Trap door blow up

[John Taylor]

My brother just called and said the rifle I sent him blew up. It was a nice trap door with a new barrel that I had shot with factory loads. He was using RX7 and light bullets, I think he said 41 grains was the starting load from the book. His hand is a bit sore and has some bleeding but he said it should be OK. He is the fire arms instructor for the boy scouts, I'm thankful one of them was not shooting it.
61890

[rhbrink]

Any chance that he got it mixed up with Accurate #7? Looks like a serious overload to me.

RB

[geargnasher]

41 grains can be a lot or a little depending on the boolit weight and style. Don't tell me it was a HB Lee 405-grain boolit cast from soft lead.

Gear

[AkMike]

Ouch! I'm hopeing that he heals up good!

[wch]

"Flying" magazine had a column titled "I learned about flying from that...." which gave the leadup to an inflight problem and described the pilot's corrective actions both before and after his landing.
Maybe we need a forum subject titled "I learned about firearms safety from that..." with the same criteria?

[EDG]

If that was a new chrome-moly barrel how did he get the pressure high enough to split it?

[John Taylor]

I'm thinking detonation. The gun had been fired with factory loads and the load in question was a light load.

[johnnybar]

Any chance that he got it mixed up with Accurate #7? Looks like a serious overload to me.

RB

Or, contaminated powder measure. Pull all loads in that run, record charge weights then spread on white paper and look for mismatched grains by comparing to a never opened can or online pics. If the powder measure wasn't completely cleaned out, you may find a round or more of wrong powder. Then you will find a round or more of mixed powder. The rest will be correct with little if any incorrect powder. If you can't figure it out, do not use the can of powder. It may have been poured back into the wrong canister. Strange things have happened to the most careful reloaders. PS. I show 41gr as the starting load for trapdoors with 400gr J's, 28-32gr for 500gr cast. Any chance a squib got in there...maybe a primer only just before this one?

[tacklebury]

Trap door in my book for Reloader7 starts at 34 gr. and goes up to 38 gr. for 1200 to 1600 fps.

[Mk42gunner]

First, I'm glad he will be okay.

Second, glancing through Lee's first ed. of Modern Reloading I think he made a mistake and got the data from the modern .45-70 section of whichever manual he used. Sorry.

Robert

[M-Tecs]

Glad he is OK. I am with johnnybar on this one.

The brass looks to be in surprisingly good shape. What does the head look like? If the primer is blown and the head is flat it was an overload or detonation. If the primer and head don’t look over pressured it was a squib with a bullet stuck in the bore. I have only seen to blown rifles for bullets stuck in the bore. On was a Marlin 444 and the other was 7.62 x 54. In both case the shooter noted light report and recoil but shot the second round anyway. Split the action and barrel but the primers were flat but not blown and the headstamp was not flattened.

On the three I have seen that used pistol powder the brass basically pressure welded to the bolt face. One was an M-14. That came apart like a hand grenade. Another was a Rem 700 in 243. Everything stayed together but the lugs set back .030”. Case head pressure welded to the bolt face. The owner broke the bolt handle off trying to open the action. The last one was an AR 15 that split the upper and barrel and again the case pressure welded to the bolt face.

[Frank46]

Last gun show I went to, one dealer still had quart mason jars with the powder type labels made out of masking tape. No way, no how would I even consider buying any. Could be that powders got mixed some how?. Frank

[nhrifle]

Well...the lock still looks good!

Glad nobody was seriously hurt.

[Nobade]

This is another example of why I am continually harping about only using black powder in guns designed to use black powder. I am glad he wasn't seriously hurt, and I hope this is a lesson learned for at least a few people out there.

-Nobade

[dubber123]

One of the ballistic labs reported firing 45-70 loads with 70,000 Psi, and they said the brass looked normal, and fell from the test barrel when it was tipped up, so I don't think we can rely on that as a pressure indicator. I am sure it would take much less than that to uncork a Trapdoor. It looks like a healthy overload to me. Too bad, looked like a nice rifle.

[oldred]

This is another example of why I am continually harping about only using black powder in guns designed to use black powder.-Nobade


I am a shooter of both Black (the real stuff) and smokeless but like you I would not even consider using smokeless in a rifle that was built for BP because things happen and the safety margin is usually just not there. An example is years ago when I loaded some 300 grain loads for an 1895 Marlin 45/70, I don't remember the powder or load but I do know it was a new-to-me load using data from a manual that was supposed to be the starting load. I had loaded 20 rounds but the first one kicked like a mule and the case was stuck in the chamber to the point that I had to pound on the lever to get it out. Since this was a new combo that should have been a red flag to check the other rounds and my procedure before continuing but being younger and dumber I chambered and fired another round which did the same thing, at that point I decided something was seriously wrong so I pulled the rest of the rounds and went back to my old powder. This was supposed to be a fairly light load and I have no idea what I did wrong but being a beginner it could have been anything, the strength of that Marlin saved my **** that time but if I had of fired one of those things in a Trapdoor it probably would have been a disaster! The point is that when using smokeless we can usually get away with making a minor mistake when shooting a modern firearm, I think most of us have been surprised by a round that seemed a mite "hot" occasionally, but that same mistake might very well be a great deal more than just a surprise if fired in an older BP rifle/pistol.

[johnnybar]

Do I see a flattened bullet in the pic? ..or is it a large washered nail?

[johnson1942]

41 grains of reloader 7 makes my modern cpa stephens 44 and 1/2 snort. im glad he still has his hands and eyes and his life.

[Don McDowell]

Glad the shooter is ok. One has to wonder what the condition of that rifle would be today if the loads would have stayed with straight blackpowder tho...
If he's interested is selling that buffington sight let me know.

