is it true, or just myth?
- Thread starter tark
- Start date
- Status
Vern Humphrey
Member
There are plenty of cases of bullets lodging in the barrel of a gun, and the shooter failing to realize it and firing again. In handguns, the usual result is a bulged barrel, if that.
OP
OP
tark
Member
Not talking about a single bullet lodged in the barrel, Vern. We are talking about a steel rod that is screwed, pinned, welded or whatever, rendering the bullet in the chamber unable to move.
I say the gun will disassemble itself in a most unpleasant manner.
I say the gun will disassemble itself in a most unpleasant manner.
MIL-DOT
member
No, I was NOT already familair with this one, but thanks for posting it again, LOL!!!!!
Kookla
Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,114
I remember reading an article in a magazine that said the same. IIRC, some of the engineers at Ruger did it to see how strong the pistol was. After they did the test, they showed Bill Ruger their findings and he admonished them- saying to the effect that he knew it since he designed it, now get back to work.
Deaf Smith
Member
100 percent agree.
The power charge was developed with the idea the bullet would MOVE and the volume would increase AS IT MOVED. The increase in volume held the pressure down as the bullet went forward. These ain't black powder guns were the powder exploded in one instant but instead a PROGRESSIVE BURNING.
Here we are talking about no movement at all. For a 1911 I guarantee you at the minimum a case head failure and the gas will blow down the mag well.
But it's your gun Kemosabe.
Deaf
Vern Humphrey
Member
Why not use a blasting cap and some C4?
OP
OP
tark
Member
Well, guys, I'm not doing this because I like doing stupid things, like blowing up perfectly good pistols. I'm doing it to prove a point.
Another poster made A claim which I found impossible to believe. But he DID raise a valid issue. He asked how many of us had actually tried this crazy test. In essence he said, "Don't say it is impossible when you haven't tried it." OK I offered to try it. I believe I will destroy a usable pistol,
I have asked this poster for a detailed description of how he secured the steel rod in the barrel and I have asked for some pictures, if possible.
Still waiting for a response.
Another poster made A claim which I found impossible to believe. But he DID raise a valid issue. He asked how many of us had actually tried this crazy test. In essence he said, "Don't say it is impossible when you haven't tried it." OK I offered to try it. I believe I will destroy a usable pistol,
I have asked this poster for a detailed description of how he secured the steel rod in the barrel and I have asked for some pictures, if possible.
Still waiting for a response.
Hi, Tark,
I have been going around a bit on this one. I can't give you the info you want without making it public for someone else to see. I can tell you that I don't believe I was in any danger (nor was the gun) but if someone else does it and is injured or (God forbid!) killed, I would be liable, morally if not legally. I will say this much.
All the modifications were to a scrap barrel, one of several I have just for experiments. All changes were to that barrel, on the inside, so no special barrels or special instrumentation were used. The pistol looked quite normal. There was no damage to the pistol, no sign of any excess stress, no burst barrels, no frame stretched. I did not fire the pistol afterward with that barrel; it was ruined by the work done on the inside. I did fire the pistol afterwards, thousands of rounds, with the original, unmodified, barrel. At first, all test shooting was done with the pistol clamped to a workbench, using a remote cord. Later, when I found the gun performed as expected, I began taking fewer precautions, but I do not recommend that path.
If you want more details, PM me and I'll see what further info I will want to share.
Jim
I have been going around a bit on this one. I can't give you the info you want without making it public for someone else to see. I can tell you that I don't believe I was in any danger (nor was the gun) but if someone else does it and is injured or (God forbid!) killed, I would be liable, morally if not legally. I will say this much.
All the modifications were to a scrap barrel, one of several I have just for experiments. All changes were to that barrel, on the inside, so no special barrels or special instrumentation were used. The pistol looked quite normal. There was no damage to the pistol, no sign of any excess stress, no burst barrels, no frame stretched. I did not fire the pistol afterward with that barrel; it was ruined by the work done on the inside. I did fire the pistol afterwards, thousands of rounds, with the original, unmodified, barrel. At first, all test shooting was done with the pistol clamped to a workbench, using a remote cord. Later, when I found the gun performed as expected, I began taking fewer precautions, but I do not recommend that path.
If you want more details, PM me and I'll see what further info I will want to share.
Jim
OP
OP
tark
Member
Jim, by describing, however briefly, what the test involved, how it was done and what the results were, you are already morally involved. Some crazy kid just might try it and injure himself.
Like we did in the Broomhandle thread, let's just agree to disagree, and let's agree that no one should try this test.
