Pressure Spikes Caused by Underloaded Cartridges

Status
Not open for further replies.
The biggest problem is finding someone with the resources to perform a controlled experiment that provides repeatable results. That "repeatable" result is a blown up gun.

Firearm and component manufacturers have no incentive to prove that low charges of slow or fast powder reloaded ammunition blows up guns because neither will ever encourage using "out of recommended range" reloads in any gun and no powder manufacturer would ever want the public to know that their powder can cause a kaboom even without being an extreme overload.

Charles J. Sharp's "A RELOADING DEBACLE" is an excellent detailed first-person account of a kaboom describing what was likely done to cause it.

Examing the cases I was pleased to see my first three shots yielded three perfect cases. Just as I was set to fire my fourth round Jack hollered asking a question. Pointing the barrel straight down while releasing the hammer I turned to answer. I then raised my Contender and just knew that this time I was going to bust the pigeon.

Pulling the trigger my Contender exploded. Reeling and dazed by the violent explosion, I just stood there stupidly looking at what was left.

It's interesting that he doesn't state that the one variable that he changed from the prior 3 shots was first pointing the barrel straight down, then lifting it back up to shoot. Reading several other posts about low charge kabooms with slow powder really points out (to me) that piling the powder away from the primer causes a delayed burn usually preceded by the bullet being driven into the rifling from the primer alone.

If I were given a dozen free rifles and a good solid tree to tie it to, a cord to pull the trigger and a steel shield to stand behind, I bet I could repeatedly cause kabooms. With a low charge of powder with a burn rate between super slow pistol (2400, H110, W296) or maybe relatively fast rifle powder, If you tip the barrel down and get the powder away from the primer, you will have a higher chance of an "SEE or kaboom" than if the barrel were first tipped up before pulling the trigger. Each powder has it's own burn characteristic and maybe even slower rifle powders would do this if they can get to that ignition point with enough space in the case, but enough powder to get the pressure high enough to blow up the gun. I say that because sometimes powders are so slow or a bad primer is so weak that the powder does not completely "go off" and disassembly of the cartridge shows a mess of partly burned powder in a case.

My takeaway from all this is not to use slow pistol powders in reduced large case loads. Small charges of fast pistol powder do work reliably and safely. I've done the barrel tilting thing (both up and down) with Unique, Red Dot, Bullseye, Clays, Titewad. The gun held up fine and the MV's don't change by much. Fillers don't make much of a difference other than seeing bits of pillow fluff float around after each shot.
 
It doesn't happen. If it did it could be recreated. And they have tried.

When people blame detonation it's a double charge it a squib followed by another round.
I'm with you. If it was in fact a real phenomenon, it could be easily reproduced....and it can't be....

But Bigfoot and UFO's will live forever on the internet.
 
"My takeaway from all this is not to use slow pistol powders in reduced large case loads."


Personally I agree. I've only heard of detonation claims in regard to H110/WW296.
Winchester -Western invented the ball powder and it does contain nitroglycerine. Their manuals run very close minimum to maximum loads with this powder and go so far as to note that the quantity shouldn't vary from those limitations. Perhaps they know something I don't.

I like hot loads, prefer near full boat H110/WW296 to deliver.

If I want a reduced but still magnum load, I switch to H4227- simple- but I would never preach to anyone if they want to download it, just not in my guns please.
 
Warning: All but nerds should check out at this point…

“light charges of these powders do not contain enough energy to do such damage”

When somebody says “there is not enough available energy” to blow up a gun, I think they are answering the wrong question. It is not really energy that blows up the gun. It’s pressure, which is produced by the products of combustion. Pressure is a result the combustion, but is really a function of force, not energy and can be impacted by various factors. So we may be able to keep the First Law of Thermodynamics alive, thank god!:)

A glance at load data confirms that less available energy does not necessarily mean less peak pressure.

If I look at loads for 357 I see 8.4gr of Bullseye for a 125gr bullet at 32,800 psi. I also see a charge of 6.8gr for a 158gr bullet at 33,100psi. Higher pressure with less powder.

This should not be surprising because the combustion chamber expands more slowly with a heavy bullet, since it will take more pressure to move it. In other words the lighter bullet is a more effective pressure relief valve than a heavier one.

So this leads me to this question: What if there is something else (don’t know what, powder position?) that increases the rate of pressure increase and therefore peak pressure before it is relieved by bullet movement down the barrel?
 
