More info on destroyed Anaconda

Status
Not open for further replies.
sturmruger

sturmruger

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Messages
3,055
Location
NW, WI
I am sure many of you remember the post I did a while back titled "This Anaconda will not be a shooter any more" If you didn't catch it the first time click on the link and go check it out. I finally heard back from the owner of the Colt Anaconda. He sent me a link of a post he wrote concerning what happened that does tell the whole story.

Reloading lesson learned

Greetings all.


A shooter for 10 years, I'm a relatively new reloader having purchased
a Dillon RL550B about a year ago. To date, I've made and shot perhaps
3000 rounds without incident. Recently, however, I learned a most
valuable lesson from what could have been a life-altering experience.
I'll share this first-hand account with you hoping to educate reloaders
and shooters about the potential dangers of our sport. I realize that
this incident was most likely caused by inexperience and carelessness,
so there's no need point it out :)


I was the proud owner of a Colt Anaconda 6-inch .44 magnum with a nice
red-dot sight. Reloading was the only way I could afford to shoot it on
a regular basis. Several days ago, I was at the indoor range
terrorizing unsuspecting sheets of paper as I usually do: mostly
.45ACP's through my 1911 and an occasional cylinder or two with the
Anaconda.


Both guns were shooting great. About 30 minutes into the evening's
activities, I once again load up the revolver and step to the line.
First shot was a bullseye, as was typical for this rig. Second shot -
KABOOM. I felt an unbelievable recoil and was pelted all over my face,
chest and arms by fragments of metal and glass. An incredible pressure
wave stunned me as if I were punched in the head. I shook it off and
looked around. The scope was on the floor. The gun was still in my
hand, but didn't look as it did mere seconds ago. A friend rushed over
and with clear presence of mind, checked me for injuries. Whew. I
emerge without so much as a scratch. Miraculous, considering what just
happened. The shooting stall contained the flying shrapnel. Approved
safety glasses, without a doubt, saved my vision. Long sleeves, a cap
and good ear protection also prevented certain injury. I hate to say
it, but dumb luck played a part as well.


At this point I gather up the pieces and attempt to make sense of this
catastrophe. It's not good. My second shot violently exploded,
splitting the cylinder into three pieces and causing chambers one, two
and three to be blown wide open. The shock caused a chain reaction,
immediately setting off rounds three and four. The bullet from round
three was recovered on the floor near my feet. It was severely mangled
because it's exit path was partially blocked by the frame of the gun.
Unsupported by the cylinder, the brass case blew open as if it were
made of paper. Luckily, both bullet and case didn't fragment too badly
and perforate surrounding humans, including me. Round four went off
cleanly down range, though not through the barrel. Round five was
somewhat damaged - the bullet was pressed into the case by about
one-eight of an inch. A little more and it may have detonated as well.
Round six was in perfect condition.


The rest of the gun was equally distorted. The top strap was nearly
separated from the frame. Seams between the various metal parts were
wide and uneven. I thought "Damn, it's completely destroyed".


Here's where my education begins: Lacking any sophisticated test
instruments, the load I was using felt comparable to any factory ammo I
had used in the past. 9.0gr of Titegroup behind a 240gr SJSP. This was
10% below the maximum load as published in the Hogdon manual. It shot
with consistent accuracy and was economical because it was the same
powder as I had used in the .45. I now realize my quest to economize
reloading may well prove to be the source of this misfortune.


Titegroup is a very fast, clean powder requiring low charge weights for
large calibers. Prior to this event, I reasonably assumed this to be an
ideal situation. Less powder, less fouling, less cost = more trips to
the range. That is until you realize a few things. 9.0gr in a .44
magnum case is, more or less, a drop in a bucket. In subsequent tests
I've recently performed, it's all too possible to double charge a round
and have it go unnoticed in a progressive loader. That is not to say
that I've been loading with a casual attitude. I cannot, for the life
of me, recall a moment of distraction where I could have possibly
doubled one up. Nevertheless, I now own several fragments of stainless
steel that were once a finely crafted firearm. Happily, none of those
bits are lodged in my forehead. For all those interested, you can view
high resolution photographs of the beast's mortal remains here:
http://iris.nyit.edu/~bithead/?anaconda/ .