[lkydvl]

Couple questions... any chance of better close up pics?

The barrel threads look shallow and the receiver thickness appears thinner than TD's I have worked on.
Have to wonder if this one wasn't slimmed some which would be hardly a wise decision when dealing with an already weak design.

Andre`

[Reg]

Lil brother had a roller blow out on the extractor side a few years back. Showed some of the same signs your TD shows. We tore down the remaining shells from the box he loaded the night before.
He was using a smokeless load using 2400 and the load itself should have been safe enough but all of the shells contained powder of various amounts. All we could figure out was the powder was "bridging" and dumping different charges in each shell so naturally a few of the shells had a higher than normal charge and it was one of these hotter shells that opened things up.
In your case this might not have been the problem as surely with that much powder in the case a dangerous over load would have been noticed.
Detonation ? It is a real thing even if it cannot be reliably duplicated.
A squib load ? Have you put a mike to the barrel? Even if it wouldn't be readily noticed a bullet somewhere in the barrel would have produced some swelling somewhere on the barrel even if the pressure was released to the rear.
Two things are for sure. Pressure did it and it's a darn good thing he wasn't badly hurt.

[EDG]

Nobade,
The Trapdoor did well with that load. It would have blown probably blown up a #1 or about anything else.
You approach could just as easily be applied to all firearms if you think smokeless is that bad.
The point is if you are stupid with any powder it will get you in trouble with almost any firearm.

There are really 3 main ways to avoid such a blow up.
1. Don't be stupid
2. Don't reload
3. Don't shoot

Substituting black powder is no a real answer for #1.
Black powder is not a crutch that should be used to avoid the effects of stupidity.

[Tom Trevor]

John, You state it was a new barrel. Whose barrel and what steel was it made from? hope it was not 12L14.

[John Taylor]

More info. The load was 41 grains of RX7 with a 285 grain bullet. Two shots worked ok in a Martini, had very little recoil. Third shot was in the trapdoor and the muzzle was pointed down when loading. The action was an original 1884 model, not altered in any way. The barrel was new and had been shot with factory loads. The gun is being sent back and I may post more pictures. The barrel company has offered to replace the barrel and may have an action also. I need another stock now. A customer has offered $100 towards getting it repaired for the boy scouts.

[Multigunner]

John, You state it was a new barrel. Whose barrel and what steel was it made from? hope it was not 12L14.
My suspicion as well. Defective barrels from a civilian subcontractor turned out the be the true cause of many low number 1903 failures. Also several years ago a number of British .308 match rifles had failures due to brand new but defective barrels from a respected barrel making company.

[13Echo]

Well as pointed out the part that failed was the "new"barrel. The action actually held. Trapdoor Springfields are a lot stronger than they are generally given credit for. There used to be a sticky about a blow up test done with a Trapdoor that was an eye opener for how much the old Soldier could stand. Finally blew the barrel off but the action held. Still wouldn't recommend over stressing a 100+ year old rifle made of low carbon steel but a good one can take it.

[encssbuxi]

I was the poor guy who was shooting the gun. It was the first shot through a clean barrel. The loads were all from a new can of powder using a load similar to a load from Hornadays book with a lighter bullet. The powder measure was clean and since it was the first shot, no possibility of a squib load. The left hand is a lot better today after removing several small metal splinters. There was no possability of a double load because I load all cases in a reloading block and check powder levels before adding bullet any over charge would be readily visable. Lesson learned- from now on it's blackpowder or Pyrodex for all older 45-70 firearms

[Coffeecup]

Glad the shooter is OK, but it is a shame about the rifle.

I've seen one other trapdoor come apart this way: the shooter decided to "proof" the rifle using one of Keith's loads for the 1886 Winchester. On examination, the receiver seemed to have an area where the broken metal appeared very "coarse-grained," while the rest of it seemed "finer-grained." On that one, the latch didn't hold. It looked like the breechblock was forced open partway, but we couldn't be sure because of the way the action came apart. Fortunately for that guy, he was "proofing" with the "long string" method and was out of the danger zone.

[fouronesix]

Well, Rel7 is a double base, fine grained, fairly dense powder. That tells me it isn't the best for reduced charges/low load density loading in a large case like a 45-70. When I was working on reduced, BP ballistics similar, 300 gr cast bullet 45-70 loads for a Win 86, I found that recommended charges of Rel7 tended to show spiky pressures and velocities far higher than I wanted. I reduced the Rel7 charge down to 29 gr. and added fluff dacron filler and had no more "odd" results both in chronied velocity readings or inconsistent pressure signs.

If you look at the Lyman data for a 292 gr cast bullet and Rel7 you'll notice that 50 gr is the recommended starting charge for Level 1 loads (Trapdoor). It seems that 41 grains under that bullet is well below the recommended starting load density. Kabooms like this one reminds me of how much chemical energy is stored in small quantities of smokeless powder and the only thing keeping me from blowing something up is the speed at which the powder burns. So the idea of "detonation" may be one of the likely culprits. The gun is loaded muzzle pointing down, low load density of powder forward or away from the primer, fine grained powder, primer fires and suspends and/or fragments a bunch of the exposed kernels of powder, a large quantity/volume/surface area of powder ignites all at once therefore a "detonation" of sorts or at least produces a very high, spiky pressure curve.

Since working with Rel7 years ago in the 45-70 for cast loads, I don't use it anymore as I have no guns I need or want to load to higher pressures or velocities anyway. I've since settled on charges of 5744 that when combined with fluffy dacron filler produce BP similar velocities.

