Bottleneck Rifle - Any confirmed rifle damage from a published max load?

[sirgilligan]

Has there ever been any confirmed rifle damage from using a published max load?

Many have seen the variations in max load data from the common published hand loading books.

If you load a cartridge with the max powder for a specific bullet and make the cartridge the overall length that the manual says, has anyone ever damaged their rifle?

Or, is the extent of it that someone has seen flattened, pierced, or blown primers, a sticky bolt, etc.?

Trust me, I am not advocating going to max loads without working your way to it, I am just thinking that there is the idea hanging around in the shadows that you can blow the lugs off your bolt, blow the mag out the bottom, or send the bolt back into your eye, and I want to know if it has ever happened.

 

[Wil Terry]

YES !!!
HELLESBELLES, we have seen rifles wrecked with factory ammunition.
Pistols too.
And so it goes...

 

[243winxb]

flattened, pierced, or blown primers, a sticky bolt,*

The Speer reloading manual number 8 will produce high pressure signs* using there maximum loads in some cartridges. Many Kabooms, for many different reasons here > http://s338.photobucket.com/user/joe1944usa/library/Firearms%20%20and%20%20Reloading/KABOOM

 

[Gtscotty]

YES !!!
HELLESBELLES, we have seen rifles wrecked with factory ammunition.
Pistols too.
And so it goes...

Modern rifles wrecked by appropriate, non-defective factory ammunition? The whole reason we have precise pressure limits and cartridge specs is to keep this kind of thing from happening. Most modern guns should have a healthy safety factor built in. I would be really surprised if there were any modern instances of this happening where neither the rifle nor ammunition was defective.

I find the OPs question interesting, I personally have never heard of a non-defective rifle being blown up by a book load, but then again I'm sure there are some old timers on here that have seen way more than me. Should be interesting to see if anyone's done it.

 

[Blue68f100]

Yes, That's one of the reasons we see recalls on ammo from time to time.

I had a friend just earlier this year had a KBOOM with factory 9mm ammo in a Glock.

 

[tcoz]

Search the literature and you'll see plenty of examples of factory ammo blowing up guns and maybe even more with "published" max loads.

 

[Sunray]

Ever heard of a bullet or powder maker being sued for publishing unsafe data? Never seen nor heard of any non-defective rifle being damaged by a max load either.
"...flattened, pierced, or blown primers, a sticky bolt, etc.?..." Indicates an excessively over max load or bad headspace.
"...the variations in max load data..." Said data applies to the rifle/universal receiver, the powder lot and other components listed as being used in the tests only. All manuals will vary a bit. And they'll vary over time. IMR4227 max load for a 110 .30 Carbine used to be15.0. It's 14.5 now.

 

[boom boom]

A lot of old loads have not been measured with modern pressure testing equipment which means that the maximum loads might be optimistic. The old copper crusher or lead crusher measurement did not take into account pressure spikes that more modern piezoelectric measures can. Thus, under the right conditions for example, hot temperatures, a very tight chamber, an oily or greasy cartridge, wrong primers used, old powder not stored correctly, powders that generates unpredictable spikes in pressure, etc. using a maximum load COULD generate a kaboom type event. It might also reveal a hidden flaw in your rifle's chamber or barrel as well.

If you take a look at the luckygunner lab where they examine firing thousands of rounds of various .223 ammo, you will find significant differences even in factory type ammo in pressure generated. For example, they found federal .223 generated an early spike in pressure but was fairly consistent, some of the other .223 generated different peak pressures and at a maximum pressure curve slightly later than the federal ammo. Other ammo also generated different variability in pressure generated.

It is a fascinating subject but unfortunately the expense of pressure testing equipment and the wherewithal to test nearly identical weapons with statistically significant number of rounds to generate generalizable hypotheses leaves any analysis of this to professionals. All most amateurs can do is rely on good loading data or using a reputable company's ammunition, using a chronograph, having a gunsmith checkup on the rifle from time to time, observing pressure warning signs when firing, using good reloading components, etc. to reduce the probability of a kaboom event to a manageable size.

