Inline Explodes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Loyalist Dave

Loyalist Dave

Member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,426
Location
People's Republic of Maryland
this was posted September 18th.

What I noticed in the slow motion portion about half way through is the lack of a lot of thick white smoke. Now there have been a lot of "guesses" on YouTube as to what happened, and only one guy seems to have it right. (IMHO) It's not a barrel obstruction, nor a double load, nor was it leaving the ramrod seated on the load in the barrel. That kind of damage is done to a ML barrel when one loads modern, smokeless powder while using a black powder measure. So probably from 70-120 grains, and might be something that resembles black powder. Since there isn't the large cloud of white smoke that you get from black powder or a black powder substitute..., I'd say that's pretty well confirmed. Lucky for the shooter he didn't lose any fingers.

So folks, traditional or inliners, since black powder substitutes come in exactly the same style of container as modern smokeless, AND since some of the black powder companies are switching over to similar containers, BE SURE YOU READ THE LABEL since the ham handed clerk at Wally World or some other large store may think they are handing you proper propellant..., don't get maimed or killed from nickie newbie's mistake, or the "old salt" who is very busy, either.

LD
 
Those were some nasty wounds! But the guy is quite fortunate to have kept his fingers and will be fixed soon enough.

I agree on it having been loaded with smokeless. I didn't even see a hint of a puff of any smoke. It's just not possible to have been BP or any substitute I'm aware of as they all produce some white smoke.
 
Wow! That guy is lucky his face didn't take the brunt of the explosion. As you both noted, that didn't look like black powder or sub smoke. Barring a catastrophic failure in the barrel (possible but so rare these days as to be nonexistent) that looked like other videos I've seen demonstrating the danger of smokeless powder used in BP weapons.

I'm not saying this is the case here, but I wonder if some folks, despite all the warnings on the guns and in the manuals, think because an in-line ML looks like a modern rifle, it can use modern powder.

Jeff
 
Triple Seven powder is NOT intended to
be used as a volume-to-volume replace-
ment for back powder or Pyrodex. To
obtain similar velocities and pressures as
black powder or Pyrodex powder, you must
decrease the volume of Triple Seven pow-
der by 15%. On a volumetric basis to rep-
licate the same pressure and velocity of a
100 grain of black powder or Pyrodex load,
you must calibrate your volumetric powder
measure to 85 grains for Triple Seven.
For the latest information for Pryodex or
Triple Seven powders visit the Hodgdon’s
web site at www.hodgdon.com.
Click to expand...
From Remington's instruction on the Ultimate Muzzleloader.

If loading 200 grs, this would be a 30 gr overload. Not enough to do that damage.

I think the saboted slug was not fully seated on to the powder. My guess.



20170922_092408.png
 
Last edited:
Well what ever, it ruined that old boys day. If anything he was on a range with people near, could just as well have been hunting in the wilderness with a long trek out.
Hard lesson.
 
"Since there isn't the large cloud of white smoke that you get from black powder or a black powder substitute." Folks there is less smoke generated in the video than when you use 30 grains of BP in a SA Army revolver. :confused: Nobody wrote there isn't any smoke. ;) I'm thinking clerical error coupled with the lack of proper checking by the buyer, and the user, ultimately it's user error. I've seen it several times before.

LD
 
Nasty wounds , he is lucky he didn't get any in his face . I agree , it looks like he was using smokeless powder to me .
 
Loyalist Dave said:
"Since there isn't the large cloud of white smoke that you get from black powder or a black powder substitute." Folks there is less smoke generated in the video than when you use 30 grains of BP in a SA Army revolver. :confused: Nobody wrote there isn't any smoke. ;) I'm thinking clerical error coupled with the lack of proper checking by the buyer, and the user, ultimately it's user error. I've seen it several times before.

LD
Click to expand...

Precisely. That's not the smoke you'd see even from a rather light load a pistol would use.
 
entropy said:
C' mon, you own smokepoles, you KNOW that's not BP, Pyrodex, or 777.
Click to expand...

While I'm not so sure... I can clearly see a large puff when it fires. It does dissipate quickly though, now that you mention it...

Might well be the guy that asked for "black powder" at Bass Pro and the clerk went back and got a can of Blue Dot!! :eek:

"It's all black, man".... :confused:
 
I have shot probably less than 1000 rounds of blackpowder rifle, mostly 58 caliber musket minie balls. I am of the opinion that the amount of smoke I saw is not inconsistent with the black powder smoke emitted by my rifles. I have never seen a "fog" of smoke. Of course I am behind the action, not beside recording what is going on.

We won't know exactly what caused this. Maybe the shooter put a small starter charge of pistol powder in with his black powder, or, maybe he thought a modern bolt rifle action could take an extra big charge of blackpowder. And he thought wrong.