[wmitty]

encssbuxi:

Sorry about the Springfield, but glad you were not seriously injured! I have the 1884 my Dad passed down to me and was thinking about shooting it again (had shot it since I was a kid in the Sixties) but I'm having second thoughts about doing so, now. I hate having to clean up after shooting black powder and your experience has just about cured me on smokeless 'cause I would have tried using Re7 with the 457124 boolet paper patched to groove. Think I'll pass...

[Mooseman]

Just an interesting note that 42.0 gr of Reloader 7 in a 165 gr. 308 will produce 52,000 CUP pressure so I tend to believe we are seeing a SEE event where the powder flashed over and produced a huge fast pressure spike in a barrel that should have proofed to 60,000 to 65,000 CUP safely if it was modern gun steel and not just a steel barrel rated for Black powder .
I will stick to BP in My 1873 Trapdoor and it only takes a few minutes with hot soapy water to clean up and oil for storage.

[johnnybar]

More info. The load was 41 grains of RX7 with a 285 grain bullet. Two shots worked ok in a Martini, had very little recoil. Third shot was in the trapdoor and the muzzle was pointed down when loading. The action was an original 1884 model, not altered in any way. The barrel was new and had been shot with factory loads. The gun is being sent back and I may post more pictures. The barrel company has offered to replace the barrel and may have an action also. I need another stock now. A customer has offered $100 towards getting it repaired for the boy scouts.
-Speer#13 shows: Re7, 41gr starting load, 400gr JFP...seems hot compared to Alliant's 42gr max load for a much lighter bullet .
-Alliant shows: Re7, 37.8 starting to 42.0 max, 300gr Speer FNHP.
So, IIUC, a near max load was dropped into a trapdoor with no load developement of all four components combined in that firearm. The developement of which, should have begun with approx 38grs Re7 per my limited sources. New barrel, unknown throat, jump or touching lands? Could this be simply too hot of a load plus tight barrel specs. If factory load's max avg pressures are 28,000 cup and brass can handle 70,000 psi with no pressure signs. As stated, brass tells us zero. Too many unknowns at this point. Having 2 rds fine in one rifle has very little bearing on safety in another, even if all loads were consistent in charge wt, and that is rarely an absolute. New can and clean powder measure only means contamination not likely. Have a second person randomly vary the measure's setting slightly while dumping powder, shuffle the cases in a loading block, and let you determine good from bad. A .456" case can hold a significant error with little height variance. 1 gr either way only changes the level .030" or about 7 sheets of cheap printer paper...not much. Differences in settling can easily cause a greater variation than that. It can always be the rare possibility of flawed barrel blanks from the supplier as mentioned but slim being so. Black powder only, blanks being used in error that are sometimes butter soft...easy to do. Did the barrel get stamped "Black Powder Only" ? Ask for the packing slip or invoice for the blank. Even if it is right, they could have shipped the wrong one I suppose. Mystery?????????

[johnnybar]

I don't see J'd or cast...only 285gr. Data posted varies greatly due to some being cast vs J'd. Throw the dog a bone on this one please. If cast 285, I'll go with detonation being a possibility also. As I show 46gr to 50gr Re7 for a 325 cast. 285 would be even higher charges, making the 41gr charge grossly below minimum....potential whammy! I always go with data from at least 3 proven sources and compare closely. And even then, first 3 rds are test loads with safety precautions in place....string, truck tire, rags and ratchet straps plus a big pond dam or the old railroad bed on the back of the property.

[Boz330]

encssbuxi:

Sorry about the Springfield, but glad you were not seriously injured! I have the 1884 my Dad passed down to me and was thinking about shooting it again (had shot it since I was a kid in the Sixties) but I'm having second thoughts about doing so, now. I hate having to clean up after shooting black powder and your experience has just about cured me on smokeless 'cause I would have tried using Re7 with the 457124 boolet paper patched to groove. Think I'll pass...

Not sure why everyone thinks BP is so hard to clean. I shoot a LOT of BP and the clean up is way quicker than Smokeless in a BPCR. 2 to 3 wet patches and a couple dry and an oily one, done unless there is some leading.

Bob

[bob208]

i am with nobade black only. these guns were doing out of service when smokless was starting to be used. would you think of using smokless loads in a colt single action that was made in 1879? then why a rifle?

[oldred]

Probably most folks who use smokeless in these rifles would argue that using smokeless is perfectly safe if pressures are held to BP levels and that's true so why not use smokeless? The problem lies with the fact that it's so easy to make a mistake when loading smokeless, but I'm really careful so it won't happen to me right? Well look around on the forums and there are many instances of blown up BP rifles and people trying to figure out what happened with the usual cause being excess pressure. Ok sure it happens even to modern rifles in extreme cases but with these old BP rifles it does not have to be a huge error to result in disaster, a minor mistake in a modern rifle that might make a person think " hmm, that one was a bit hot" could easily be a lot more serious in a BP era rifle and honestly how often do these minor errors happen? With BP that type of mistake is difficult to do and a few grains of powder one way or the other is not a problem but not so with smokeless! The fact is that modern steels and designs have a much larger margin for error while some of these older rifles due to metallurgy and design may be operating close to the limit (if not right on the ragged edge!) so using real BP is far less likely to result in disaster due to a mistake that might even go unnoticed in a newer gun.

