box of 50 due priming compound (I'd guess), with the occasional slightly overcharged case thrown in each brick, but never enough to do any damage I was aware of. The overcharges would sometimes bulge the case or rim enough that the extractor would sometimes fail to grip the rim edge and not fully extract the case, causing jams.

The last 25,000 of mixed manufacture through the gun in the years since have been much more reliable, with only the occasional misfire, including Thunderbolts.

It sounds like I've been lucky up until now, and wonder if I should continue to shoot the remainder of Stingers I have on hand in that pistol. I may shoot them through a bolt gun instead. They are older lots, (over a year) so maybe they're safe. Could be the Model 41 has better case support except at the extractor, since it seems both similar incidents related in this thread happened with different guns and different ammo, but both leave the case unsupported at the feed ramp.

The Federal ammo showing cracked brass in the Walther may not quite support this, but I would have thought given the number of round the Model 41 has ingested without incident may have something to do with the different design of the 41.

I certainly don't know, just some thoughts.

BTW, nothing to do with RF's, but I quit buying Remington factory CF ammo years ago after having more than one 41 or 44 mag round go off with authority, recoiling mightily, flattening primers, splitting cases and having to be pounded out with cleaning rods.

David

[Molly]

Hi John,

> I can see the issue here as the CCI warning does not specify .22rf Target chamber, .22rf Sporting chamber or .22rf Match chamber and firearms are not marked with that level of detail.

No, they aren't.

> Most shooters would not know there is any difference and automatically assume that .22rf LR means .22rf LR.

Gosh! Ya think? I don't think it reasonable that customers who are using CCI .22rf LR ammo in a gun marked for .22rf LR ammo should be required to either be an expert in different chamber dimensions, or to call CCI for an assurance of safety before using CCI products. But that's EXACTLY CCI's policy. Hmmm. I wonder if they require that I check with them to be sure their primers are suitable for 32-20's? Or maybe 243's? How about 308 and 30-06? Can't be too careful ya know!

Personally, I think it's a lot simpler - and safer - to just use the products of a more reasonable supplier.

> Could the manufacturers be starting to worry more about the bottom line than the insurance premium?

To judge by the current evidence, CCI isn't particularly concerned about insurance premiums: Since EVERYTHING is the fault of the consumer, liability is not a problem, right?

[Molly]

Hey, Paladin!!

Long time, no see. Thanks for dropping by.

> I have a S&W Model 41 that I have shot well over a thousand rounds (probably closer to 2,000) of Stingers through, without a hitch.

Wow! Stingers, and working in an autoloader, and with a match chamber too. Did you know you were taking your life in your hands (So to speak)? (VBG)

> It sounds like I've been lucky up until now, and wonder if I should continue to shoot the remainder of Stingers I have on hand in that pistol. I may shoot them through a bolt gun instead. They are older lots, (over a year) so maybe they're safe.

Well, mine was with a batch about 5 or six years old ...
If'n it were my decision, I'd limit the stingers to a good quality revolver: A blowout in a bolt rifle could spray brass fragments back into your face and eyes (shooting glasses!!) and possibly eject the ejector (BG) or damage the stock. A blowout in a good revolver may be an inconvenience, but the ejector will stay there, and the gas won't get to the grips enough to hurt anything.

> I quit buying Remington factory CF ammo years ago after having more than one 41 or 44 mag round go off with authority, recoiling mightily, flattening primers, splitting cases and having to be pounded out with cleaning rods.

Interesting. I don't have that problem, as none of my 44's have ever had a factory round through them.

Molly

[35remington]

Ken, have to say I very much enjoyed your articles in the various publications.

Unfortunate, all this business with CCI you have been going through. Please bear with me here, because I'm mulling over a few possible scenarios.

A question on one of the statements about the Taurus, as I do not own one. You made a statement about an "unsupported feed ramp" in one of the earlier posts on this thread. Dale53 also made a comment about this. To the best of my recollection, I think all the .22's in my mini-arsenal have full support all the way to the rim-a look at all the various automatics I own shows pretty much a full depth chamber, without any ramping intruding upon the chamber itself. This leaves the rim as the only exposure outside the chamber. The long rifle is one of the thinnest brass cases I know of; I'm not saying the gun is necessarily at fault, but I wonder given the zillions of rounds of .22 long rifle produced in a cheap, high speed manner and the weakness of the case that if any area of non support is a good idea?