It is my hope that sharing this horror story will inspire folks to take
an extra bit of care while enjoying their sport. I've since sent the
gun to Colt for expert analysis. While it's my speculation that a
double charged round caused this, perhaps a post-mortem by the factory
will render an alternative conclusion. Unlikely as it may seem, I'll
post an update if the latter is true.


Your constructive comments, conclusions and condolences are appreciated.
Click to expand...

rec.guns Post by Bithead

It sounds like the worst part of this was that the other cylnders all fired as well as the one that was double charged!! After reading his account of what happened it make me want to double up on my eyeprotection!!
 
wow! impressive, scary too. Frightening part is the other rounds going off! sheesh.

It must have been a double charge, as he suspects. I'm kinda wondering to if the cylinder might have had some metalurgy problems or something.

Did he sent it back to Colt for testing?
 
Since the Dillon 550 is a manual advance press it is possible to pull the handle more than once on the same rounds.

Thankfully proper shooting protection was used. Also Kudos to Colt for building a gun capable of at least partially containing the blast.


I'm not surprised at the secondary discharges. When the cylinder failed the hot gasses blew through the adjoining case walls igniting the powder. Of course those pressures advanced the cylinder separation. But I doubt that bullet velocity was much more than a good sneeze.

A blessing that no one was hurt.
And a good lesson learned by us all.
 
It's very difficult or impossible to double-charge a cartridge case with most slow-burning powders I'm familiar with; fast-burning powders such as Tight Group and Bullseye, by contrast, often don't fill the cartridge case a quarter of the way to the top. They're wonderfully accurate powders, but we've got no choice but to check the cartridges before seating bullets.
 
I saw a 1917 era Colt New Service in .45 Colt fire a double charge (16 grains of Unique under a 250 grain lead bullet) and the only damage was a bulge in the chamber wall. A replacement cylinder had the gun going, again. I was amazed that the old gun held together so well.

I try to avoid loads that can be double charged for this very reason.
 
P95Carry- Try clicking on the link to the original story and click to the pics from that. It worked for me.

Cal
 
I don't know. Reading posts like this and seeing those pictures make me want to avoid reloading. I have a progressive press NIB that I got years ago from a friend real cheap and I've been thinking about getting set up so that I can start reloading a maybe shooting my .45 ACPs a litle more. Then I read about things like this, I imagine my Kimber TLE or Eclipse blown to pieces and it makes me stop. My dad reloaded .38 spl match loads for years and they were the most accurate loads I've ever shot (they were real pussycat loads worked out by a gunsmith who did my dad's - now mine- PPC revolver). He never once had an incident and still remembers the load. Anybody have any words of encouragment?
 
Southpaw - I have recently resumed PPC- having over very many years shot it quite regularly. I admit I only have ever used a Lee turret but have loaded and fired countless 1,000's rounds of my ''kind'' 38 spl load - a 158 cast SWC over an old fave shotgun powder. Thus far never a prob - but that could be cos it'd be hard to double charge a case with the turret approach.

I think any load with small volume powder charge is open to problems - in theory but - maybe this is one example where a progressive that permits a double throw is not perhaps the best way to go.

Reloading does inevitably carry some risks but I think it is a minimal problem if the technique chosen is made to suit the rounds being produced - care all the way of course.
 
I have always recommended that new reloaders learn on a single stage press. You need to see each and every stage and have something to compare. You need to learn exactly what you are looking at. Speed and convience is not conducive to learning.
I'm glad this fellow wasn't hurt, but I hope he go back over his reloading procedures and check his equipment. There are dies that warn when over charging. They aren't perfect and you need to check them every so often, but they may keep you out of trouble.
 
What a tragedy, I am glad no one was hurt. This is why I use magnum powders that fill the case nicely whenever possible and always visually check power levels before seating bullets.
 
Checked link again and succeeded. My - the energy dissipated in that event is quite staggering. I douibt any verbal description can quite match actually seeing the results!

I too prefer a ''full case'' loading with mag loads.
 
I think the real lesson is that saving 3¢ a round by using a faster burning powder sometimes isn't such a bargain after all.

It also brings the terms efficient load density and margin for error into the same discussion.
 
Reading posts like this and seeing those pictures make me want to avoid reloading. ... Anybody have any words of encouragment?
Click to expand...

I do. I've been reloading three decades and longer. When I bought my first batch of reloading gadgetry, the guy behind the counter reached down a thoroughly discombobulated old rifle and had me look it over. He said, "It's not too bad an idea to read the directions that come with this stuff, eh?"