[singleshotman]

Probably most folks who use smokeless in these rifles would argue that using smokeless is perfectly safe if pressures are held to BP levels and that's true so why not use smokeless? The problem lies with the fact that it's so easy to make a mistake when loading smokeless, but I'm really careful so it won't happen to me right? Well look around on the forums and there are many instances of blown up BP rifles and people trying to figure out what happened with the usual cause being excess pressure. Ok sure it happens even to modern rifles in extreme cases but with these old BP rifles it does not have to be a huge error to result in disaster, a minor mistake in a modern rifle that might make a person think " hmm, that one was a bit hot" could easily be a lot more serious in a BP era rifle and honestly how often do these minor errors happen? With BP that type of mistake is difficult to do and a few grains of powder one way or the other is not a problem but not so with smokeless! The fact is that modern steels and designs have a much larger margin for error while some of these older rifles due to metallurgy and design may be operating close to the limit (if not right on the ragged edge!) so using real BP is far less likely to result in disaster due to a mistake that might even go unnoticed in a newer gun.

Did he use a wad in front of the powder-that has been known to cause excess pressures.I was taught to elevate the muzzle before shooting and NEVER use a wad.I pefer BP and compressed Pyrodex, its not hard to clean with water and have never blown up a rifle with it yet.Trapdoors shoot better with BP at least in my opinion.

[oldred]

I have used a lot of smokeless in my singleshot BP type rifles but they are of modern manufacture and made of modern steels, the problem is not so much whether or not it's a BP cartridge but when and of what strength steel was the rifle made? People load smokeless in even the huge old cases such as the 45-120 and there does not seem to be a problem, with blow ups anyway but I can think of many reasons why smokeless would probably be a bad idea in a round such as that. However some of the other rounds like the shorter 45/90 and certainly the 45/70 have been loaded with smokeless more so than BP but does that make them safe to shoot in a 130 year old rifle? In a modern built rifle I would not hesitate to use a sensible smokeless load in one of these calibers and rifle types but I would never consider dropping one of those rounds in an old original, just my opinion however on what I would be willing to do with my guns.

[encssbuxi]

As the slightly injured shooter, I would like to thank the posters for your comments. I have decided to use Pyrodex in my original 45-70s from now on( used to have 3, now 2). As careful as I was in loading the cases after checking several sources for data and not wanting to stress the gun, I was not aware of the possibility of detonation with smokeless powders. I had thought I had done everything right, once fired cases, new can of powder, lower bullet weight for charge, clean powder measure, double checking powder levels and checking for clear and clean bore, the gun still turned into scrap on the first shot. I will be sending the rifle to John ( John Taylor Machine)to see if there may have been any problems with it that he can identify. I was very comfortable with the rifle's strength since John had fired factory loads prior to sending it to me.

[13Echo]

If it's any consolation I don't think it was necessarily the fault of the load you used. Judging from the appearance of the rifle I believe there was a flaw in that barrel and I really doubt detonation is the culprit. having said that I still much prefer black powder in these old soldiers.

Jerry Liles

[dubber123]

I have no issues with smokeless in old rifles, just use the appropriate powder, in the correct amount for the projectile weight, and I personally don't worry at all. As we may have just witnessed, under loading smokeless in an effort to be safer may be just the opposite. With the very light projectile weight, I probably would have used something on the order of Unique. To each his own, and this was a good lesson learned, with thankfully only the loss of a rifle in the process.

[varsity07840]

Couple questions... any chance of better close up pics?

The barrel threads look shallow and the receiver thickness appears thinner than TD's I have worked on.
Have to wonder if this one wasn't slimmed some which would be hardly a wise decision when dealing with an already weak design.

Andre`

It's not a weak design if you use the intended powder.

Duane

[45 2.1]

More info. The load was 41 grains of RX7 with a 285 grain bullet. Two shots worked ok in a Martini, had very little recoil. Third shot was in the trapdoor and the muzzle was pointed down when loading. The action was an original 1884 model, not altered in any way.

The muzzle pointing down when loading is the probable problem plus the starting loading. When dealing with minimum loads in a large capacity powder space you need to make sure the powder is to the rear when fired. A much better load is 20 gr. of SR 4759 with the Lee 405 gr. hollow base boolit.

[oldred]

It's not a weak design if you use the intended powder.Duane


The term weak is relative and compared to almost any modern design the Trapdoor is indeed a relatively weak design. That does not mean it is inherently unsafe, obviously it's not, but ANY original rifle from that era should be approached with caution because of the unknown metallurgy and likelihood of fatigue. It's an established fact that they (the trapdoor) can handle smokeless loads at BP pressures and maybe slightly above but the margin of strength between being able to safely handle unintentional excess pressures and coming apart under such pressure is quite narrow compared to modern firearms. It's the unintentional pressures that pose the most risk, even minor charge variations or other relativity small errors when using smokeless that could go unnoticed in a modern firearm could result in disaster with one of those rifles. I would say that the term "weak" is an improper label for these fine old rifles and I personally would not consider the design to be weak but rather "limited" in it's design as to the amount of pressure it can take. Another example could be the Marlin 1895 in 45/70, these rifles would grenade in short order if fed a diet of max loads for a Ruger no.1 but does that mean they are weak? Obviously not but just as obvious their design LIMIT does not allow for ammo that the Ruger can handle with ease.

[Mike Brooks]

Personally I'd go with real BP over Pyrodex in old guns. I have found that if your bore is anything less than perfect it tends to eat rough spots out worse than they are. It makes little pits into big pits. BP has never done that for me.

[oldred]

I agree, IMHO Pyrodex is a poor solution for a problem that didn't exist in the first place.

[HangFireW8]

Two thoughts. One, no one mentioned use of a proof load before firing. Two, a modern steel barrel just shouldn't fail like that, even with an obstructed bore. It's hard to tell from the picture, but the brass doesn't look overly stressed - it just wasn't properly supported. I'll put my money on bad barrel steel.