BTW, one other good luckygunner lab report dealt with protective eyewear--it was pretty sobering how even really expensive protective eyewear failed while some reasonably priced stuff did pretty well. I learned that my reliance on my polycarbonate lenses in my prescription glasses gave scant protection.

Eyes, ears, fingers, and of course lives, are not replaceable so be careful out there.

 

[sirgilligan]

It seems that most agree there is a possibility that a catastrophic failure could occur. A duck could fall out of the sky right now, look behind you and see if one did.
Let me put some more context to my post.
Modern Rifle - no antiques, no Damascus steel, etc. Also, not pistols, I know a little variance in pistol powders go a long way...
Load data from manufacturers that is no more than three years old.
Proper components - the correct primer, brass that should not suffer separations, etc.
Modern Powder - no powder over three years old.
Loaded properly - to the correct length, with no more than the published MAX load, with the bullet that goes with the load, etc.

Has anyone actually seen a catastrophic failure under those conditions, or is it just the common over pressure signs? I still think the idea of the kaboom with a published max load is engendered more out of the proper respect to the dangers of firearms and hand loading.

 

[jmr40]

I've never known of a rifle damaged by accurately loaded max loads. Or by factory loads that were loaded correctly. There are times when someone screws up and for what ever reason either the factory or hand loads are not in spec and are overpressure and it causes damage.

That doesn't mean every max load is a good idea in every rifle. I load right up to max for several rifles and with those rifles, and with the powders I've chosen they work just fine.

But I can't do so with all powders I've tried. One in particular started reaching max speeds several grains below the max listed charge weight. I had loaded up 5 rounds each at several charge weights and worked up at the range. The last rounds I shot were still 1 gr below max. The speed I got was about 50 fps faster than what I'd have expected with a max load. I wasn't comfortable trying anything else and gave up on that powder. I doubt the gun would have blow up had I shot the max loads I had already loaded, but wasn't gonna do it either. Tried something else, got the results I wanted at pressures that I felt safe about.

There are other things to be aware of. Some powders are very sensitive to temperature changes. A max load that is safe at 50 degrees might be over pressure at 110 degrees. Most rifles have enough strength to not let go, but it would be a load I'd not want to shoot in hotter weather. I think this may have been a factor in the example above. I was working toward a max load in the summer with a powder I've later learned was very sensitive to hot conditions. I've read of guys hunting in colder climates using the exact load with good results.

 

[gamestalker]

I must have missed something in the OP's post, cause I didn't see any mention of factory ammunition.

As for max loads in a rifle in good working condition, with acceptable head space, and brass properly sized, I would be very surprised to hear of, and have never heard of a KB from such. Blown / pierced primers are a rather expected and not so uncommon occurrence with max charges that weren't properly worked up. And although case head separations can certainly happen, if the brass is in good condition, and has been properly sized and prepped, it would be an unlikely event.

But anything is possible, old Murphy is always lurking and waiting for an opportunity to ruin someone's day, or worse.

As for factory ammunition, I have run across a couple really bad batches that also turned up as "recalled". They didn't KB the rifle, but they locked the bolt up tight, and ended up ripping the case head off the brass.

GS

 

[matrem]

No "confirmed" damage, but several years ago my brother and I were shooting groundhogs when he ran out of ammo.

We were shooting identical M77s made within a year of each other in the "same" Ruger .223 chamber.

The loads I had plenty of were from an established company manual, 27.5 of H335 with a 50 Nosler Ballistic tip.

My rifle had shot hundreds of them with zero issues, yet after one of those through his, his bolt was way too hard to open, and yes, those cases were either brand new or full length resized. ( don't remember which now)

Always work up & test as you go.

 

[Walkalong]

It's highly unlikely that you will blow up a rifle with using a load exactly as published from the bullet or powder manufacturers in a quality rifle with proper headspace.