If the round blew out, and we assume the cartridge was fully chambered, then it blew out on the rim itself or the "feed ramp" you mentioned. I've had rims crack and vent gasses, and the recessed head of the bolt seemed to contain this pretty well. So we're looking at a substantial rupture here on the unsupported ramp, or an out of battery condition. I seem to remember CCI advertising their ammunition as having additional thickness of brass near the rim to strengthen the cartridge in this area.

I've had the powder from the few rounds I've (carefully) disassembled in .22 long rifle vary from small flake to ball, mostly ball. I don't know that it would be impossible to double charge a case, given the volume of charges I've seen; that would seem to follow a description of events that would be favoring either an unsupported case (feedramp cut w/weak case or out of battery) or a heavy charge prematurely opening a blowback action.

I agree it is unfortunate that CCI responded in this way, but given all the ******* stunts people pull with misusing ammunition all the time, the few legitimate gripes probably get lost in the noise of the general foolishness of behavior. Thus, CCI throws them all in the same category.

If it's any consolation, the Remington .22 long rifle ammunition I've used has been impressive in its consistent inconsistency. Squibs, misfires, poor accuracy, high velocity variation. All of it, the expensive stuff (at least not the Eley) to budget priced.

Haven't had any blow, though.

[Paladin 56]

Ken,

Sorry for your mishap, CCI's cavalier attitude, and resultant lack of resolution.

I don't know for sure, but it appears I may have offended you in some way. If I did, my most humble apologies as it was never my intent. I was simply trying to relay some of my limited experiences.


Wow! Stingers, and working in an autoloader, and with a match chamber too. Did you know you were taking your life in your hands (So to speak)? (VBG)

Not until I read of your experience. Thanks.


Well, mine was with a batch about 5 or six years old ...
If'n it were my decision, I'd limit the stingers to a good quality revolver: A blowout in a bolt rifle could spray brass fragments back into your face and eyes (shooting glasses!!) and possibly eject the ejector (BG) or damage the stock. A blowout in a good revolver may be an inconvenience, but the ejector will stay there, and the gas won't get to the grips enough to hurt anything.

Point taken. Thanks again.


Interesting. I don't have that problem, as none of my 44's have ever had a factory round through them.

I haven't had that problem for the past 25 years either, but I didn't get a set of dies and components when I got the guns.

A brother in Christ.

Regards,
David

[leftiye]

From these and other comments, it looks like many different brands have this and other kinds of mishaps. IT DO happen periodically with many different brands. Your experience with stinkers is unfortunate, and CCI's response was unreasonable. But it is obvious that these things are much more prevalent than we'd suppose, not to mention more prevalent than they should be (as well as possibly injuring users). I've had a few .22 rf malfunctions in my time too, none of which injured me, but one blew the extractor off a bolt gun. Perhaps this whole thread should be printed out and mailed to CCI.

[Molly]

Ken,
I don't know for sure, but it appears I may have offended you in some way. If I did, my most humble apologies as it was never my intent. I was simply trying to relay some of my limited experiences.

Abediumin. Gloospricnted. Garsp? Ahem! Gasp! What on earth are you talking about? Those funny noises were me trying to get my jaw back in place, and my tongue re-installed. I can't imagine what made you think I'd taken offense at something, but whatever it was, it was wrong! I was just delighted to run into you again. I always enjoyed your input back on the old forum, but after I left, I lost track of you.

Offended? Fat chance!!

[Paladin 56]

Ken,

Sounds like I'm the one who should be making the funny noises.

Quite the visual image you've painted about picking up the pieces. Maybe it was the little guy sitting on my shoulder whispering in my ear. He's been becoming more and more of nuisance of late.

It has been a while for me as well. The bad part is, I can hardly remember what I had for breakfast most days, much less what I did 3 years ago. I'm surprised I can recall half of what I've done. One the other hand, maybe I am only recalling half of it.

Anyway, no harm done, and thank you for your reply.

David

[rbt50]

i remenber back in the 60's when cci first came out,i had the rims break of on alot of 22's.