HF

[FLINTNFIRE]

He mentioned firing factory loads , on another note was in the lgs and they put a 1873 on the rack with bayonet asking price of about 700 , was tempting but I have a 1884 with the ramrod bayonet (what a joke) and am thinking of pulling the 3 boxes of smokeless and reloading with black as that was the reason for buying it in the first place , I too feel pyrodex was a answer to nothing , sorry to see the blow up , glad to see the shooter is going to be okay

[swheeler]

John sorry to hear that, sad end to a nice rifle. The barrel splitting like that does look a little suspect to me. Did you mention who barrel it was, I may have missed that.

[scb]

I have to agree with 13Echo on his point. I have seen several rifles that appeared to have been destroyed by a detonation. In every case the brass had been vaporized, leaving the remaining steel parts with the appearance of being brass plated. In this case other than being split the casing is intact.

[fouronesix]

Well, 100k psi + will kaboom, in some form, most any gun and leave brass wash from the remains of the case. Even that much pressure or more alone won't rupture the chamber in some guns but will almost always bulge the chamber, set back the breech and disintegrate the brass case. However, even a really sharp spike to a lot less pressure than that could have done the amount of damage shown with the trapdoor. I don't think the condition of the case alone indicates amount of pressure or a cause-effect in this instance. Could be the term "detonation" is being too broadly used.

[John Taylor]

There is a reason I have not put the barrel makers name, I don't believe it was the barrel and to mention his name would hurt his business. I have talked to many about this and there have been more than a few with experience that say they believe it was detonation. Will be putting this old rifle back together.

[oldred]

I am seeing a lot of opinions on how it could have been a detonation and also good reasons for why it could not have been and this brings me to a question I have had for a a while. There are arguments from those who are in the know about how and why detonations occur and some are not convinced they are even possible so I am wondering is it possible to reach a dangerously high pressure without a detonation by using too light a charge? I am wondering if maybe it's possible that with a too light a charge the bullet could stop or slow down when entering the rifling and then the remaining powder could spike to higher pressure without actually detonating before it accelerates the bullet again? Nothing more than speculation here but I would like to hear opinions on this.

[Reg]

Detonation keeps raising it's ugly head and since it is a known fact it happens but has yet to be duplicated in a lab basis it becomes very difficult to say for sure.
Another question to ask is what was the steel the barrel made from ?
The failure you show in the picture is a linear fault , that is the barrel failed running in a line down the barrel. It wasn't a short failure but rather a long failure. That crack ran for a long ways.
A few years back "Stressproof" was a favored steel for barrel making. Very easy working and with little effort would make a very nice barrel. It was the steel of choice of many small barrel maker because with the 50 or so points of carbon it made a tough barrel but it had very high workability qualities. I have seen and used many barrels made from Stressproof and know of many others and have never seen any problem whatever but for some reason the stories of failure got out and now Stressproof is no longer accepted for barrel making mainly because of long linear fractures , exactly what your barrel is showing.
Just a thought.

[johnnybar]

There is a reason I have not put the barrel makers name, I don't believe it was the barrel and to mention his name would hurt his business. I have talked to many about this and there have been more than a few with experience that say they believe it was detonation. Will be putting this old rifle back together.Meaning sidelock, trigger and guard, front + maybe rear sight, buttplate? I would think that the value of the entire rifle in it's current condition as a mancave safety reminder might be considered. Maybe with a small brass plate beneath inscribed with the owner's sentiment. But maybe no reminders are wanted, like this guy who probably wants to forget about not thinking to remove the boresighter:
623876238862389

[fouronesix]

I am wondering if maybe it's possible that with a too light a charge the bullet could stop or slow down when entering the rifling and then the remaining powder could spike to higher pressure without actually detonating before it accelerates the bullet again? Nothing more than speculation here but I would like to hear opinions on this.

Yes, I thought of that also. It's known to happen and seems more common in revolvers loaded with harder to ignite powders like many of the "magnum" type ball powders.

Relating to the bullet starting then stopping scenario. One thing always hangs in the back of my mind's eye. I have looked at quite a few different pressure traces, obtained with good, properly set up real time pressure testing equipment. In some of those traces I've noticed a small, distinct pressure spike in front of the major pressure curve. I can't help but think that small spike showing before the main curve may be the situation where the primer impulse and some of the ignited powder gases push the bullet into the lands, it stops or slows down, then the remainder of the main charge (which is now "slurried in suspension" pressures back up. In the majority of instances it's not even noticed when the firing of the cartridge "seems" normal. But in the wrong gun or if circumstance are just right (or wrong)... kaboom.

[oldred]

That's the scenario I had in mind and it makes sense to me. Of course I am not trying to say that's what happened here and we probably will never know but discussion of all possibilities may save someone else from an event such as this.

[John Boy]

The muzzle pointing down when loading is the probable problem plus the starting loading.
45 2.1 - Nice observation, a tip of the hat to you and I agree with it being a probable cause with position sensitive powder not against the primer hole.
When Mr Taylor made the muzzle down statement on the ASSRA thread, I asked him was the condition of the primer pocket-rim-web and walls of the case examined because the muzzle down statement indicated a possible issue. No reply which indicates the case was not examined

[45 2.1]

John Boy-
That plus the case split from front to web indicated what happened. Rebounding pressure waves do nasty things to steel.

[HangFireW8]

Detonation keeps raising it's ugly head and since it is a known fact it happens but has yet to be duplicated in a lab basis it becomes very difficult to say for sure.


I've seen it duplicated. I set up the instrumentation on the barrel when it happened, and helped the PhD reduce the data. I also helped pull the barrel and mark it retired. However it was on a 120mm, not a small arm.

HF

[torpedoman]

that old action held up fine but the barrel blew off , funny how that"old, weak, requires reduced loads" action usually fails with the barrel blowing off. Hope brother recovers and does not devlope a flinch from the experience. I'll vote for a detonation too.