I'll PM you later, because I'm STILL curious as to the details. If I try this test, it will be in private between us. I want to make sure I duplicate your test exactly so you can't say I did it wrong.
Like we did in the Broomhandle thread, let's just agree to disagree, and let's agree that no one should try this test.
I'll PM you later, because I'm STILL curious as to the details. If I try this test, it will be in private between us. I want to make sure I duplicate your test exactly so you can't say I did it wrong.
This is weird... I don't think any gun can take that. If I'm understanding correctly. You mean the round goes off but does not leave the barrel at all? I'm sorry. The gun would blow up in your hands. It's meant to fire the bullet out of the barrel and cycle accordingly. A lot of the pressure is relived when that happens. To keep it all in while that whole thing happens, you'd turn your handgun into a grenade.
However!
I once has a squib load during a rapid fire succession and a bullet followed the squib... Nothing happened to the gun except for a small and minor bulge in the barrel.
However!
I once has a squib load during a rapid fire succession and a bullet followed the squib... Nothing happened to the gun except for a small and minor bulge in the barrel.
OP
OP
tark
Member
Believe me, Ziro. That gun will NOT be in my hands if I try this! I'm gonna PM Jim K now and ask for some more details on how to set the gun up.
RecoilRob
Member
Jim K's post #27 should have enough information to do the test...I'd think. Might be hard to source that exact ammo though. Big things to wonder would be the toughness of the brass used, along with the primer hardiness and how much unsupported case is left after fully chambering. If the barrel has minimal unsupported brass hanging over the feed ramp....and the brass is good and stout, I'd not be too surprised if the gun doesn't KABOOM.
Hopefully Jim will enlighten Tark on how the blocking rod was threaded because this is a possible avenue of pressure leakage. Having watched a bunch of the super-slow motion bullets leaving the barrel video's shows that quite a bit of gases escape before the bullet finally leaves...so this 'windage' might be enough to vent the discharge and prevent the pressure spike that would tear the chamber apart. Even if it's threaded right at the muzzle...there's still 4 inches of so of empty-ish barrel to act as a damper with only the rod diameter in question as to how well it's filling it.
Good man Tark for being willing to do this test! It's not that I don't believe Jim K...far from it as he seems like a good egg in all of his other posts and there's no reason to disbelieve his statement just because it might be bouncing against our preconcieved notions of how things will go. The Grand Experiment will be MOST interesting to hear about...and now I'm worried that you guys are going to keep this secret. Perhaps those of us interested enough could PM for the results if you want to keep a 'general surfer' from finding out down the road. Good luck!
Hopefully Jim will enlighten Tark on how the blocking rod was threaded because this is a possible avenue of pressure leakage. Having watched a bunch of the super-slow motion bullets leaving the barrel video's shows that quite a bit of gases escape before the bullet finally leaves...so this 'windage' might be enough to vent the discharge and prevent the pressure spike that would tear the chamber apart. Even if it's threaded right at the muzzle...there's still 4 inches of so of empty-ish barrel to act as a damper with only the rod diameter in question as to how well it's filling it.
Good man Tark for being willing to do this test! It's not that I don't believe Jim K...far from it as he seems like a good egg in all of his other posts and there's no reason to disbelieve his statement just because it might be bouncing against our preconcieved notions of how things will go. The Grand Experiment will be MOST interesting to hear about...and now I'm worried that you guys are going to keep this secret.
Perhaps those of us interested enough could PM for the results if you want to keep a 'general surfer' from finding out down the road. Good luck!
Vern Humphrey
Member
No. Both smokeless and Black powder are self-oxidizing.
au_prospector
Member
This is an absurd thread. In physics, nothing is free and pressure would not be patient and kind enough to slowly bleed off. Feel free to test the theory, I will stand behind the wall.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Weld the rod to the end of the muzzle, and you won't have to worry about leakage or it coming loose (ever again )
TCB
)Stopping a recoil-operated slide with thumb pressure also seems absurd given how violently a gun cycles, yet it totally works. I think people (for a change) just don't give the 1911 design enough credit for strength (or the Tokarev especially, which is supposedly even beefier due to the smaller cartridge)
TCB
Walt Sherrill
Member
Seems to me that with everything locked up tightly, regardless of the method used to keep the gun from cycling, something has got to give.
No matter how tightly you lock up the gun and how well-supported the case of the round being fired might be, the primer must be struck by the striker or firing pin. That point of contact is an access point that is also a potential exit point, and the gases generated by hitting the primer and burning the powder has to go somewhere -- either by expanding the barrel (via a bulge), by cracking or otherwise damaging the chamber, or through the breech face (where the striker or firing pin hits the primer) and out the back of the slide.