[TAWILDCATT]

Molly it sounds more like bull from CCI.also sounds like the quality control has gone.auto loaders for 22s have been in existance since 1905.as you know.I got some white box from federal one time duds sent them 650 and they wrote that it was bad batch and gave me 1000 in return.glad to talk to you. Just joined CBA I talk to Steve from time to time.glad you were not injured.:Fire: :coffeecom

[BluesBear]

Molly it sounds more like bull from CCI...
I got some white box from federal one time duds sent them 650 and they wrote that it was bad batch and gave me 1000 in return.

The irony is that Federal and CCI are both divisions of the same company.
Both brands have long been known for standing up when there's a problem.
Perhaps there are some new beancounters in charge now?

[alamogunr]

I had an experience 3 or 4 years ago with a Beretta model 96 (.40 S&W). The first time I took it to the range with some Federal Hydra-Shoks, the first round blew the extracter out (I think, my memory is somewhat fuzzy). This, only after the rim separated from the body of the shell. I never did find the rim. I contacted Federal who requested the balance of the box of ammo be returned to them. They sent me 5 boxes of, then new, personal defense cartridges. They also paid for the repair by Beretta. Don't know if that would be the reaction today, but I have generally good feelling about Federal.

John

[lovedogs]

A bit on another note here... this just emphasizes what I've always preached... wear those safety glasses or, at least, glasses that will handle the same job. As long as we are playing with these potentially dangerous toys we love so much we owe ourselves that much.

In my experience I've seen more people having dangerous problems with plain old .22 LR's than with any other. Many semi-autos have had "blow-open" problems with normal ammo which paints the side of one's face with soot and metal fragments.

The second most problems I've seen have been with primers. I have one friend who lost an eye to a bad primer accident.

I'm one of those overly cautious fellows. But at the same time, I've not had any mishaps, either. But I've been witness to the problems others have had and it keeps me careful.

Recently, I was asked to help draw up new rules for some shooting competitions we hold at our local club. As part of my input I wanted it to be mandatory to use both hearing and eye protection. I'm still bewildered that I was almost drummed out of the meeting. I guess it'll take someone getting sadly injured to validate my concerns. Be careful, friends. As we are seeing more and more, the corporations don't care for anything but their own bottom line.

[montana_charlie]

I read the whole thread mainly to brush up on my reading, punctuation, and spelling skills. Molly (for one) sure writes well.

After becoming engrossed in the actual discussion, I tried to pay close enough attention to formulate an opinion of my own which might explain the original failure...while at the same time hoping I would not be convinced to stop using CCI rimfire ammunition.

I, too, vaguely remember the early cautions about the (then) new Stinger ammunition. I didn't pay a great deal of attention to them...just decided I was happy with regular 'hi-speed' stuff so ignored the Stingers (and other 'intense' LR offerings).

CCI Mini-Mag is my normal choice, and I am glad that nothing in this thread has steered me away from that. But, as to an opinion on the mishap...I'll toss this out for consideration, though not ready to back it up with any degree of expertise.

I like to leave my Ruger 10-22 and Ruger Mk II stored with the 'hammer down'...meaning uncocked. Neither design incorporates a de-cocking device, but I have discovered that if you pull the bolt back a tiny bit, you can dry fire the weapon without the firing pin striking the edge of the chamber...leaving a 'dent'.
This may be hard on the firing pin, but I haven't lost one, yet, and if the bolt is near the limit of where this can occur, the 'strike' is greatly reduced.

I have no idea if a similar thing can be done with the Taurus in question, but if it can this might be an explanation...

Something (could be anything) may have prevented the round from being fully seated in the chamber when the slide returned to battery. Or, it could have taken the form of something which prevented the slide from fully contacting the barrel breech.
Perhaps a bit of crud picked up (by that round) while in the magazine, or some 'residue' from the previously fired cartridge is what I am imagining.
These little lint puffs, fairy dust particles, and butterfly eyelashes disappear when the weapon cycles, so their temporary presence remains unsuspected.

If the Taurus's disconnector has enough leeway (and they all need some) to allow it to move out of the way...even though the slide is not absolutly fully forward...the trigger and sear could have become functional (more or less) prematurely.

The cartridge, being less than fully supported in the chamber, would have discharged in an environment that would not normally exist. The round, being of an intense-er type than common .22 LR ammo, probably just couldn't take the extra strain.

If this is the explanation, I wouldn't hold CCI or Taurus at fault.
I would just mark it up as one of the things which can happen with autoloaders.