[HangFireW8]

that old action held up fine but the barrel blew off , funny how that"old, weak, requires reduced loads" action usually fails with the barrel blowing off. Hope brother recovers and does not devlope a flinch from the experience. I'll vote for a detonation too.

If the barrel was as strong as it should have been, it would have blown off intact in the breech.

HF

[Mooseman]

We can speculate and only go by what is shown in the pics , but it takes some close and microscopic examination to perform a true forensic determination by examining all the pieces, bullet , case, barrel and action, and primer. Knowing explosives and powder and pressures from years of guns, machining, and mining experience, it does appear to me that it started rupturing from pressure at the front of the case /barrel chamber and went backwards to the action. Only a few things could cause this. 1, The barrel was plugged or the bullet didnt move forward when fired and 2. There was an extreme pressure spike imitating an explosion/pressure wave that happened faster than it was supposed to and went back towards the breech with a pressure spike over the upper limit of the steel, or 3. There was a defect /crack in the barrel or an annealed spot but this is unlikely by the evidence of a wide strip separating upwards because a crack would cause a different split opening and spreading of the barrel.A crack in a steel tube or pressure pipe like a barrel will have one center split and open outwards if linear cracking occurs lengthwise and pressure occurs.
I do know that tests were performed in a laboratory in New Zealand last year where they set up reloading powder tests to duplicate a SEE , and when the primer was fired a normal rifle load of gunpowder produced over 130,000 PSI in a spike of pressure resembling High explosives when charted. It was set up having the primer fire over the powder charge as if the powder was laying in a case at 1/2 capacity. That same load was normally listed as 50,000 cup( ~60,000 ANSI PSI). 130,000 PSI equates to over 100,000 CUP. It appears that a flashover and shockwave causes smokeless powder to act more like an explosive than a slow burning powder which does burn in milliseconds under normal conditions.
I spoke with one of the guys doing the tests after they discovered this and their results have yet to be published as they were going to pursue this further and test more powders.

This is just a reminder of what we "Mess with" when loading , reload, experiment, and use powder and guns so Safety First and Second Always guys.

[Nobade]

There is some interesting information over on Mountain Mold's forum regarding this. He has done a lot of pressure trace work and often finds two pressure peaks in loads like this. Evidently the powder starts burning, almost goes out, then comes back with a big spike. This also explains a lot of why light smokeless loads using dacron to hold it against the primer are usually more accurate than loads where the powder is laying loose in the case. This also is another reason why I insist on black powder in cases designed for it. There is no way this can happen, at least not through the mechanism we are describing here.

-Nobade

[Argentino]

There is some interesting information over on Mountain Mold's forum regarding this. He has done a lot of pressure trace work and often finds two pressure peaks in loads like this. Evidently the powder starts burning, almost goes out, then comes back with a big spike. This also explains a lot of why light smokeless loads using dacron to hold it against the primer are usually more accurate than loads where the powder is laying loose in the case. This also is another reason why I insist on black powder in cases designed for it. There is no way this can happen, at least not through the mechanism we are describing here.

-Nobade

I agree that by using BP there is no chance of having a catastrophic failure like this one.

However, it is my understanding that a failure like the one shown here should be able to blow up not only a BP gun but any gun designed for smokeless as well.

My point is that you might be safe by using BP loads in guns designed for it but an issue like this with smokeless powder could be powerful enough to destroy almost any gun no matter what type of powder it was designed for.

[oldred]

I shoot 45/70 and 45/90 using smokeless but I insist on a bulky powder for just this reason, 5744 is very popular for the 45/90 but there have been several unexplained blowups with it so I quit using it because I just don't like the looks of all that air space in the case. Using real BP in cases "designed" for BP may solve the problem but so does a case full, or nearly so of the RIGHT smokeless powder! There are many good reasons why a person would want to use smokeless in these cases and while as I mentioned before I would not use it in an original BP era rifle this is because of the questionable integrity of the rifle not the round and I have no qualms about using it in cases "designed" for BP in a rifle built of modern steels. In both the 45/70 and the 45/90 there are several powders that fill the case nicely and still keep pressures down, some are even compressed loads, and these are in no more danger from too little powder in the case than the BP loads. A person does not have to limit themselves to BP if they want to shoot smokeless in these cartridges if the rifle would otherwise be able to shoot smokeless at normal pressures.

[Col4570]

Could be a Flash over where the primer sends the bullet into the barrel then ignition occurrs with the dangerous space created causing the massive pressure.Small loadings of Nitro in big cases with no filler can Flash over the powder.

[Roundball]

I learned to stick with BP in BP firearms. I had started loading 45-90 with 458125 and researched load data for 5744. My starting load was 30grs which near a starting load in some of the data. This load averaged 1390 fps using Bell brass and Federal Primers. The SD and ES were decent but nothing to write home about. Other data suggested that is charge was less than a starting load. This is a heck of a place to start. The rifle was a Pedersoli "Billy Dixon" rifle. Had this been some vintage rifle the outcome could have been disastrous. From now on out it's BP!

[oldred]

Like lot's of folks I started using 5744 in the 45/90 and like you I was not impressed and definitely did not like the empty space but then I switched to Varget and that worked much better, lately I have been using AA4064 under a 500 grain Lee using data supplied by Accurate and I couldn't be happier! This is the most accurate load I have tried and it almost fills the case nearly to the base of the bullet. According to AA and Quickload this 4064 load is under 20,000 PSI for the max charge I have been using and runs BP pressures at the minimum of 45 grns, no worries about air space with either load. I also shoot BP in this rifle (Real BP, not the phony stuff) using the same Lee 500 gr and that's probably the most fun load I use even if it is a bit messy, there's a time and a place for most everything and either powder type can be a lot of fun in these big old cartridges! :)

[John Boy]

On the multiple forums with this trapdoor issue, I find it strange that John Taylor who built the rifle 'with a new barrel,not a replacement' has never mentioned examining the reloaded case. If he had put up a picture am sure it would have told the real reason why the new barrel gave up the ghost along with the action

[fouronesix]

This picture is posted in the OP. Is this what you mean by the reloaded case?