Stopping the bullet and keeping the slide from moving DOESN'T stop the chemical process that causes the powder to burn very rapidly, and it sure doesn't stop the physical processes that would otherwise drive a bullet down the barrel. Seems as though the consequences of those processes, both chemical and physical [chemistry and physics], are just redirected, not stopped. I think we're overlooking something in this discussion.
No matter how tightly you lock up the gun and how well-supported the case of the round being fired might be, the primer must be struck by the striker or firing pin. That point of contact is an access point that is also a potential exit point, and the gases generated by hitting the primer and burning the powder has to go somewhere -- either by expanding the barrel (via a bulge), by cracking or otherwise damaging the chamber, or through the breech face (where the striker or firing pin hits the primer) and out the back of the slide.
Stopping the bullet and keeping the slide from moving DOESN'T stop the chemical process that causes the powder to burn very rapidly, and it sure doesn't stop the physical processes that would otherwise drive a bullet down the barrel. Seems as though the consequences of those processes, both chemical and physical [chemistry and physics], are just redirected, not stopped. I think we're overlooking something in this discussion.
Last edited:
OP
OP
tark
Member
I agree with you all, this IS an absurd thread! And an insane premise involving an insane scenario, one that would never happen in the real world.
But I am curious. What if Jim K is right and nothing blows? The immediate question arises....Why?
I have PMed Jim , asking for more info. I really want to try this.
But I am curious. What if Jim K is right and nothing blows? The immediate question arises....Why?
I have PMed Jim , asking for more info. I really want to try this.
OP
OP
tark
Member
Got good info from Jim and I will get the needed materials tomorrow..If this thread dies out before I try the test I'll start another one.
I did talk with Les today and he has not heard of this test. He claims the gun will come apart, and so say I. But what if it doesn't? That would present a new mystery, and I love mysteries.
I am making it perfectly (and publicly) clear, in this sentence, that Jim K is in no way, shape, or form responsible for any negative or adverse results that may happen as a result of this test. I accept full responsibility for this crazy stunt!
Back at ya in a few days.
I did talk with Les today and he has not heard of this test. He claims the gun will come apart, and so say I. But what if it doesn't? That would present a new mystery, and I love mysteries.
I am making it perfectly (and publicly) clear, in this sentence, that Jim K is in no way, shape, or form responsible for any negative or adverse results that may happen as a result of this test. I accept full responsibility for this crazy stunt!
Back at ya in a few days.
Last edited:
au_prospector
Member
The first sentence of your original post raises the hypothesis of no damage to a 1911 given the round pressure will slowly bleed off if the bullet is held in place and does not move. I say no way, the powder burns too fast and the pressure will not be patient enough to be contained for slow bleed off.
The rest of the thread attempts to massage this first sentence into a set of circumstance which insinuate minimal damage or a weakened frame or crystalized steel/weakened barrel, bulged barrel, mag blow out, and how to contain it by welding the firearm.
So.... to the first sentence (I realize it is not your hypothesis, so no offense to the OP) to the first sentence I say bologna.
To the rest of this thread, I say God Bless Ya and I am glad to NOT be your insurance agent. And by the way, pictures or it never happened!
The rest of the thread attempts to massage this first sentence into a set of circumstance which insinuate minimal damage or a weakened frame or crystalized steel/weakened barrel, bulged barrel, mag blow out, and how to contain it by welding the firearm.
So.... to the first sentence (I realize it is not your hypothesis, so no offense to the OP) to the first sentence I say bologna.
To the rest of this thread, I say God Bless Ya and I am glad to NOT be your insurance agent. And by the way, pictures or it never happened!
Kendal Black
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
Looking forward to the Marvin the Martian test.
OP
OP
tark
Member
Let me repeat, everyone, the gun Will NOT be in my hand when I fire it!! Won't need any insurance agents.
mikemyers
Member
Simplifying the above into an extreme case (no pun intended)....
If you could somehow get a bullet inside of a solid block of steel, with nothing more open than a tiny hole for a firing pin to strike the bullet, and no room for any expansion, what would happen? With no room for expansion, would anything at all happen?
If you could somehow get a bullet inside of a solid block of steel, with nothing more open than a tiny hole for a firing pin to strike the bullet, and no room for any expansion, what would happen? With no room for expansion, would anything at all happen?
- Status
