Going KABOOM with undercharged loads?

[Bret4207]

HOW is that even possible? Isn't that charge DESIGNED to move that bullet down the barrel? Pressure is raised out of limits when you attempt to ignite a charge to send a bullet down the bore? The bullet in the barrel is a resistance the cartridge is specifically assembled to overcome, isn't it?

Picture yourself sliding a large, heavy object across a floor. You get it moving and then the edge catches a nail sticking up. What happens? You come to sudden stop and the energy you are using to push the object stalls and builds. If you were me you would likely throw your back out right about then too!

Make any sense? A normal burn of the powder results in a relatively smooth pressure curve. An abnormal burn gives you an abnormal pressure spike. Given the right circumstances it can give you problems.

[Bret4207]

Correct.....

I believe guns blow up because folks make mistakes. I just don't believe in detonation as defined by modern magazine writers.

Then why do you doubt the professional ballisticians and powder company engineers that use sensitive laboratory grade test equipment to research this stuff that say, "DON'T DO IT"? I'm as much of a cynic when it comes to wives tales as anyone. But calling an event a double charge when it wasn't is just being stubborn.

[felix]

Larry, the government has full control of definitions. So be it. My primers just burn fast according to the licensing ops of the government. I'm lucky enough to be allowed to store them. The earth is flat by government decree. ... felix

[Swampman]

Then why do you doubt the professional ballisticians and powder company engineers that use sensitive laboratory grade test equipment to research this stuff that say, "DON'T DO IT"? I'm as much of a cynic when it comes to wives tales as anyone. But calling an event a double charge when it wasn't is just being stubborn.

It may not be a double charge but it wasn't detonation either. The reason ballisticians and engineers say don't do it is unrelated to detonation. It has to do with squib loads that can lodge a bullet in the barrel.

[stubshaft]

I have been handloading since 1967 and have shot almost every shooting game there is from smallbore 4 position, highpower, trap, skeet, benchrest, ipsc, ppc, pins and of course hunting. I have expended countless thousands of reloaded rounds in these endeavors and have not witnessed nor have met anyone who has actually been a witness to an actual SEE event. I have seen many guns with split barrels, blown out topstraps, slides and barrels destroyed, bulges and ringed chambers which were caused by overloads, firing the wrong cartridge, using some form of dacron/kapok wad, using powder with the wrong burning rate (garands).

Is there such a thing as SEE maybe, but I am not going to lose sleep over it.

[Bret4207]

It may not be a double charge but it wasn't detonation either. The reason ballisticians and engineers say don't do it is unrelated to detonation. It has to do with squib loads that can lodge a bullet in the barrel.

Wow, okay Mr. Stubborn, so the tests conducted in a lab where the ballisticians and engineer types were using a pressure test barrel are flawed because there was a bore obstruction froma previously fired squib? And, you are sure of this how?

Sorry man, but just because you don't want to believe something didn't happen doesn't it didn't. There were a whole lot of people that believed Bill Clinton when he said "I did not have relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". They were wrong too.

[MBTcustom]

If I ever get my hands on a ohler shooting lab, I swear with my hand on the Bible I am going to test this with a sacrificial rifle (amongst other things of interest like how much pressure It realy takes to blow up a Rem 700 action) Curiosity is killing me but without the $6000 dollar lab it is anybodies guess what is actually happening.
Personally, I believe SEE is a real thing and that it happens under specific conditions. It seems logical. In the mean time, Anybody got an Ohler lab for sale cheap?

[rasto]

Swampman I wrote you my experience and I can guarantee you that no double charge caused the problem.
I was making them one by one so no possibility of mistake.

[Larry Gibson]

goodsteel

I have the Oehler Personal Ballistics Lab and SEE is not a "guess". SEE is real regardless that some have not personallu observed it or whether some just may not believe it.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Larry, the government has full control of definitions. So be it. My primers just burn fast according to the licensing ops of the government. I'm lucky enough to be allowed to store them. The earth is flat by government decree. ... felix

felix

I'm not trying to change your opinion on whether progressive powders "burn" or "detonate" but consider this; gun cotton and dynomite, 2 explosives, were both tried in guns. Neither was successfull because the detonations could not be adequately controlled. Progressive burning powders on the other hand are quite controllable because they do not "explode" or "detonate".

Larry Gibson

[Reload3006]

with the best laid plans there is enough to go wrong with out inviting disaster. For me I choose to stay in the published guide lines of tested loads from reputable sources. If one wants to play mad scientist and go kill himself or maim someone else after fair warning from countless sources then I guess that is Darwinism at its finest. When you argue with and Idiot you have 2 Idiots arguing. All I can say to anyone who doubts the powder manufacturers SAMMI and countless other Labs who have all reported the SEE phenomena then I suggest they go and kill themselves what more can be done.
What really bothers me the most is a young inexperienced reloader with little understanding reading this foolhardy advice and they go out and blow themselves up.

[felix]

That's mo'betta', Larry! It's the definition/measurement of time that screws up most scientific endeavors. We don't have the required equipment to measure small durations/distances between two points in time/space. Consider the problems of folks like us using ordinary chronographs! Those sensors are most critical in such apparatus. ... felix

[altitude_19]

countless other Labs who have all reported the SEE phenomena

Funny how I still haven't seen you name one of these "countless" labs.

