Disaster - blew up a '58 Remmy conversion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beau have you looked to see if the bullets cleared the barrel? I would be interested to know if there is 2 bullets in it.

I shoot Highpower rifle and occiasionally in the rapid fire strings someone will fire a primer on a case with no powder. Sometimes the primer will push the bullet into the barrel. When the next shot is fired it blows up the rifle.

It is a mistake to clear the rifle and load the next round without making sure the barrel is empty.
 
driftwood !when loading commercial ammo

it is the way ammo co.s check the finished product by weight,for instance each 41 long colt in a vintage (100 YRS OLD)box weighs 276 grains exactly all 50 cartridges! geese! no wonder people are blowing up their revolvers:eek:they cant follow a cartridge recipe.when i was a kid i loaded for the royal oak police shooting team,they taught me this basic saftey measure it works.........
 
Last edited:
I use factory loads, from c'boy loads to FMJs, in my Uberti '58s/Taylor's R&D conversions, and have had no issues. (I don't shoot +P's in them.)

Looking forward to hearing from the OP on what he finds out.
 
it is the way ammo co.s check the finished product by weight,for instance each 41 long colt in a vintage (100 YRS OLD)box weighs 276 grains exactly all 50 cartridges! geese! no wonder people are blowin up their revolvers

Apples and Oranges.

100 years ago 41 Colt would have been loaded with Black Powder. Black Powder is not as sensitive to minor differences in powder charges. 2 or 3 grains difference when there is maybe 35 grains of powder in the case is not significant enough to make any difference in a factory Black Powder load. So even if the bullets varied by 1 or 2 grains from bullet to bullet, it would have taken a big error in powder, maybe 10 grains or so, before it made any significant safety difference in the load.

A whole lot different than trying to detect 1 or 2 grains of variation of Bullseye that might be masked by 1 or 2 grains of variation of bullet weight. One or two grains of variation with some Smokeless powders could put you right into the danger zone.
 
Exactly.

The powder in your 100 year old .41 Colt ammo is black power, and they used a compressed charge of it in every round of it.

So weighing it would be pretty meaningless unless the whole BP charge was missing.

They couldn't have put too much in one because it couldn't fit and still get a bullet in the case.

rc
 
Driftwood, I can see by your photos the bulge in that loaded .45 Colt round, but that is a straight wall case, both myself and this friend were shooting bottle neck cartridges, him 44-40 and myself 32-20 and there was no bulge to be seen. Once the first bullet gets past the neck/shoulder it would easily drop in, and depending on the volume of the powder charge in the case and bullet size/weight, would tell how much that powder would be compressed. Anyway I couldn't feel a difference when pulling the handle on my press when I loaded that double bullet round. LM
 
Failure Modes; It's common street wisdom that the cylinder notches are the weak point in a cylinder. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, the street wisdom is wrong. In the typical cylinder blow up it is the web that fails first. (I’m not doubting the Ruger story above, there is always the exception, and you will note the cylinder has a rather thick web for the type.) This has been shown by forensic analysis. Also, when the blown out part(s) can be found, it’s often the case that the entire outer wall of the blown out chamber will be intact with half the wall of the adjacent chambers still attached.

Years ago S&W conducted an eye opening experiment with a 357 N frame. The first chamber had the entire outer wall ground down flat and even with the bottom of the notch. The second chamber had a slot cut through the wall the entire length of the chamber. On firing both chambers nothing came unglued. The next step was to install a barrel with NO bore! A normal chamber was fired behind this and still nothing came unglued.

The super duper revolvers in 454 Casull, 450 S&W, 500 S&W et al have five chambers not to get away from the cylinder notch but to have a thicker web. It’s a simple trick with a six holer to move the notches away from the center of the chamber wall, more than one make of revolver does so.
 
I am glad to hear that those conversion cylinders are proof tested, but wonder if that is true of all the makers. In fact, not all guns made in the US are proof tested to European proof standards. A rep for one of the major 1911 clone makers told me they "proof tested" with one CorBon round. But CorBons are not proof loads so the test was useless and "proved" nothing. In the absence of a U.S. proof law (and I am NOT plugging for such) I don't see how anyone can be sure even guns are proved, let alone spare or conversion cylinders.

Jim
 
I have shot thousands of 45 Colt rounds with the same powder charge but with a 255 gr. bullet for years without any problems. IMHO you have a classic double charge withis very easy in that hugh 45 Colt case.

But you are in tall company. Seems a fellar named Elmer Keith blew up a Colt SAA in 45 Colt with too heavy of load celebrating New Years many years ago. Elmers solution was to switch to the 44 Special.
 