There's my nickle's worth, give me some change if I have it coming...
CM

[fiberoptik]

A bit on another note here... this just emphasizes what I've always preached... wear those safety glasses or, at least, glasses that will handle the same job. As long as we are playing with these potentially dangerous toys we love so much we owe ourselves that much..........
Recently, I was asked to help draw up new rules for some shooting competitions we hold at our local club. As part of my input I wanted it to be mandatory to use both hearing and eye protection. I'm still bewildered that I was almost drummed out of the meeting. I guess it'll take someone getting sadly injured to validate my concerns. Be careful, friends. As we are seeing more and more, the corporations don't care for anything but their own bottom line.

While in the M.C. I ran the gym for 6 months. Eye protection MANDATORY in the racquetball courts. I knew a Marine who saw another loose an eye to a hard serve without goggles. Funny how so many of the "officers" always gave me crap about putting them on. I had to actually threaten one of them! Darwin wannabees.[smilie=1:

I won't be buying any more CCI ammo. I'll tell 'em why too.

[Bass Ackward]

What I think we have here is a misunderstanding of this hobby / sport.

Anytime you pull the trigger on a rapidly expanding gas, bad things can happen. The whole industry is based upon statistics. The industry takes these statistics and establishes manufacturing limits or specifications on both guns and ammo. But to "equate" statistical evidence with an iron clad guarantee, is faulty.

Assuming that Stinger ammunition is made within SAAMI standards for measurables and that the rounds made before and after that one was safe, I think you establish safety by how long they have been on the market and used successfully.

Anyone that shoots much handgun for very long knows how problematic fouling in the chamber is and how hard it can be to remove. A case with increased length is bound to engage areas of the gun that have been previously fouled from lube and carbon. My grandad warned me decades ago about shooting shorts because they were cheap only to change later. If the handgun would have been a manual system, physical difference would have been detected and or the action would not have closed.

Relying on a mechanical system to chamber under any and "ALL" circumstances brings in it's own set of statistics and odds that evidently anger some people here.

Where does this leave us? Well the smart thing in my mind is to analyze this for what it is and learn from the experience. Everything has advantages and disadvantages. Your options?

1. You can stop shooting auto loaders, or that brand of auto loader although wear makes everything susceptible.

2. Or you can stop using longer cased ammunition in guns that have fired shorter stuff.

3. You can buy a gun to ONLY use long cased ammunition.

4. Or you can clean your gun better.

Sadly, but bluntly, you just became another statistic.

[Dale53]

My local gun club had less than a dozen members when I joined. We now have an upper limit of 650 members with a large waiting list. I have observed that the problems seem to go up "by the square" as the membership increases. It becomes increasingly necessary to tighten the rules and watch the other members more closely to prevent accidents as much as possible.

We have long REQUIRED both hearing and eye protection when using the range (even if you are a spectator and are close to the action). There has been some mild whining but it has not been a problem of any significant size.

I have had two cases fail with factory ammo in a 30'06 (old military ammo). Thanks to my glasses, I was not blinded. The brass particles drew bllod all around my eyeglasses but I was not seriously hurt.

I personally know of several who preserved their eyesight simply because they had their eyeglasses on when the accident occurred. I also know of a VERY experienced fellow (gunsmith) who lost most of the central vision in his shooting eye because he fired a semi-auto handgun "just one time" to check function.

In my "salad days" I raced cars and motorcycles for ten years. I wondered then and I wonder now how anybody can ride a bike without a helmet or drive a car without using the seat belt. To see the results of this foolishness, just pick up the newspaper most ANY day...

Be careful, guys and gals. As the man says, you only get one pair of eyes (and ears).

Dale53

[Char-Gar]

Molly et al.... I didn't read the several pages of responses on this thread, so if this is redunant, just consider the source. (-: All of the obscure disclaimers in the world won't set CCI free from liability. Under the Uniform Comercial Code and all it's mutations in the various states, there is an implied warrantee for "fitness of purpose". They can't disclaim their way around it.

The companies get by with this crap, because it isn't worth it to challenge them in court. It takes some serious injury of death to justify the cost of litigation to bring the SOBs to their knees.

[9.3X62AL]

Good point, Charles.

Since that occurrence with the Marlin M-60, I regard 22 LR self-loaders as a mite more likely to do squirrelly things than other arms types. The caveats about eye and ear protection can't be over-emphasized.