If you read and follow the directions and form the habit of double-checking your work as you go along, you'll never encounter a worse problem than dirty fingers. When you come up with questions, take them to the reloading forum at this site. There are plenty of very knowledgeable, patient, well spoken people who will gladly answer any question you can think of.

Best of success, eh?
 
This is why you get an AUTO INDEXING progressive. The machine rotates the charged shell away from the powder measure. You have to try REAL, REAL hard to double charge an auto indexer. It is safer in that respect than any single stage even.

Lee Pro1K, Dillon SDB or Dillon 650.
 
I am voting for double charge. "Detonation", (not using the term technically), is an urban myth, in my opinion. (High pressure incidents can occur with small amounts of slow burning powder, though.)

With fast burning powders, small charges are simply not a problem. Unless they get doubled, of course.

Look at how many wadcutters have been fired with 2.7 grains of Bullseye over the years. Yes, sometimes the guns have blown up, but I suspect the cause was 5.4 or even 8.1 grains of Bullseye. :what:
 
OK, secondary explosion effect then. Semantics and scrap metal either way... not interested in arguing, just letting people know that while modern firearms may well be able to contain a double charge of powder without catastrophic failure, there is SOMETHING causing complete destruction of firearms on occasion and it seems to be linked to smaller charges of fast powder in large volume cases. FWIW, YMMV, read the available literature and decide for yourself, meanwhile shoot only your own reloads and BE CAREFUL.

lpl/nc
=============
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_170_28/ai_n6040281#continue

Gun blow-ups
American Handgunner, July-August, 2004 by David G. Ward

Charles Petty references secondary explosion effects (Handloading, May/June 04 and then states "Nobody has ever been able to duplicate it in the laboratory." Well, perhaps not inside the confines of the Michelson Laboratory but definitely out on the Noth Range, some 40 years ago, by some of us in the Detonation Physics Division of the Naval Ordnance Test Station. China Lake. Jim King, Carl Austin and I were the primary investigators, led by Carl Austin. This effect, which for want of a better term, we can call "Secondary Explosion Effect," is the result of constructive reinforcement of shock waves which result in substantially higher peak pressures than would be normally be expected. I hope I don't get in trouble with the Navy for saying this, but this is the phenomenon which caused some 5" Naval guns to burst open.

Since all three of us were hunters and shooters, we tried to get this to occur on rifle cartridges and had some erratic success. Just about the time we had the problem with the 5" Naval guns fixed, the Government decided to transfer the program back to the Ballistic Research Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground. I think their library has a number of good technical reports on the subject, I simply do not remember reading anything about the effect occurring in handgun cartridges, except in .357 cases its which the effect was not predictable nor reproducible.
==================

http://www.aeroballisticsonline.com/ballistics/propellants.html

Reduced Loads:

It's hard to be sure on exactly what is happening to Interior Ballistics because we simply cannot see what is going on inside a closed breech and/or the cartridge but this is where instruments can give us a helping hand, but mishaps rarely happen in the laboratory. Several theories have been suggested to account for the sudden catastrophic failure that has accounted for the demise of handloader’s firearms in the past. These handloaders had reportedly been using reduced loads of slow burning powder when their firearms experienced a sudden catastrophic disassembly, to my knowledge fiber filler had not been used and luckily no deaths were reported. In the past this sudden catastrophic disassembly of the firearm has been termed Secondary Explosion Effect or S.E.E. Most authorities, but not all, agree that it would better be called something else, maybe “Catastrophic High Pressure Failure,” CHPF.

From the book "Understanding Ballistics" by Robert A. Rinker, Mr. Rinker tells of a Kentucky court case, Schuster v. Steedley, Oct. 1966, 406 S. W. 2d 387, where an unproven theory was used. "Testimony by an expert witness from H. P. White Laboratory, the theory stated when a cartridge is loaded so that the powder charge leaves a lot of space in the cavity between the primer and the base of the bullet, the primer flash can cross the open space while the powder is laying on the bottom. (The cartridge being horizontal at the time.) This flash may move the bullet out of the case but it will have insufficient energy to properly engage the rifling. This happens a short instant before the powder is ignited and creates the main gas expanding force. More force is then required to move the bullet than is normal and excessive pressure is exerted on the cartridge's base and the breech mechanism of the gun. Also, the bullet may become lodged in the barrel and create an obstruction for a successive shot."