I am glad to hear that those conversion cylinders are proof tested, but wonder if that is true of all the makers. In fact, not all guns made in the US are proof tested to European proof standards. A rep for one of the major 1911 clone makers told me they "proof tested" with one CorBon round. But CorBons are not proof loads so the test was useless and "proved" nothing. In the absence of a U.S. proof law (and I am NOT plugging for such) I don't see how anyone can be sure even guns are proved, let alone spare or conversion cylinders.

Jim

There are only two makers.

Taylors now has exclusive rights for the R&D cylinders. That is the one that is being shown here.

The only other maker is Kirst.

http://www.kirstkonverter.com/
 
Geez! a dirty lil chill went up my back when I looked at the pics of the OPs revolver.
Glad you didnt get hurt. Better days ahead in 2012 for you
 
I've been loading and reloading since I was 16, and at age 59, I have a bit of experience under my belt, along with a degree in engineering. With that in mind, I've been thinking and talking to others about this, and there are veral possible causes. The first possible cause is an accidental over charge of powder. I have a powder check die on both of my Dillon 650XLs, but a distraction could have caused me to miss the high pitched electronic tone. When in our modern lives are we 100% free of distraction? The barrel was clear, both before and after the shot, so obstruction is out as the factor. Another cause could be metal failure in the conversion cylinder; it was the first round that was fired through it. The cylinder is made from 4140 steel, and the cap assembly is made from 4150, and they are proof tested to SAAMI standards for standard velocity ammunition. Another is the curious, but not well defined, occurrence of a small powder charge being ignited in a large cartridge case, somehow causing a detonation, rather than the normal progressive burning of smokeless powder; blowing up the piece. Many respected gun writers, from Charles "Skeeter" Skelton to Mike Venturino, have tried to come up with an answer for this, and failed. This remains an unsubstantiated event, and should only be considered when all other possible causes are relegated to the trash bin. To the double bullet theory; I have to feed my bullets one at a time, by hand, in my 650XL progressive reloading machine, and for one cartridge to end up with two bullets would mean an empty case goes by the crimp die and falls into the tray, scattering powder everywhere; that did not happen. The bullets that I use come from Bear Creek Supply and are molybdenum disulphide coated, so there is no wax lube to build up to trap a slug. I spoke to the folks at Taylor's today and the conversion cylinders are not warrantied when used with reloaded ammunition, which if you read the fine print, you will find in the flyers included with guns from many major makers. Also, Taylor's does proof the cylinders with SAAMI .45 Colt proof loads, so the misconception that these cylinders are only safe with black powder it just that, a misconception. Smokeless powder is built on two compounds, nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine. Some powders use one compound and are called "single based", others use both compounds and are called "double based". Smokeless powders has been around for well over a century and is safe when used properly. Abandoning smokeless powder because nitroglycerine is explosive, in the pure state, is simply silly. We might as well give up gasoline powered automobiles, as gasoline is flammable in the liquid state, and explosive as a vapor. Black powder is an explosive, and cannot be shipped in any way other than by truck. I have seen other guns blown up in my time. They were all muzzeloaders, using black powder. Some guys just think that a gun barrel can be filled with BP, a ball seated (but not completely on the powder), and that it's all good. Nothing can be more wrong. This leads to split barrels and chunks of the breech flying in all directions. I was well along to becoming a member of the American Mountain Men, the hard corps pre-1840 brigade, until I was told I'd have to lose my big safety eyeglasses and trade for watch crystal versions. :banghead:
When it comes down to it, the most likely cause, by Occam's law (that being the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false) is that somewhere I screwed up; operator or "Pilot" error. Anyway it goes, I'm out a pistol and cylinder, which is trivial compared to losing an eye or having to have my trigger finger sewn back on. I'll take Harry Truman's position and say, "the buck stops here", with me, and be glad there was nothing wounded other than replaceable steel.:)
 
Jeez, I glad I'm poor and could only afford a single stage press. As far as weighing the bullets you couldn't tell a few grains of powder difference but you sure could tell with two bullets. Also seems you could eyeball a round with two bullets in the case.
 
Glad you are OK! Also glad it happened while you were alone! Maybe another way to look at it is, since it happened AFTER midnight (??) it means that your 2012 is gonna be a very lucky year for you....because is started out very lucky.......(yeah, I know......I'm a glass-is-half-full kinda guy!)
 
I don't think anyone else has mentioned this yet so here goes.

I have heard, well read, of a way in which small loads of powder in very large cases can cause the gas pressure created to be high enough to destroy a gun. Here is the trick.

Normally, when a cartridge is laying flat the flash hole in the rear is completely covered by the powder so when ignited it burns from the rear to the front. However, is the powder charge is small enough when the cartridge is laid flat and shaken the powder does not cover the flash hole. So when the primer ignites the powder it ignites both the front, rear and in between all at the same time. The powder burns much faster than normal and creates a pressure spike that can destroy a gun.

Perhaps that is what happened?
 