[BluesBear]

I have read and reread every post in this thread.

I'm sorry an accident occured and I'm very thankful no one was hurt.

However, it is a sad fact of life (and physics and metallurgy) that rimfire cartridge cases are just not as strong as a solid head central fire cartridge case. And never will be.
Since Hi-Speed .22 rimfire ammo became common in the 1920s most .22 RF revolver manufacturers have counterbored their chambers.
Even today, amid claims by the ammo companies that their cases are stronger, and statements by gunrags that it rarely happens, S&W, after ceasing to do it on their centerfire revolvers 20 years ago, still counterbores their rimfire revolvers.

Rimfire ammunition is designed to go bang when the firing pin hits the rim.
So if the Taurus pistol allowed the firing pin to strike the rim while the slide/barrel was out of battery you really can't blame the ammunition.
After all the ammunition just did what it was told.
Glock shooters have learned to live with the possibility of out-of-battery-firing (OOBF!). I guess us Taurus owners will have to as well.


It's the rare occurances like this that illustrate why you must always wear eye & ear protection.
It's a gun. It's never ever completely safe.


Safe gunhandling resides between the ears rather than between the hands.
(Colonel Jeff Cooper)

[Blackwater]

This has been an interesting thread, and a little disturbing as well, at least from my point of view. I once blew up a Ruger Super Blackhawk, so I know a little about what it FEELS like to have an "accident." Turned out, it was my own fault. Won't relate the story here, since it's not relevant, but .... DANG! It's one SCARY thing to have a gun blow up in your hands!!!

Molly, you're obviously one heck of a man, any way a man can be measured, but I think your experience is simply one of those things we call "anomalies" - things that happen, and we never know just exactly why. Maybe it was a metalurgic flaw. Even in these days of vacuum smelting, etc., we can't get metals 100.000% perfect. Maybe some tiny piece of grit got wedged between the front of the rim and the face of the barrel, causing a slightly "early" firing. Carbon deposits can get awfully hard. There are probably 100 or more "maybes" possible here, most of which I'd never think of.

One of the things I've learned through the years is that noting is ever 100.000% perfect, including ammo. The very design of the rimfire ctg. is conducive to problems, what with the "explosive" priming mixture being contained in the rim, which gets a "bang" of its own from the feeding process in .22 autos. This is the reason that rimfire ctgs. were dropped in favor of the centerfire design, which protects the primer much better than any rimfire can possibly match.

That's the technical side, as I see it. There's just no telling what made that round perform as it did. As you note, the fragments left and your lack of intention to sue make it moot, effectively, what the problem was.

As to their response, I'm not surprised. No, that doesn't mean I think it was appropriate. Just not surprising in our litigious world. Nothing so terrifies any manufacturer as the spectre, real or imagined, of a lawsuit. It doesn't excuse bad responses, but at least it makes them a little more "understandable," at least from the functional, "want to stay in business" standpoint. That's why they call our courts the "adversarial" system, and our collective generalized litigiousness makes virtual "enemies" of folks that would under any other circumstance be fast friends. It's a dang shame, but .... well, you know.

Molly, I'm very glad you weren't hurt, and I WELL understand the emotional reaction to such things. I doubt it makes any difference, actually, between a .22 or a .44. It's always shocking and VERY humbling to realize that these "anomaly" things CAN happen to US. Some 30 years ago when I blew up that old Super B., Ruger offered to give me a new gun at jobber's cost, which was $111.XX at the time (which will let you know how far back that was) if I'd send them the gun. They explained the offer by saying that they wanted to inspect it since I finally figured out what had blown it up (the effectively double charged load). My gunsmith buddy relayed the offer to me, and I knew almost instantly that they wanted the EVIDENCE in THEIR control, due to fear of a lawsuit. I just smiled, told my gunsmith buddy that I knew why they wanted it, and he just smiled. He knew I'd never sue them for what was MY fault. That was just me. I told him I thought the offer was very generous of Ruger, even considering the lawsuit fear. Things were just beginning to gin up back then on the lawsuit front for our firearms companies. I'm sure they destroyed the gun after a good inspection, and maybe some testing. No evidence, no suit. In today's legal realm, you just cannot, and DO not, take ANY chances, when many, many millions are at stake, and maybe the company's very existence.