Start low and work up. The conditions in your rifle and your load technique, mis-weighed charges etc can cause trouble even with a good load worked up with pressure equipment.

 

[Ifishsum]

Had a blown primer blast the ejector and extractor out of a bolt with a book max load of H380 (.22-250 cartridge). Wasn't my rifle but I witnessed the damage. Turns out there were a couple of blown primers immediately prior to that particular event; the load was worked up to book max with no apparent problems a few months before. I believe it was heavy copper fouling buildup that caused the pressure to climb; after cleaning the barrel down to bare steel and replacing the bolt parts the rifle fired fine and the elevated pressure signs went away.

 

[Edarnold]

Had a blown primer blast the ejector and extractor out of a bolt with a book max load of H380 (.22-250 cartridge). Wasn't my rifle but I witnessed the damage. Turns out there were a couple of blown primers immediately prior to that particular event; the load was worked up to book max with no apparent problems a few months before. I believe it was heavy copper fouling buildup that caused the pressure to climb; after cleaning the barrel down to bare steel and replacing the bolt parts the rifle fired fine and the elevated pressure signs went away.

Similar experience with Norma factory 6.5x55 ammunition in a Swedish M38 rifle with a rough throat. The fifth round from the box pierced the primer, sending the cocking piece back to cocked and leaving a kink in the spring. Examining the previous fired cases showed a steady increase in primer flattening as the fouling built up. Nothing wrong with this ammo, but an unexpected result from the wear on the rifle.

 

[HOWARD J]

Using foreign made ammo in a Iver Johnson M1 carbine--had the bolt
blow out of the gun & the slide go with it about 30 feet---lucky that no one
was hit by flying parts.
BTW---the stock on this gun was NOT damaged ----I still can't figure out
how that can happen------------------

A new bolt & the old slide & the gun was back in business

 

[Nature Boy]

Would it be accurate to say that the closer you get to max published data, the more tit-tight your process your needs to be? Maybe that's stating the obvious, but there are folks who are more detail driven than others.

These types of threads invariably make me nervous.

 

[spitballer]

I suspect max loads may be a bit much if they're loaded into cases with large flash holes designed for unleaded primers, but it also seems to me that this would be the responsibility of the reloader. I strongly urge reloaders to watch out for these large flash holes. I've run into disagreement about the pressure effects of the larger flash holes and quite frankly I'm surprised that more reloaders aren't informed about them. Personally I would put a warning on the box if I sold ammo/cases with the larger flash holes on the open market, but since the reloader is responsible for his own safety anyway this idea probably wouldn't fly with the ammo manufacturers who aren't crazy about reloaders to begin with. Again, strongly urge reloaders to be aware of larger flash holes designed for unleaded primers - be safe, guys.

 

[fguffey]

It's highly unlikely that you will blow up a rifle with using a load exactly as published from the bullet or powder manufacturers in a quality rifle with proper headspace.

Proper head space, then there is a big chance the pressure will be reduce with improper head space.

F. Guffey

 

[Walkalong]

Up to the point it causes a case failure and ruptures............

 

[fguffey]

Or, is the extent of it that someone has seen flattened, pierced, or blown primers, a sticky bolt, etc.?

I have fired cases that were .127" shorter than the chamber from the shoulder of the chamber to the bolt face. After firing I ejected cases with very short necks.

A reloader in the community said he used 2 grains above the published max load in one of his rifles without one indication of high pressure. I suggested he measure the length of the chamber from the shoulder to the bolt face and the length of the case from the shoulder to the case head before and again after firing. And then measure the diameter of his barrel.

His favorite case head stamp is Winchester. He already understood his Winchester cases were lighter with more volume.

I purchased cases by the pound, I prepped the cases, loaded and fired some of them. Then I read an article claiming the cases had been manufactured with shortcuts. Nothing happened when I fired the cases to indicate there was a safety issue. I moved the cases from one drawer to the collectable brass drawer, I had room next to the BM '40 cases.

F. Guffey