[Roundball]

My point about the 5744 is that the max load data can have six grain differences, for example, depending on the source. I was getting started and was working my way toward BP. It is possible to use a quarter sheet of TP as a filler with 5744. The first time out shooting BP loads showed a more interesting and challenging way to go. It's nice to be on a new learning curve. Mr. Taylor did us all a service by sharing his comments and photos.

[oldred]

Some of the 5744 data is questionable such as Lyman's load of 43 grains under a 500 grain cast bullet, IMHO that's waaay to hot for most rifles chambered in the 45/90! Not so with other powders however such as the 4064 loads which work quite well and do so at low pressures, as far as the 45/90 being a BP round I guess it started that way but it was factory loaded with smokeless from 1895 until it was discontinued in the late thirties- this according to cartridges of the world.

[Roundball]

No doubt that and 45-70 were loaded with smokeless powder. It would have been more correct if the cartridge in question would have been called 2.4" Sharps for the sake of this discussion. Personally, I'll stick to the BP and call the cartridge by the correct name to prevent confusion.

[Four Fingers of Death]

Glad he s ok. Has the receiver been machined to clean up the threads? I'd be measuring the barrel shank and finding out if the threads match Trapdoor specs.

My TD is a 1973 vintage H&R and I only use Black Powder in it. No way would you get me using anything but BP in a pre 1890 gun of any sort.

Mine is a joy toshot with a case full of BP!

Lotza noise, flame and smoke and a crowd lined up wanting a shot!

[Marlin Junky]

I'd sure like to know what "Factory Loads" were fired in this rifle before it blew a gasket, not to mention who replaced the barrel and with what.

With that said, 41 grains of Re7 behind Lyman 457191 (cast light at 285 grains) and seated to 2.55" is a 70+ percent density charge that, according to QuickLoad, develops just under 16K PSI, which sounds like a warm but safe load to me given that Lyman recommends loads developing no more than 17K CUP (approx. 18.7K PSI). The problem I have with Lyman's data is that their recommended maximum of Re7 behind 457122 (322 grains) is 51 grains for just under 16K CUP. To compound things, Re7 has evolved over the years to the point that certain formulations/lots should be treated as different powders. My 30-'06 experience with modern Re7 (5% nitroglycerin) is that it's about 8% faster than the old stuff. Given that, you may be better off using something like 4759 or 4198 in your next Trapdoor.

MJ

[Larry Gibson]

Comparing psi as measured with piezo-transducers or strain gauges to C.U.P is like comparing apples to oranges. There is no comparison, there is no reliable correlation. The SAAMI MAP for TD level 45-70 ammuntion is 28,000 psi. Using 5744 24 - 25 gr under a 500 gr cast will get you there as will 28 - 29 gr under a 400 gr cast bullet. That is not from comparing data nor guestimating with Quickload but from measuring the psi of such loads.

This is not a criticism of using Quickload or of interpreting data but both must be done carefully and judiciously.

Larry Gibson

[John Taylor]

I'd sure like to know what "Factory Loads" were fired in this rifle before it blew a gasket, not to mention who replaced the barrel and with what.

MJ

Factory loads were Remington with jacketed bullet. Barrel steel was much better than original steel and came from a reputable barrel maker. I am the smith that installed the barrel. I have not had the gun in hand to inspect but have gone over the picture and the story from the shooter. I am surprised at all the accusations going around, plugged bore, bad gunsmithing, overload, wrong powder, bad steel, receiver cut down and one gentleman suggested that the sight screw holes were drilled to deep even though the cracks are not close to the screw holes. I am thankful for the comments that actually have some thought put into them. The pressure required to blow up this rifle was more than double the factory load of approximately 28,000PSI, more than likely well over 60,000. This would indicate that detonation had occurred. Being a gunsmith I have seen several guns that have come apart over the years and most you can put your finger on the spot that caused the problem. Even saw one that used factory ammo but the ammo had been stored in direct sunlight for several years in a display case. That one brazed the brass to the bolt face.

[swheeler]

Factory loads were Remington with jacketed bullet. Barrel steel was much better than original steel and came from a reputable barrel maker. I am the smith that installed the barrel. I have not had the gun in hand to inspect but have gone over the picture and the story from the shooter. I am surprised at all the accusations going around, plugged bore, bad gunsmithing, overload, wrong powder, bad steel, receiver cut down and one gentleman suggested that the sight screw holes were drilled to deep even though the cracks are not close to the screw holes. I am thankful for the comments that actually have some thought put into them. The pressure required to blow up this rifle was more than double the factory load of approximately 28,000PSI, more than likely well over 60,000. This would indicate that detonation had occurred. Being a gunsmith I have seen several guns that have come apart over the years and most you can put your finger on the spot that caused the problem. Even saw one that used factory ammo but the ammo had been stored in direct sunlight for several years in a display case. That one brazed the brass to the bolt face.

I don't know anything about accusations but Remington and Sako have both had barrel problems over the years, if it's man made it can happen.