Many, many years ago, (1960's & '70's) when PPC and Bullseye shooting were king, the NRA commissioned the H.P. White Laboratory to see if they could replicate a .38 Special revolver blowing up from shooting 2.7 grains of Bullseye and the 148 grain Hollowbase Wadcutter bullet in .38 Special, which was the most popular loading for both disciplines.

H. P. White wasn't able to make it happen testing with that combination in their extensive testing protocol, and came to the conclusion that most revolvers being blown up with that load was from double and triple charging. This was also the era of the first progressive presses for the reloader (Star, C-H and a few others), and the incidents were becoming more common.

A fellow pistol team member blew up his S&W Model 19, with Bomar Rib, on the firing line next to me in a match on the LASD Pistol Range. He had hurriedly loaded his ammunition the night before the match on a C-H Champion in-line press, and the conclusion was that he double or triple loaded a round when the slide slipped over the cases without advancing them, as that press was want to do on occasion. We pulled down some of the rest of his ammunition from that session and found one double charged.

I've fired many, many thousands of rounds of 2.7 grains of Bullseye and the 148 gr. HBWC bullet, and every round performed as it was supposed to. I attribute most blown up guns to human error, but I'm not saying that magic can't have a hand......

Hope this helps.

Fred

PS: we never found the Bomar Rib, so it may still be in orbit.....
 
Many, many years ago, (1960's & '70's) when PPC and Bullseye shooting were king, the NRA commissioned the H.P. White Laboratory to see if they could replicate a .38 Special revolver blowing up from shooting 2.7 grains of Bullseye and the 148 grain Hollowbase Wadcutter bullet in .38 Special, which was the most popular loading for both disciplines.



H. P. White wasn't able to make it happen testing with that combination in their extensive testing protocol, and came to the conclusion that most revolvers being blown up with that load was from double and triple charging. This was also the era of the first progressive presses for the reloader (Star, C-H and a few others), and the incidents were becoming more common.



A fellow pistol team member blew up his S&W Model 19, with Bomar Rib, on the firing line next to me in a match on the LASD Pistol Range. He had hurriedly loaded his ammunition the night before the match on a C-H Champion in-line press, and the conclusion was that he double or triple loaded a round when the slide slipped over the cases without advancing them, as that press was want to do on occasion. We pulled down some of the rest of his ammunition from that session and found one double charged.



I've fired many, many thousands of rounds of 2.7 grains of Bullseye and the 148 gr. HBWC bullet, and every round performed as it was supposed to. I attribute most blown up guns to human error, but I'm not saying that magic can't have a hand......



Hope this helps.



Fred



PS: we never found the Bomar Rib, so it may still be in orbit.....


Great post Fred and the exact point I've been making for years. I still shoot PPC and Bullseye. You still active in it?
 
ljnowell,

I quit shooting PPC a long time ago. I'm 71 years old now, and can't quite hold as tight at 50 yards as I could back then. Now I shoot SASS matches, where it's all about the fun and the people, and having a ball doing it. I never thought I would take vacations to go shoot, but have several times. We've shot all over Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Wyoming. Great bunch of people to hang out with.

Fred

Back to the OP's discussion. I figure if H.P. White Labs can't reproduce what is supposed to have taken place, then I'll just keep on doing what I've been doing. I'm well over 800,000 rounds of reloaded ammunition and haven't had it happen to me, yet. At about 750,000 rounds, I finally had my first squib load, and it was in the International Championships for SASS in New Mexico. It didn't make my day, that's for sure.......
 
I've not seen it with handgun loads but I do have a hot rod big case wildcat 224 rifle that I've experienced it with. It was repeatable and as I dropped the powder charge the pressure went up quickly. The powder was Re22. Bullet was Speer 60 gr soft point. We had developed loads with 68, 69, and 75 gr bullets using Re22 and more or less compresses powder charges. Never having loaded the 60 gr before I backed off the 68 gr bullet load 10% or so. The fired case showed pressure signs so we backed down another couple grains. Blew a primer! Hmmmm? That's strange! Next load same charge and weighed it twice and checked to be sure the bullet was not jammed into the lands. Same blown primer thing! Backed off another two grains and gas blew out the action and the bolt was locked tight. I thought I would have to remove the barrel to get it open, but with a bit of tapping with a hammer and block of wood we got it open. Yes, most of the primer was still in front of the bolt face, the primer pocket was way oversized and the case head brass had flowed into every crevis possible locking the bolt. Had to shear that off to open the bolt. We did remove the barrel and checked the action, bolt, and chamber for damage. Found none. Put it back together and again shot the 68 and 75 gr bullets with the more or less compressed powder charge without incident! I have my theory as to what happened and I think having it happen four times in a row with higher pressure with reduced powder charges is being repeatable. No, I haven't tried it again and the action is a first generation Ruger 77.