I'd be darned peeved if this happened to me, I guarantee. As a bystander unaffected by the event personally, I can see where both sides are coming from, and Molly, you're a darn fine man to not pursue it any further than you have. You only asked for what's fair, and these days, it takes a man with real character to do that. You have my respect. I can also see where whoever you talked with at CCI was coming from. I doubt they relished sending their response any more than you relished receiving it.

It seems that old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times," has come to us, and heavily so. I wouldn't be at all surprised however, if the NEXT time something like this happens, that it would be another brand of .22 ammo. The only way to prevent it would be to cease manufacture and sale of .22 autos, and we'd be a MUCH poorer people if that were the solution. There are many around and working hard to see to it that just such should happen to us. That you didn't and won't join the ranks of those who "eat their own" is a testament to your integrity, even in the face of such a poor response.

It's just HARD to be a shooter today. I just hope my two grandsons will know the joys and challenges of shooting throughout their lifetimes. The chances of that happening seem slimmer and slimmer with each passing year.

Main thing, from me, is thanks for doing the right thing, even when dealt with poorly. This was a time where "urning the other cheek" was, even if difficult, the right thing to do. So it is from this angle, anyway.

And thanks for your work with boolits. I'm just starting, really, and guys like you and lots of others have opened my eyes. It's just not interesting any more to snipe them at distance. I want to see the whites of their eyes, and challenge myself (if you can call it that?) a bit more, and just do it a bit differently. Thanks.

[Bret4207]

I think it's unfortunate the manufactuer took the line they did, but understandable too. After seeing some of the out and out lies people will tell in the hopes of "gettin' some" I can't blame them. OTOH it would have been nice if they'd at least acknowledged the problem and investigated it a bit. I got a similar response from Winchester 25 or so years ago when I was gunsmithing. They needed a beefier pin in one of their shotguns. I might as well have talked to my dog. It's disappointing.

[johniv]

Molly, glad thaat you werent hurt. The interesting thing here is not that there was an "incident" but how CCI handled it. The manufacturer SHOULD want to see his product (incident case, remaining ammo etc.) AND the incident firearm to check for modifications ,defects etc, Their lack of intrest points to a customer service individual stepping WAY out of bounds. I dont think less of CCI products, just less of that indivdual.(I think when their management reads this, this person will be asked some pointed questions)
John

[tom barthel]

The irony is that Federal and CCI are both divisions of the same company.
Both brands have long been known for standing up when there's a problem.
Perhaps there are some new beancounters in charge now?

I didn't know that. A LONG time ago, I had several rounds of Federal .22 LR stick in a chamber. It never occurred to me to complain about it, I just tossed them. I should have complained. They may have corrected the problem sooner. I have since found Federal ammo to be the dirtiest but most accurate factory ammo in most of my guns. .22 is now the ONLY factory ammo I shoot. If the problem happens again I WILL report it.
Thanks for giving us a heads up.
Tom

[Junior1942]

This thread has reinforced my decision to stop using cheap 22 ammo. I never did like the CCI 22 ammo because it was too destructive on squirrels, which is all I hunt with my old Marlin. I've been using Rem Thunderbolt. However, when I set up my Chrony for testing centerfire rounds, I always run one or two 22 rf rounds over it to check its operation. 90% of those 22 rf Thunderbolts clock right around 1125 fps. But every once in a while one clocks around 800 fps. The retort is a little quieter, but not enough to really notice except for the low Chrony reading giving a headsup. Or is that earsup? Sometimes those squib rounds jam the auto action, and sometimes it cycles just fine. Anyway, I'm buying Winchester 22 ammo from now on--and not the cheapest.

[felix]

Junior, the same thing happens with the Winchester 22 ammo. It seems when they spin the primer mix to the outside of the case and then clamp the rim to contain it for drying, the mix does not necessairly go evenly around the rim. Hopefully so, but sometimes not. When the firing pit hits the null area, it might or might not go off. Just rotating the round makes the round equal to the others "in the group". These happenings are very lot dependent, of course. Just a heads up. ... felix

[montana_charlie]

A LONG time ago, I had several rounds of Federal .22 LR stick in a chamber. It never occurred to me to complain about it,
There was a time when everybody knew that not all things are perfect. They also knew that most activities carry certain risks...even drinking coffee.

