Another reason to load your own

[Edarnold]

In the November American Rifleman, on page 106, an example of why 'factory load' doesn't always mean safe. The author had been test firing the new Remington 783 for accuracy and function. After trying two types of .30-06 factory loads, he switched to a third, 180gr. Factory loading. On the first shot, he felt a little more recoil than previously, and saw gas leaking out around the action "like it was on fire". Pounding the bolt open revealed a blown out primer and the case rim ripped off by the extractor. Analysis suggested the pressure was in excess of 100,000psi.

Once again, a factory load. Nothing I have ever loaded has gone so totally off the rails. Luckily, this gun is very strong and handles gas very well. I shudder to think what would have happened with a lesser design.

So, when somebody tells you they'd never use hand loads for "serious" use because you can always depend on the factory stuff, try to be polite and not laugh in their face. Factory quality seems to be dropping, the ammo recalls will keep happening, and if you are one of the first to find the defective rounds there won't be a warning.

 

[Mike1234567]

What ammo was it?

 

[Ifishsum]

I saw that article - author does not mention the brand of ammo, just that he sent it back to the mfgr for analysis.

 

[CMV]

I very recently bought a box of Hornady 300 Whisper w/ 110 gr VMax bullets. Factory ammo. Didn't kaboom or anything, but WAY too hot

 

[moxie]

Personally, I think that is a bogus way of writing a review.

If the author isn't willing to report EVERYTHING that happened during a review, then the review shouldn't be published. It could be held pending report back from the ammo maker, then a complete review. But the way it was done in the latest American Rifleman is just lame.

 

[Kachok]

Vastly overpressure, blown primer $20 says it was either Winchester or Federal, those are the only brands I have ever seen do that.

 

[PJSprog]

If the author isn't willing to report EVERYTHING that happened during a review, then the review shouldn't be published.

Sadly, that's just the way commercial gun publications work, even American Rifleman. Too much of their revenue depends on ads purchased by the manufacturers for them to publish reviews bashing their products.

Go back over the last few decades and try to count the number of A.R. reviews that ended with any manner of "we don't recommend using this product." They'll criticize minor details, but never flat out call something bad. The truly bad stuff just never gets published (like the outcome of this ammo issue).

 

[Muddydogs]

I would say that way more damage has been done with reloads then factory ammo over the years. Guys are always saying that reloaders make better ammo and some do but for the most part guys are stuffing bullets on top of a powder charge and shooting it with little thought on load development. I see evidence of this every day just reading a couple forums that deal with reloading.
Millions of rounds are produced by ammo manufacture’s every year with very little mishaps.

 

[Potatohead]

Sadly, that's just the way commercial gun publications work, even American Rifleman. Too much of their revenue depends on ads purchased by the manufacturers for them to publish reviews bashing their products.

Go back over the last few decades and try to count the number of A.R. reviews that ended with any manner of "we don't recommend using this product." They'll criticize minor details, but never flat out call something bad. The truly bad stuff just never gets published (like the outcome of this ammo issue).

Very true. Is it it a good idea to bite the hand that feeds you though? I say bite it if your in the review business. Somebody else will buy space and send you free samples.

 

[kerreckt]

Really, all this "review" did was remind me that no one/nothing is infallible or perfect. That is something I know, anyway. I never believed there wasn't any problem with factory loads. I just knew that I never heard about it. Just like the millions of other things I don't hear about. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This doesn't condemn all factory ammo. It does mean that I will continue to exercise all the caution and care I am capable of when loading my ammo. My $0.02.

 

[JRWhit]

I would say that way more damage has been done with reloads then factory ammo over the years. Guys are always saying that reloaders make better ammo and some do but for the most part guys are stuffing bullets on top of a powder charge and shooting it with little thought on load development. I see evidence of this every day just reading a couple forums that deal with reloading.
Millions of rounds are produced by ammo manufacture’s every year with very little mishaps.

My first experience around a reloader was at an indoor range. He wS shooting .357 magnum. Would have thought he was shooting 4 different hand guns from the meriod of different volumed reports coming from that revolver. Every once in a while he would fire one that would set him back a bit. Made me do a lot of reading before I started reloading.

 

[Springfield0612]

I've had one WWB .45 ACP that had a flipped primer. I had a S&B 9mm factory round that had no powder in it, luckily the primer wouldn't ignite either. My wife tried firing it with the Taurus PT709 slim, and each trigger pull just went click...
Got home put it in the kinetic bullet puller. Not a flake of powder! Factory, hahaha!

 

[MCMXI]

Analysis suggested the pressure was in excess of 100,000psi.

Avg min and avg max proof load pressures for the .30-06 Sprg are 80ksi and 86ksi respectively. I don't know what "analysis" suggested 100ksi but clearly that would be way over proof pressure.

 

[Old Shooter]

If the author could not or would not mention the name of the manufacturer, in my view it never happened and was only in the magazine for entertainment purposes.

Otherwise what is it, just a "scare" story?

 

[GaryL]

author does not mention the brand of ammo, just that he sent it back to the mfgr for analysis.

Unfortunately, it only takes one bad round to cause a problem. The rest of the box may not prove anything.

These days I'd be more worried about someone in the factory purposely making bad rounds. God knows there's enough people willing to do anything to either prove a point or get 'back' at someone for a real or imagined wrong. As much as it seems overly intrusive, I'd put surveillance cameras everywhere and would be isolating and automating the snot out of every possible step in the process to make it near impossible for someone to mess it up.