It can happen and I made it repeat at will, so to speak, and I think I know why! Topic for another thread at another time. It'll take a while to describe.

PD
 
Well, I don't understand why it happens but I DID witness it happening to a friend of mine who was shooting very light hand loads in his SW Model 29 (.44 Magnum, 6" barrel). The effect of it happening was a bulge at one spot in the cylinder that prevented it from fully rotating. I know it was not a double charge because each of the light loads had the same light report.
 
Many, many years ago, (1960's & '70's) when PPC and Bullseye shooting were king, the NRA commissioned the H.P. White Laboratory to see if they could replicate a .38 Special revolver blowing up from shooting 2.7 grains of Bullseye and the 148 grain Hollowbase Wadcutter bullet in .38 Special, which was the most popular loading for both disciplines.
Ken Waters wrote about 2.4 gr of Bullseye with 148 gr hollow base wadcutters in a .38 S&W, blowing the centers out of the bullets, leaving a ring in the barrel breach. Just before he discovered this, he was recording a (too good to be true) velocity of just over 1000 fps with the load. At the time, this seemed to account for some kb's with light loads.
 
I've seen the centers blown out of HBWC bullets with too large a charge of Bullseye in the .38 Special, but I don't have much experience with the .38 S&W, other than making a few bullets .360" in diameter for a friend who shoots them.

What I saw was two distinct impacts in the target and berm. I've got the skirt from one of the bullets I picked up off the berm in my samples box. That soft bullet was never designed to be shot at +P velocities, and I can see where a skirt "may" get stuck in a barrel and another round fired behind it.

Hope this helps.

Fred
 
Well, I don't understand why it happens but I DID witness it happening to a friend of mine who was shooting very light hand loads in his SW Model 29 (.44 Magnum, 6" barrel). The effect of it happening was a bulge at one spot in the cylinder that prevented it from fully rotating. I know it was not a double charge because each of the light loads had the same light report.


No it didn't. It was a double charge.
 
No it didn't. It was a double charge
Oh really? You were there? I doubt that since he and I were the only ones at the range that day. Besides, a double charge would have been close to a standard load and more normal (i.e. much heavier) recoil. And I know that didn't happen.

Or more likely a barrel obstruction...
All bullets exited the barrel.
 
Oh really? You were there? I doubt that since he and I were the only ones at the range that day. Besides, a double charge would have been close to a standard load and more normal (i.e. much heavier) recoil. And I know that didn't happen.


All bullets exited the barrel.


I didn't have to be. It's easy, it didn't happen. It was caused by something else.
 
Still not convinced...

... its not possible to blow up a gun with a reduced charged.

ReloaderFred: It is not surprising that they could not get 2.7gr of Bullseye and a 148gr. wadcutter to explode. That load is within the recommended range. Furthermore, a 148gr wadcutter takes up about half the total volume of a .38 Special cartridge. We are talking about highly reduced loads in cases with a large volume of empty space.

Here is a page out of Mic McPherson's Book "Metallic Cartridge Reloading". It would appear that a certain famous arms making German Family believes there are anomalous cases.

I have no doubt that most blown up guns are due to over charges. But I think we have enough info to recommend that we not go below listed loads. Especially since I cannot see any compelling reason to do so.
 

Attachments

  • Mics Pics 001.jpg
    Mics Pics 001.jpg
    110 KB · Views: 16
refuse2bafool,

If you had been shooting during the 60's and 70's, you would know that the load I mentioned was the one most associated with blown up revolvers. That's the reason the NRA commissioned the H. P. White Laboratories to try to prove, or disprove, the theory that the light load of Bullseye was the culprit. They were never able to prove it one way or the other because they weren't able to make it happen.