[altitude_19]

SEE is real regardless that some have not personallu observed it or whether some just may not believe it.

Personal experience has no bearing on a discussion geared toward discovery of laboratory-generated evidence. PLEASE stop trying to inject personal experience into the mix (unless you've recently video taped yourself destroying a rifle with an intentionally downloaded cartridge that was assembled in front of the camera, that is).

[altitude_19]

Wow, okay Mr. Stubborn, so the tests conducted in a lab where the ballisticians and engineer types were using a pressure test barrel are flawed because there was a bore obstruction froma previously fired squib?

WHAT #$%&^ LABORATORY???!!!! All I want is to find that laboratory! You seem to know so tell me! MY KINGDOM FOR THAT LABORATORY'S/BALLISTICIAN'S NAME!!!!
Seriously, generalities are less than helpful. Steer clear of 'em, k?

[waksupi]

Does it help that I am the CEO for the Rocky Mountain Ballistics Research Laboratory?

Did you know that Lyman has this site listed for reference?

By the way, your attitude needs a bit of adjustment. Cool it down.

[altitude_19]

Does it help that I am the CEO for the Rocky Mountain Ballistics Research Laboratory?

Only if you've replicated this condition in the lab. Have you?

Cool it down.

Noted. Been on night shift too long. My people skills are suffering.

[1hole]

"countless other Labs who have all reported the SEE phenomena

Funny how I still haven't seen you name one of these "countless" labs. "

Maybe because it's too few labs to be counted?

A lot of labs are reported to have tried to duplicate it but I know of none who have been able to do so. Not saying such a KABOOM is impossible but am saying that while we can prove a positive, it IS impossible to 'prove' a negative. I mean, we can prove something has occured but we can't possibly prove something has never occured in the course of human history.

[MBTcustom]

Blowing up a firearm on camera doesn't prove anything either. That's why I mentioned that I would like to do such a thing just to see what the breaking point is. I honestly suspect that most modern firearms can take pressures in great excess of what most of us think of.
I think it is very possible that SEE could happen and be chalked up to heavy powder charge etc etc.
I believe it makes sense. Saw dust is not an explosive substance but if it is suspended in the air, it can flash (ie burn much more quickly). (You can test this for yourself by drizzling fine sawdust over a flame. It is impressive.) I think that part of the problem with the lab tests, could be that the test guns are so rigid. If you slam a cartridge in a gun and drop that gun onto a sand bag and take a shot in short order, the vibrations in the barrel, might be enough to get the powder in the case to "float" like the sawdust. Its just a theory of mine, but I wonder, because no lab would duplicate that specific characteristic of a sporting firearm in their test gun.
altitude_19, I'm a little confused by your insistence on laboratory tests. A laboratory is nothing more than a controlled environment. For the purpose of this test, the only environment that needs to be controlled is what is in-between the primer and the crown of the muzzle. What difference does it make to that environment, if the guy making the test was wearing a white coat or a pair of overalls? None.
If the test was only able to be replicated within a specific temperature range, you would take issue with the results right? So the fancy temperature controlled environment of a lab is of no use. Might as well be in a back yard. In fact it would add credence to the theory if it could be replicated in the field every time, you refuse to acknowledge their experience and insight.
You insist on an action being blown up on camera. That sir, is the most ridiculousness, unscientific, requirement I have heard of. The theory states that a rise in pressure is detectable, not that it blows up guns. I held a savage 30-30 the other day, that had only one locking lug. There is no way that it will handle the same pressure that a Weatherby bolt gun will.
At the end of the day this will be in the form of a pressure reading made by someone with testing equipment and you will have to take their word for it. Even when it has been revealed to you what many of the rest of us already know, that you have been talking to the experts the entire time, you refuse to acknowledge their experience and insight.

Personal experience has no bearing on a discussion geared toward discovery of laboratory-generated evidence.

Really, is that so? Why would you trust the experience of a laboratory technician over that of these veteran re-loaders? Experience is everything! It just needs to be well documented by an unbiased source who Knows what he or she is doing. S.E.E. could kill the guy who experiences it two inches from his face in a lightweight testing apparatus. That naturally lends itself to unbiased opinion.
Frankly, your disregard for the opinions expressed here is insulting. Almost everyone here is either an expert, or is working on it.
However, I think that new scientific experimentation is in order.
Please forgive my hard words and flame me if you must.
I know I'm being abrasive but your arguments got my goat something fierce because you are asking for scientific proof but you are not being scientific or cordial with the way you ask for it.
I take issue when people think that a man in his garage cant be just as certain of his findings as a man in a Lab, even though the guy in the lab is able to make a faulty assumption just as easily as the guy in the garage. I work for a company that makes space hardware, and you would not believe the stupid things I have seen.
Why dont you do some research of your own and post your findings for the edification of castbooliteers?

[MBTcustom]

Check out the plots on this page. They show a very clear second pressure signiture after the first one. If that happened in a barrel you would have kaboom......maybe.
http://shootingsoftware.com/pressure.htm
Pay special attention to "Nosler 7 STW factory load" read the explanation to the side of the picture, scroll down and see ".223 Rem- 40gr V Max Moly".
Now remember, S.E.E. this is just a myth. Totally unreproducible in laboratory tests.