Another theory involves pressure waves. This is were a reduced load pushes a bullet slowly down the barrel, while a high pressure wave moving much faster catches up to the bullet and is reflected back to the chamber where more powder has been burning causing high pressure in the chamber. When the reflected pressure wave smashes into the high chamber pressure destructive forces can develop. Or a partially ignited reduced load causing a slow burn. The bullet is forced into the rifling and jammed causing a pressure wave to build and advance down the chamber and slam into the jammed bullet and develop destructively excessive chamber pressures. Norma, a Swedish ammunition and powder manufacturer, cautions about the hazards of using reduced loads that fills the case to about one third of its volume. They basically believe in the pressure wave theory.

It was found that both velocity and chamber pressure changes depending on were the powder load was in relationship to the primer. In reduced loads, by tipping the gun up then carefully lowering the gun level to the target, that would cause the powder to be against the primer before firing, the pressures and velocities were always higher then if the powder were against the bullet. By using a small amount of cotten or nonflammable material like kapok, the filler for cost guard approved life vest, or Dacron, the powder could be kept to the rear against the primer so that proper ignition is more likely to take place, keeping the pressures and velocities consistent.

Different groups use to support the use of a fiber filler for reduced loads, for example the NRA and the Cast Bullet Association. But a lot of people started to, what is called, "ring the chamber." This is were the fiber filler was used improperly and as the pressure from the burning powder increased it would shove the fiber filler into the base of the bullet. The bullet would act as a barrel obstruction and the bullet's base would expand the chamber at the neck, this would give a nice bulging ring around the neck; to correct this, the barrel would have to be set back and a reamer would be used to recut a new chamber, this would shorten the barrel a bit or the barrel would need to be replaced completely. That is why the NRA, the Cast Bullet Association, other groups, and I, do not recommend the use of fiber fillers or any fillers for reduced loads or reduced loads themselves. (Please note that I have only told you that fiber filler is used, I have not told you the proper way in which to use it.)

I have heard some people say that ringing the chamber is caused by the air gap between the powder and the base of the bullet is pressurized and this pressurized air slams into the base of the bullet causing the bullet to expand and that is what causes the chamber to be ringed. This just is not true!!! It is caused by a solid object like fiber filler improperly used hitting the base of the bullet and expanding the base.

There is also credence to the theory that the powder charge can cake or create a logjam effect preventing the powder gases from existing the firearm and building up high pressures. After the catastrophic disassembly of the firearm unburnt powder has been found caked around the inside should of some cartridge cases.

A theory formulated by an ex-military officer involved with shape charges. The military found out by using primer cord that if they put the two ends together and ignited the primer cord it would burn in two directions at once and where the two burning ends came together there was an explosion leaving a small crater in the ground. Primer cord is a very fast burning fuse that is a thick cord whose burn rate is measured from a slow of feet per second to as fast as miles per second. The ex-military officer suggested that as the charge is laying in a case of a reduced load the primer may sometimes be partly exposed so that when the primer ignites the powder near the primer is ignited and some of the primer fire jumps and ignites the powder near the bullet too. The powder burns from both ends towards the middle, when the flames reaches each other it will act as a shape charge exploding, causing the destruction of the firearm.

An article in the Handloader Magazine of June 1997, No. 187, by Charles E Petty titled “Mystery Solved!” attempts to explain that the mystery of loads using slow burning powders, including reduced loads, have been solved. The above link will take you to the original article reproduced in its entirety. This article makes some assumptions and conclusions that in my opinion are not accurate, correct, and highly debatable and will be discussed at the end of the article.

The only conclusion that I can draw from this article is that the wrong powder type was used; if the powder of proper relative quickness were used there would have been enough leeway to be acceptable even in firearms of degraded quality. Seeing that we don’t always know the precise condition of our firearms, like the over all cartridge length every firearm is different within limits, that’s one reason ammunition manufacturers make their ammunition to fit most firearms. Powder selection must be the same way, a suitable burning-rate for the cartridge, components, caliber, and firearm being used, within proper limits and in this case the limits were exceeded. But this circumstance does not necessarily have anything to do with reduced loads as the author has stated. The two have similarities but it does not follow that the cause of one is the same as the cause of the other. Remember the old saying, “assumption makes an ass of you and me.” But I do agree with the author in that the name should be changed.