As for the HBWC taking up half of the space of the .38 Special, that's almost true, except for the deep hollow base of the bullet, which allows for more volume within the case than would be indicated by the seating depth of the bullet, which is flush with the case mouth. I was shooting over 1,500 rounds of that combination per week in practice, and another 360 rounds in matches every weekend during the season. I did that for the four years I was on the department pistol team, so I've put a few of those rounds downrange...

During the time I was on the team, I was in Cheshire & Perez, Inc., the California distributor for Smith & Wesson at the time, on a monthly basis. They had numerous match revolvers go through their shop that were blown up in PPC matches, all using that load, but again, the consensus was that it was caused by double and triple charging.

For the volume of the charge, vs. the volume of the case, it is the subject of this discussion.

Hope this helps.

Fred
 
I've never had it happen in my handguns, although I've heard of it. I have had it happen with H-414/W760 in my 280 AI while working up loads. Back in the 70's, I also had it happen with W760 in a 7mm RM I had. Always with light loads and resulted in stiff bolt opening and brass flow. As I increased charge, it went away and behaved normally.

Ken
 
I've never had it happen in my handguns, although I've heard of it. I have had it happen with H-414/W760 in my 280 AI while working up loads. Back in the 70's, I also had it happen with W760 in a 7mm RM I had. Always with light loads and resulted in stiff bolt opening and brass flow. As I increased charge, it went away and behaved normally.

Ken
you saw pressure signs and continued to increase the charge?
 
I use slower powders at listed charges for 9mm and 40 S&W. My favorites are Unique, Longshot, and CFE Pistol. I see no need to download them below the minimum listed charge.

The only rifle powder that I'm aware of that you can safely download is H-4895, you can go as low as 60% of the maximum.


.
 
I go along with Old Sandman 71. We did a lot of
squib loads in rifles and started out with small amounts
of fast powders. They didn't always light off and a bullet
would stick in the bore. Then we tried toilet paper over the powder.
That worked, but the ground was often covered with burning
toilet paper. We went to larger amounts of slower powder and
that worked. Ignition was sometimes erratic. Throw your powder
and fill the rest of the case with cream of wheat or a filler. That works.
 
Once upon a time, I used 28ga vegetable fiber wads over 4198, for competition .45-70 loads. It smelled like burning hair. :eek:
 
To each his own...

Reloader Fred…

Your comments do not address the issue. The fact that one ballistics lab was unable to recreate the phenomenon does not mean it cannot happen. Nor does the fact that somebody fired 1,000,000,000 rounds of it. It only “proves” (at best) that particular load is not a hazard to some statistical degree.

And not that it has much of an impact on the issue, but the fact that a HBWC has a “hollow” in it does not change how much volume it takes up. If the bullet with an essentially flat front end is set flush with the top of the case, it will occupy the same amount of case space regardless of what the shape of the bullet is inside the case. A 38 special case has a total internal volume of about 0.097 cubic inches. A 148 grain lead bullet will have a volume of about 0.052 cubic inches. If the lead is alloyed it will take up even more space since that would reduce its specific gravity.

And the argument that if it was possible it could be deliberately recreated in a lab is not scientifically supportable.

As I said, I believe the overwhelming majority of blown up guns are due to over charges. But I am convinced it is not wise to just assume that undercharging is never a factor. I am in good company. If everybody else wants to blow off the Kuhnhausen's shop manual, Mike Venturnio, Mic McPhearson, Richard Lee, and the Krupps, then they are more than welcome to do so. The ranges I shoot at all have nice sturdy barriers between lanes at the firing bench.
 
You're misinterpreting what I said. I never said it can't happen. I only pointed out that one of the most respected ballistics labs in the country couldn't reproduce it, and couldn't prove the theory one way or the other. I also didn't say I didn't believe it "could" happen, so don't read something into my statements that isn't there. I simply said it has never happened to me, and I do have lots of experience with the specific load the NRA had investigated.

As for going below published data, and I'm talking handgun loads for the most part, there is data, and there is data. Each ballistics lab has different testing procedures and parameters. I've been in the labs at Sierra Bullets and Nosler Bullets, and talked to the ballisticians about this phenomena at length.

Some reloading manuals have specific loading data for "Cowboy Loads", and some of those loads will be below the starting loads in their regular data, since it's specific to the needs of shooting soft lead bullets at steel targets at relatively close ranges. Those loads would be considered "reduced below starting" for their regular data, due to the above criteria, yet they're safe and do what they're designed to do.

Hope this helps.

Fred
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top