There's nothing at all wrong with a progressive press. But it does show that it's good to keep the old eyes awake and watching for anything amiss. For example a case coming out of the bullet seating die without a bullet in the nose of it.

I've had to stop and clean out the wax buildup from loading cast bullets fairly regularly. But not for pulling the bullet back out. Instead they start seatting too deeply because the SWC shape noses pack the lube/wax into he tip of the seating die with no room to go elsewhere. So I find them sitting deeper every 300 to 400 rounds or so.

I don't use a bullet feeder either. Just one hand puts the empty case into the first position and the other sits a bullet in the mouth of the case at the seating die.

Actually there's something to be said for using a multi station progressive. With something like a Dillon 650 with the 5 stations or the 1050 with 7(?) stations one could set up measurement fingers that test for the powder charge being either too low or too much as well as even having a stage that tests for the lack of a bullet and sound an alarm if things aren't right.
 
Is it just the angle of the photo or where the cylinders gave compared to the lower ones (with the cartridges intact) but the top walls look really thin vs wall on bottom
 
I'm just curious, did you check your barrel so see if anything is stuck in it? Any damage that looks like it was not clear or that when the charge went off the bullet did not travel down the barrel?

Sorry about your gun, but I'm glad you're ok.
 
Jim K said:
I wonder 1) what metal is used in making those conversion cylinders, and 2) what (if any) proof testing they are subjected to? I sort of suspect the answers are 1) the cheapest, and 2) none. The maker probably figures they will be fired with black powder loads since the gun was designed as a percussion revolver.
Wrong.

The Taylor conversion comes from Ken Howell. They have been around for a good many years and are very popular. They are well machined, from high-grade steel (I don't know which alloy), but they do come with a caution that they are not designed for full-power commercial .45 Colt loads, only for "cowboy" loads. I had one a decade or so ago, I shot it a bunch using commercially-available cowboy loads, and I never had a problem.
 
The Taylor conversion comes from Ken Howell. They have been around for a good many years and are very popular. They are well machined, from high-grade steel (I don't know which alloy), but they do come with a caution that they are not designed for full-power commercial .45 Colt loads, only for "cowboy" loads. I had one a decade or so ago, I shot it a bunch using commercially-available cowboy loads, and I never had a problem.

It's my understanding that the conversion cylinders are proofed (or designed to be proofed absent a proof law) for standard .45 colt loads. The reason the manufacturers suggest using cowboy ammo is that the black powder revolvers these are used in are not proofed for smokeless. Even the steel framed guns likely won't hold up forever.
 
Driftwood Johnson said:
There are only two makers.

Taylors now has exclusive rights for the R&D cylinders. That is the one that is being shown here.

The only other maker is Kirst.


Unless something changed just recently Taylors does not have exclusive rights for the cylinders manufactured by Howell Old West Conversions. You can find these cylinders from many sources. MidwayUSA in one such source. Contrary to what some folks believe, Taylors is not a manufacturer. They are an importer, distributor, and retailer. Further the name R&D is an outdated name for a manufacturer. The designer, Kenny Howell, changed the name of his company from R&D to Howell Old West Conversions a couple of years ago. My point is that there isn't such thing as a Taylor's R&D conversion cylinder...only conversion cylinders made by either Howell or Kirst.

Both the Kirst and Howell conversion cylinders are very high quality products. The metallurgy is better than that found on most of the imported Italian revolvers that the cylinders are used in. I seriously doubt the implication from one or more posters that the conversion cylinder failed to operate within reasonable and manufacturing specs.

I congratulate the OP for owning up to this issue. Not only did he do a great service to the rest of the community by sharing his experience he has fostered education on issues that should be of concern when reloading.

To the OP...just curious how many times you successfully fired your conversion in the past prior to the KB? Is it possible you grabbed the wrong powder when you did the reload? It would seem that your process was on target but what about the components?

p.s. I shot my Ruger Old Army for New Years. I loaded it up with BP and only plugged the chambers with felt wads. Made for a nice boom and lots of smoke and safe without a projectile. Sadly, there was an incidence during the holiday where some idiot shot his gun in the air and some kid a couple of miles away was hit in the head.
 
Jeez, I glad I'm poor and could only afford a single stage press. As far as weighing the bullets you couldn't tell a few grains of powder difference but you sure could tell with two bullets. Also seems you could eyeball a round with two bullets in the case.

IMHO, the progressive press is safer than a single stage. I don't have a bullet feeder on my progressives, have to set the bullet each throw, but still, how do you MISS a case with no bullet when you're loading? You'd have to be drunk or asleep. It's much harder to get a double charge with a progressive, though an empty case is possible. The primer can fire, lodge a bullet in the barrel, then the next one has a barrel obstruction. Not a good thing. Firearms and reloading suffers no fools, though. Be safe, have safe practices, and loading on single stage or progressive is a safe hobby. Same can be said for shooting any firearms, of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top