[Col4570]

I have seen two such exploding rifles at my Club.Both where down to the mixing of Powders.On investigation of Reloads two distinctive shapes and colours of powder where evident.It was found to be Rifle and Pistol Powder Mixed.In each case the brass melted and Brazed to the Steel.The two event occured with Modern Bolt Action Rifles.Both rifles where owned by the same person who somehow escaped Major injuries.

[Four Fingers of Death]

Both rifles where owned by the same person who somehow escaped Major injuries.

I'd be wanting to have along talk with that guy with a view to his continued use of the range. Giving the range a bad name.

John Taylor, we were not (well at least I wasn't) trying to lay blame, etc, anywhere, just trying to figure out what went wrong and looking at the barrel fitting are a natural thing to think about without any further information. With your post, we now know the barrel was fitted correctly, so we can rule that out.

Not pointing the finger, just trying to figure out what happened. Thanks for clearing that part up.

No matter what anyone else has found, Black Powder is safe in these old guns and anything else 'may' be safe. An easy decision for me, Black Powder it is.

[gunguychuck]

Looking at the picture the modern steel barrel would have had to split before the receiver ring on the old action let go.the pressure had to be enough to burst a modern steel barrel. It wasn't because of being old that this happened. That receiver ring couldn't have split unless the barrel did first.

[Marlin Junky]

The pressure required to blow up this rifle was more than double the factory load of approximately 28,000PSI, more than likely well over 60,000. This would indicate that detonation had occurred...

There must be some other piece of evidence we're not aware of... it's hard to believe that a 70% density charge of Re7 behind a 285 grain boolit would cause detonation. Makes me wonder when my '06 is going to let go since most of my shooting is with light charges of Re7 (50-60% charge densities behind 180 grain boolits).

MJ

[Four Fingers of Death]

Looking at the picture the modern steel barrel would have had to split before the receiver ring on the old action let go.the pressure had to be enough to burst a modern steel barrel. It wasn't because of being old that this happened. That receiver ring couldn't have split unless the barrel did first.

From what I see, the barrel is intact. It looks to me like the 'whatever happened' popped the barrell off and as the case was exposed, that blew and took the received with it.

Short of a full ballistics lab exam, I guess we will never know.

[oldred]

From what I see, the barrel is intact.

The barrel is intact???? Are we looking at the same picture? Maybe all the pieces are still attached but that thing is ripped open for several inches!

[swheeler]

DeNile ain't just a river in Egypt

[Four Fingers of Death]

Whoops! I didn't see the huge split/crack underneath, sorry about that, discount what I said above!

[swheeler]

Whoops! I didn't see the huge split/crack underneath, sorry about that, discount what I said above!

you got it, looks like a DEFECT IN THE BARREL

[oldred]

Whoops! I didn't see the huge split/crack underneath,


And you don't see that large strip that was ripped loose and is curved up above the barrel?

[scb]

63501

The picture is not great but this appears to be a bulge. In my experience bulges are caused by bore obstructions.

[fouronesix]

Regardless of whether it was a detonation (whatever the definition one wants to use) or extreme high pressure spike, the results may appear identical. A bore obstruction is even more complex because in addition to the effects of high gas pressure, there is a solid to solid kinetic energy component.

It's not uncommon for a barrel to bulge, not burst yet the surrounding receiver or ring to come apart. Most of the time the metallurgy of the barrel is quite a bit different from that of the receiver. The initial pressure may cause a chain reaction of failure of the metal parts attempting to contain it including the brass case. With high pressure events, if the chamber and receiver contain the pressure, the brass case may let go resulting in a huge gas escape event. The two are often confused (and are sometimes difficult to distinguish one from the other) when looking at after-the-fact results. In extreme cases both are at play or with a bore obstruction maybe three things at play.

Hatcher's Notebook has some pretty good material on this stuff- along with a bunch of other information- well worth it.

[Marlin Junky]

Any chance that he got it mixed up with Accurate #7? Looks like a serious overload to me.

RB

Has this been refuted yet? Does your brother normally keep both AA#7 and Re7 around his reloading bench? Granted one does not look the the other, but I have heard of handloaders switching them accidentally.

MJ

[Four Fingers of Death]

And you don't see that large strip that was ripped loose and is curved up above the barrel?

That looked like a bead that had come unstuck at first. Picture is not real bright unfortunately.

I have never had a gun blow, but have been around a few at the range and one out hunting. In every case, the barrel popped off, pretty much in one piece. I thought that this had happened here. This one really blew. I'm glad I wasn't hanging onto it at the time.

[firefly1957]

I use Reloader 7 in my trapdoor but it is less powder than that. How new was the barrel?

[oldred]

That looked like a bead that had come unstuck at first. Picture is not real bright unfortunately.

I have never had a gun blow, but have been around a few at the range and one out hunting. In every case, the barrel popped off, pretty much in one piece. I thought that this had happened here. This one really blew. I'm glad I wasn't hanging onto it at the time.


The only one I have actually seen blow up was an early 1970s vintage Muzzleloader Kentucky rifle replica, I know this is much different than a cartridge rifle but the effects were very dramatic to say the least. The idiot that owned the rifle could not find BP anywhere locally and there was no phony black at the time so this genius broke down a 410 shotshell and loaded it into the muzzle just as it came from the 410 hull. The one major thing he did different, and this may have contributed to the end result, was to put the shot into a small cloth bag before ramming it down the barrel. When he fired the thing it blew it completely in half about 4 to 6 inches in front of the lock and "tuliped" both pieces of the barrel where it separated, basically the exploded ends looked like something from a cartoon blow up! It was very cold that day and he was dressed in heavy clothing plus a heavy canvas-cloth jacket which stopped almost all of the resulting shrapnel (which was mostly wood splinters) but he sustained some injuries to his face and hands but nothing really serious.