38 special hangfire

[Y-T71]

OAL WAS THE PROBLEM!!!

The initial spark from the primer flashed over the forward placed powder charge causing delayed ignition. The lack of firing pin hit was the result of the firing pin/hammer rebounding before the ignition allowing internal pressure to flatten the pin mark.

I’ve seen it before with deteriorated powder. In old .38 cartridges.

Ha! Funny you should mention this.

I brought up what you've described (S.E.E.: Secondary Explosive Effect) in a thread on another forum recently as a point of discussion only, not proof of a incident being discussed there, and was chastised for bringing up an "old wives tale"; a phenomenon often repeated but never proven (for the record, it does NOT appear that it's ever been proven under laboratory conditions)

Like I said on that forum, I've been around long enough to know to "never say never".

Without knowing all the specifics of our OP's particular load, I think it's a bit premature to say that's what happened.

Personally, I think you would still see some kind of evidence that the primer was struck by the firing pin.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Ha! Funny you should mention this.

I brought up what you've described (S.E.E.: Secondary Explosive Effect) in a thread on another forum recently as a point of discussion only, not proof of a incident being discussed there, and was chastised for bringing up an "old wives tale"; a phenomenon often repeated but never proven (for the record, it does NOT appear that it's ever been proven under laboratory conditions)

Like I said on that forum, I've been around long enough to know to "never say never".

Without knowing all the specifics of our OP's particular load, I think it's a bit premature to say that's what happened.

Personally, I think you would still see some kind of evidence that the primer was struck by the firing pin.

Well, taking one of the "hung" cartridges apart and examining the primer would be some indication. It's burnt or not. Still not sure how any of this qualifies as a "hang fire". According to what I've been able to decipher from @BJung posts, these are FAILURES to fire. No evidence of a primer strike means a couple of possibilities - primer seated wrong, out of time, if it's a hammer-nose firing pin it could be catching on the primer hole and not going all the way (but that's a pretty freaky occurrence, frankly). Basically, with no pix and no more info from the OP, this is all just wasted bytes.

 

[GooseGestapo]

Ha! Funny you should mention this.

I brought up what you've described (S.E.E.: Secondary Explosive Effect) in a thread on another forum recently as a point of discussion only, not proof of a incident being discussed there, and was chastised for bringing up an "old wives tale"; a phenomenon often repeated but never proven (for the record, it does NOT appear that it's ever been proven under laboratory conditions)

Like I said on that forum, I've been around long enough to know to "never say never".

Without knowing all the specifics of our OP's particular load, I think it's a bit premature to say that's what happened.

Personally, I think you would still see some kind of evidence that the primer was struck by the firing pin.

NOT SEE! SEE is an unproven hypothesis. Hang fires are a well documented phenomenon. Typically from weakened primers or deteriorated powder.
Deteriorated powder tends to clump. In the instance of the OP, a long seated wadcutters creates a larger amount of space in the cartridge. Lowering the muzzle and insertion of cartridges orients the powder forward in the cartridge against the base of the bullet. This increase in distance decreases the flame exposure of the powder. Due to deterrent coatings of powder, this can and WILL cause weak ignition AND HANGFIRES.

Again, I’ve seen this in development and chronographing of .38 ammo. There is a reason for MINIMUM load data being published with certain powders. H110/296 is a KNOWN culprit.
Don’t believe me, ask the ballisticians at Hodgdon...

 

[BJung]

NOT SEE! SEE is an unproven hypothesis. Hang fires are a well documented phenomenon. Typically from weakened primers or deteriorated powder.
Deteriorated powder tends to clump. In the instance of the OP, a long seated wadcutters creates a larger amount of space in the cartridge. Lowering the muzzle and insertion of cartridges orients the powder forward in the cartridge against the base of the bullet. This increase in distance decreases the flame exposure of the powder. Due to deterrent coatings of powder, this can and WILL cause weak ignition AND HANGFIRES.

Again, I’ve seen this in development and chronographing of .38 ammo. There is a reason for MINIMUM load data being published with certain powders. H110/296 is a KNOWN culprit.
Don’t believe me, ask the ballisticians at Hodgdon...

There was not mark on the primers. The charge was 3.1gr BE for the extended wadcutters. The OAL is the same as a .357 case with a wadcutter. With test loads, I load 6 testloads, otherwise, I'd orient my cylinder so the loaded chamber is the next to be lined up with barrel.

 

[GooseGestapo]

Are we talking misfires or hangfires?
If the gun fired, with a delay, that’s a “hangfire”,
no bang! Is a misfire.
Which is it?

No BANG! No mark on the primer is a gun problem.
Cartridge fires, with a delay, no mark on the primer is a hangfire. Ammo problem.

 

[JJFitch]

I thought I had a hangfire. My testloads were .38 special wadcutters seated to the second gas groove so the OAL would be the same as a .357 with a .38 wadcutter. So, at the range, I shot my testloads but two were hangfires. I didn't even look at them and later discovered at home that the firing pin did not hit the primer. Can the OAL of a .38 too long that the firing pin would not hit it? I was able to close my cylinder.

What is your definition of a hang fire?

Definition of a Hang Fire: "A "hang fire" occurs when there is an unexpected delay between triggering the firearm and propellant ignition. The firing pin or hammer falls after pulling the trigger, but the gun does not shoot immediately".

Smiles,