I have been searching for definitive information on the maximum pressure you can expect from black powder. I have not found it. However there is this interesting article:

How Fast Does Black Powder Burn?

http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/bp_burning/bp_burning.html

I don't know what the shooter was loading, but there is no reason to assume that the gun was built to survive anything but standard blackpowder loads. Based on what I have read black powder pressures can be almost 40,000 psia. And blackpowder can have a quick pressure rise, it seems, even faster than smokeless under certain conditions. Lets say the shooter just packed in more powder, and thus, was operating at this pressure range. Why should be assume the barrel will hold up?

The video is an excellent cautionary tale about what happens when your gun blows up. It could have been worse had the action blown. People have been killed when chunks have been blown back into their skulls. Regardless of what exact propellant was used I am going to say,

1) always stay within manufacturer recommended loads
2) always wear your shooting glasses
3) always use blackpowder only in blackpowder guns. Don't use smokeless.
 
Last edited:
Even videos of people using BP and substitutes in revolvers with small charges shows much more smoke than that video.

Here's 10 grns of BP in a tiny pistol on a breezy day (you can hear the wind noise in the microphone while he's loading). You don't see this with the rifle that is no doubt loaded with much more than just 10 grns.



There's just no plausible argument for anything but smokeless. The amount of smoke that would have been generated to produce that failure would have been huge.
 
Regardless, I thank God that the shooter was not more severely injured.

His hands, while certainly banged up, were still there and he did not become blinded nor killed by the piece bursting.
 
See:
http://fox13now.com/2017/09/19/sanp...rifle-barrel-explodes-during-target-practice/
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ns-bolt-action-rifle-detonates-hands-graphic/

> ...had the barrel cleaned by a gunsmith, but admits he should have
> been more careful before firing the first round of the season.

Anyone else see multiple problems here? ....starting w/ not running his own marked ramrod down with a patch to start?
(Double load... last season's and this new one as well(???)

How such a thing could possibly be missed notwithstanding.... I'm still having a real problem with no smoke.
....and the fact that even a double load (w/ normal BP/subs) should have not been able to blow that gun up.






Then we always have guys like this one....
 
Last edited:
I've seen a you tube video where a guy filled the entire rifle barrel with black powder and then loaded 2 balls on top, placed it on a sled, and fired it with a long rope.
It was loud, but didn't destroy the barrel.
I'm not going to try it.

It seems like it would be pretty obvious after the fact for someone involved to ask something like like "what powder did you use? Where is the rest of it?" From there, confirmation of Smokeless versus Black would be elementary.
 
Slamfire said:
Based on what I have read black powder pressures can be almost 40,000 psia.
Click to expand...

Well in the Lyman handbook is a good deal lower.
From the Lyman Black Powder Handbook, 2nd Edition,
13,500 PSI, 15,400 PSI, 15,100 PSI, 16,800 PSI, 22,600 PSI, and 23,400 PSI.

It should also be noted that SAAMI lists maximum service pressures for 28 gauge up to 12 gauge (2-3/4 in. and 3 in. shotshells) not exceeding 12,500 PSI using smokeless propellant.

So imagine as suggested this fellow used Blue Dot. Now a 20 gauge launching 1 ounce (438 grains of lead) using a mere 23 grains of Blue Dot generates 11, 500 psi. That's in a .62 sized barrel, and shrinking the chamber to .50 will boots that pressure. NOW Imagine the guy uses his black powder measure set at 70 grains... using the modern powder he's throwing 3x Blue Dot, and the smaller diameter of the chamber, coupled with the added friction of a sabot or conical bullet compared to a shotshell shot cup..., :confused:

OK so it's not quite the same...., the powder measure for the black powder or substitute propellant is a volume measure and when you load the shotshells you are weighing the powder, so it's not 1:1. A black powder measure set at 70 doesn't throw 70 grains of Blue Dot..., it probably throws MORE. 2Fg granules for loading into a black powder shell are large, and uneven, leaving lots of unused space, BUT the Blue Dot using circular flakes, pours much much denser... in this scenario the person making the mistake is going to go waaay beyond the pressure curve of a barrel rated for black powder and black powder substitutes only.
:what:

LD
 
LonesomePigeon said:
I wonder if Remington could test the residue on the barrel to determine what it was loaded with?
Click to expand...
All you'd have to do is sniff it to rule out BP and Pyrodex. But Schockey's Gold and 777 don't have as much a sulphur smell. Smokeless powders all smell different, but none smell like BP, except possibly the stuff in in Combloc surplus.
 
A sabot from the previous round could have lodged in the muzzle brake.

We will probably never know what caused the gun to blow up. i'm not surprised that someone blew up another muzzleloader. Some folks are using smokeless powder in their Encores.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

V
  • Locked
cartridge reloading with 777
Replies
14
Views
2K
Voodoochile
V
J
  • Locked
.40-70-400 Sharps Straight
Replies
4
Views
1K
Jim Watson
J
T
  • Locked
Black Powder Substitutes and Users Deserve Respect
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
4K
Oldfalguy
O
D
  • Locked
45LC Black powder question
Replies
9
Views
2K
robphillips
R
D
  • Locked
Historical question about black powder CARTRIDGE rifles (breech loading)
Replies
14
Views
921
R.Clem
R
Back
Top