Today, if ANYTHING spoils his day, it is proper for the 'victim' to find somebody to blame, and make that entity pay...even if the coffee was ordered hot, and spilled through inattention and clumsiness.
CM

[Junior1942]

Junior, the same thing happens with the Winchester 22 ammo. It seems when they spin the primer mix to the outside of the case and then clamp the rim to contain it for drying, the mix does not necessairly go evenly around the rim. Hopefully so, but sometimes not. When the firing pit hits the null area, it might or might not go off. Just rotating the round makes the round equal to the others "in the group". These happenings are very lot dependent, of course. Just a heads up. ... felixFelix, what 22 ammo do you recommend for 99.99% reliability?

[felix]

Junior, you got me. The thing to do is get the ones you are happy with in terms of accuracy. And, just make sure they are affordable in a large amount from the SAME lot so you can stock up. Just how to do this is the 64 dollar question. Might have to belong to a club of some sort having several large batches on hand. Before selecting for real, shoot several hundred counting the "misfires". If minor, then purchase the entire lot on hand. ... felix

[montana_charlie]

What do you shoot with a .22, Junior, that makes 'perfect' reliability a necessity?

I have never shot match .22, so that kind of precision doesn't interest me.
But, I have killed enough squirrels, pigeons, cottontails, and gophers to feed half of Africa...not to mention the targets used for adjusting sights, and the occasional rattler, porcupine, coyote, and feral domestic stray.

Over the years, my 'main brand' varied between Remington, Federal, and (now) CCI...with the occasional box of 'other stuff'.
I never bought 'bulk packed' or the 'economy' names, but did choose based on lowest price for a maker's 'primary offering' during seasonal reductions.
A lot went through autoloaders, but (mostly) it feeds my Anschutz bolt-action...a plain-Jane sporter purchased for $35
(in Germany), back in '68.

During all of that, I can't remember a round that failed to fire, and if a 'squib' ever caused me to miss a tasty morsel, I didn't starve...or get trampled when a wounded beast charged.

I really do appreciate reliability and precision, but I don't need large quantities of those from a .22 rimfire. How come you do?
CM

[carpetman]

What ammo to buy and we are asking felix? Wheres Starmetal when we need him? His all shot one hole groups,we need to find out what type he used.

[Junior1942]

What do you shoot with a .22, Junior, that makes 'perfect' reliability a necessity? CMI hunt squirrels, but the woods wherein I hunt has wild hogs. The most dangerous wild animal in the southeastern USA is a truly wild sow who thinks you are a threat to her piglets. If you're using a semi-auto and round #1 wounds her and round #2 jams you better hope there's a nearby tree you can climb. And that you have time to climb it. . . That's the Voice Of Experience talking.

There's also free-roaming and feral dogs. One came after me a few years back while I was squirrel hunting with my 32 caliber muzzleloader. He changed his mind just a few seconds before I fired my one and only fast shot.

In short, a jammed round #2 isn't an option where I hunt.

[montana_charlie]

The most dangerous wild animal in the southeastern USA is a truly wild sow who thinks you are a threat to her piglets.

In short, a jammed round #2 isn't an option where I hunt.
And...you're pretty certain you can nail her to the ground with #1 or #2 from a .22 rimfire?

I think I would already be in the tree when I touched off #1...
CM

[BluesBear]

That's why you pack a backup handgun chambered for a caliber that will best enable your survival against any dangerous critters roaming the area.

Up here in the Great Pacific NorthWet the nature photographers pack .44 magnums (or bigger). Sometimes the bears just ain't feeling photogenic.

[Junior1942]

That's why you pack a backup handgun chambered for a caliber that will best enable your survival against any dangerous critters roaming the area.After the dog near-attack I now pack a 44 SBH when I hunt with my 32 caliber muzzleloader squirrel rifle. When I use my 22 semi-auto, I expect rounds #1 through #14 to cycle the action. No hog can survive 14 22 rf rounds through its head.

As a side note about the dog, I haven't seen it since. I suspect it advanced on a deer hunter.