Reduced loads are used to reduce recoil, noise, amount of powder being used, and other reasons. If reduce loads is something that might appeal to you, might I suggest that you buy a smaller cartridge or caliber gun and not use reduce loads. The powders made today are not designed or meant for reduced loads. They are designed and meant for full powder charges. There are some people that say reduced loads are quite safe and even powder manufacturers that are advertising some of their powders that are suitable for reduced loads. The operative word here is suitable not designed or manufactured for reduced loads. If you read carefully you will find out that the powder manufacturers are placing a lot of restriction on their recommendation for using their powders for reduced loads. These restriction can get very confusing and if done wrong can have very catastrophic effects. I hear young and intermediate reloaders getting the restrictions of reduced loads mixed up every week. For this reason I do not recommend the use of reduced loads.

I personally am leaning towards that the problems with reduced loads are the improper powder type, too slow of a burning-rate, and too low of a load density. This is of course combined with other factors, which are not as yet identified to create a sudden catastrophic failure resulting in the unexpected disassembly of the firearm.
=======================
 
I personally am leaning towards that the problems with reduced loads are the improper powder type, too slow of a burning-rate, and too low of a load density. This is of course combined with other factors, which are not as yet identified to create a sudden catastrophic failure resulting in the unexpected disassembly of the firearm.
Click to expand...

I think that we are on the same page here. I just don't believe that reduced charges of fast powders, (Titegroup, Bullseye, etc.), loaded in conventional handgun cartridges, (.38 SPL, .357 magnum, .44 magnum, .45 Colt, etc.), are disassembling quality handguns.

Double loads of such powders easily fit into those cases, even triple charges, and this will definitely disassemble a quality handgun in short order.

There is also the factor that Clark refers to as "bullet pinch". Even extremely oversize bullets can be fired safely provided that they can get a run at the barrel before they are swaged down. If they aren't free to move, then pressures can spike upwards. I have a Hornady manual listing loads for the .38 Super with both .355 and .357 diameter bullets. Not a great deal of difference.
 
Post21 Paragraph 5 said:
This flash may move the bullet out of the case but it will have insufficient energy to properly engage the rifling. This happens a short instant before the powder is ignited and creates the main gas expanding force. More force is then required to move the bullet than is normal and excessive pressure is exerted on the cartridge's base and the breech mechanism of the gun.
Click to expand...
POPPYCOCK! That 1966 "theory" has been disproved many times.
A quantity of modern smokless gunpowder can only create so much pressure. With modern propellants, pressures are increased in proportion to decreased volume. Meaning the less space the higher the pressure for a given powder charge. The MORE space the LOWER the total pressure will be.

This is why bullet setback can be so dangerous. You've never heard of anyone blowing up their .40 cal beacuse the bullet was seated too far OUT of the case.
 
The powders made today are not designed or meant for reduced loads. They are designed and meant for full powder charges.
Click to expand...
BULL CRAP!!! Powders made today, yesterday, and probably for the future are made to achieve a specific pressure at a specific burn rate. The loader, be it factory or the home reloader, uses what powder and the specific amount he deems suitable to achieve what velocity he wants from the bullet.
If there wasn't any flexibility then how can one powder be used in the same case to create loads that can go from a minimum pressure all the way up to a +P pressure?
What you see in manuals today are basically replications of factory loads, but don't think that is the limitation of the powder. The flexibility of the handloader is to create what the factory don't offer.
 
Safe Reloads For Target Ammo

I'm a long-time Bullseye shooter who has for years reloaded .38 Specials and .45 ACPs with relatively light charges of Bullseye and Unique behind wadcutters/semi-wadcutters without incident. However, the specter of "predetonation" or a one-time, careless double charge has always haunted me.

Is anyone aware of a target load (accurate and low recoiling) that uses a slower burning, bulkier powder that might minimize the risk of double chages/predetonation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

sturmruger
  • Locked
This Anaconda will not be a shooter any more
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
Gewehr98
G
M
  • Locked
Colt Anaconda KB
Replies
7
Views
805
unspellable
U
B
  • Locked
Anaconda Range Report
Replies
2
Views
468
Texas Colt
T
G
  • Locked
Handled a .44 Mag Colt Anaconda Today
Replies
6
Views
1K
g_gunter
G
Lennyjoe
  • Locked
Double charge results with pictures
Replies
22
Views
4K
cloudcroft
C
Back
Top