[BPCR Bill]

As far as CCI ammunition goes, I quit that over 20 years ago. I had purchased a box of CCI "Lawman" 357 Magnum (you remember the aluminum cased, non-reloadable ammo). I fired maybe 3 cylinders out of my pretty new and in fine shape S&W M28, when suddenly the cylinder locked up. Very close inspection showed the primer cup had punctured, and blown back into the firing pin hole in the breech face. A bit of gentle tapping and prying finally got the cylinder open, and I trashed the rest of that ammo. One thing I have noticed with some high velocity 22 ammunition (CCI and Remingtom among them) and some older rifles is the tendency for the base of the fired cartridge to be bulged out. I only shoot standard velocity ammunition in my 22 rimfires now.

Regards,
Bill

[82nd airborne]

. No hog can survive 14 22 rf rounds through its head.

As a side note about the dog, I haven't seen it since. I suspect it advanced on a deer hunter.[/QUOTE]

as a kid i watched my dad shoot a 900+ lb pig (domestic) in the head 13 times with a browning hi power. it then knocked over a lawn tractor and recked the fence. it died by the time he got back with a 30-30. non penetrated the skull, but one slipped over the top of the head and entered the chest cavity. i think i wont carry a 22 pig hunting.

[Dale53]

Years ago, my uncle was going to butcher a sow. He owned a couple of super markets and was a trained butcher. However, he wasn't a ballistician.

He had a .32 H&R "Owlhead" chambered for the .32 S&W Long. He shot the penned hog (about a 400-500 pounder) in the forehead at point blank range. The hog broke out of the pen, knocked my uncle down and ran off up the lane clicking her teeth in rage. She got about a hundred or so yeads away, changed her direction and came squealing back dead on for my uncle. He grabbed an axe (fortunately handy), sidesepped the sow (who was determined to "do him in") and split her skull ending the battle.

When he skinned the skull he found each of the factory lead bullets flattened out at about nickel size. Where each bullet hit, there was a slight crack in the skull but no penetration.

My uncle had the .32 as a "store gun" for self defense against hold ups. He considered it a lesson learned (he reasoned that if he shot a bad guy with that gun it might just make him mad:sad:. He replaced the store gun with a more adequate model.

My choice for a "walk around" handgun is a .44 Special, .44 Magnum, or a good .45 ACP or .45 Colt (loaded with a proper cast bullet, of course.:mrgreen:

Dale53

[leadman]

I have been using Stingers about as long as they have been made. The early Stingers were much more accurate than the ones from the last 5 years or so. The velocity was also about 100fps higher on the early stuff.
I fired most of these in a Remingtom LH 581 so had no issues with pressure or anything else.

I shot some 17M2 made by Federal in a Contender and almost half split the edge of the rim. Velocity of the Federal rounds is 125fps higher than 3 or 4 other brands. Still have to contact Federal now that I have remembered this.

I have fired the Stigers in an old Ruger Target model semi-auto pistol to see what would happen. No problems at all.
Glad Molly wasn't injured and has decided to use different ammo.

[Fly-guy]

Molly, greetings brother!

I have had similar problems with cci products. I've been castings and loading my own ammunition for about 46 years and so have acquired "experience" in some of the "do's and
don'ts" of reloading.

The problem that I ran into with cci was with some large rifle primers rupturing. I switched to a different brand of primer and the problem went away. I've always felt that the cci primers had to soft of a cup but that is neither here nor there.

Some of the post that I've read recently indicate that there are some members that have scientific ways of observing high pressures. I admit that I do not possess that technology now nor did I posses it about 15-20 years ago. Whenever I am working a new load up, the condition of the spent primer is one thing I watch carefully.

To shorten this up, I've avoided cci primers for many years and unfortunately the political climate we are experiencing forced me to lower my standards as I haven't been able to purchase my first preference in primers until just recently.

I doubt that cci would be impressed by everyone letting them know about their personal experiences with their products but rest assured, they will listen when there is a noticeable decline in corporate profits.

Your brother in the One who gave it all,

f-g

[shooterg]

We killed a lotta hogs at butchering time(usually October) with old beat up single shot .22's, as a matter of fact, all .22 single shots were referred to has "pig guns". "Course, we shot 'em in the ear or eye from as close as possible. I did get careless once when I mighta been 12, and did as the gentleman above, bounced one off the pig's hard skull, it ran all over the dang place, got the .243 out and finished it. Granny was mad as heck, on accounta the 100 gr. soft point in the head ruined the brain, one of her favorite portions. She'd even ask me to shoot squirrels in the neck, as their spoon size brains were a treat also(not for me !)