Remington Converson Blows Up
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
- Status
i would think it could be done but even a very soft steel has been weakened considerably
by what happened.id rather just start afresh and not have any doubts as to the integrity
of my frame.
I can see the idea of starting fresh after that issue. After that kaboom most anyone thats sane would be a bit gun shy shooting it again. As for work hardening I suppose that is always possable but as soft as the steel is I doubt it would be a issue in this case. I have seen a few selfloaders that had the frames really badly sprung that where put back into running condition and seem to work just fine to this day. All where fairly soft metal in the frames though.
buttrap said:
Personally I don't think I'd want to have that thing in my hand again even loaded with blanks!!
I think the real value of that gun now would be as a wall hanger and a reminder. I'd probaby hang it in my loading room where I'd see it every time I walked in the door.
Zombiphobia
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
- Messages
- 646
+1 Good idea
arcticap
Member
The Pietta parts have some kind of value; the grips, the internals, the barrel and the C&B cylinder. Beauhooligan owns more than one revolver that's compatible, and another one is being purchased so at least with the spare parts it's not a total loss.
Jim Watson
Member
Proof test calls for firing a 25% (if not 30 or 33%) overload and then closely inspecting the gun for signs of damage. It does not have to blow up to fail proof.
Proof test will not "weaken the metal."
If you scout around you can find pictures of revolvers with blown cylinders and bowed or broken topstraps that have been rebuilt. Elmer Keith did that back when heavy loads were not well quantified and gunsmiths worked cheap. I can't imagine it would be cost effective on an imported replica, although it has been done on expensive guns where somebody screwed up.
Proof test will not "weaken the metal."
If you scout around you can find pictures of revolvers with blown cylinders and bowed or broken topstraps that have been rebuilt. Elmer Keith did that back when heavy loads were not well quantified and gunsmiths worked cheap. I can't imagine it would be cost effective on an imported replica, although it has been done on expensive guns where somebody screwed up.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Not likely. Proofing is pretty well controlled. As mentioned earlier, proof loads are usually only about 25% more than SAAMI max loads. Sometimes as much as 33% more. Today their are plenty of calculations that can be done by engineers to determine how much stress a gun can take.
I watched rifles being proofed at the Remington plant in Ilion NY a number of years ago. The rifle was mounted on a stand. The muzzle poked through into a separate room where the bullets were caught. Once the rifle was mounted on the stand, the operator loaded a proof round in the chamber, closed the bolt, and then lowered a protective shield over the action. Then the rifle was fired remotely. Then the stand was opened up, the bolt opened, the empty removed and the gun was taken off the stand. Pretty simple and straightforward.
Jim Watson
Member
I figure a double charge of fast burning powder is a lot more likely cause than metal weakened by proof test.
Majes
Member
I doubt a double charge for the very reason that is what all hand-loaders are looking for. But no one thinks to looks for a double bullet seat, although if you understand a progressive press and read his explanation well you see how this is very plausible.
The op wasn't new to hand-loading, this should be a lesson to us all, it is very unlikely that the steel failed, either in the cylinder or the revolver. It is obvious to me it was human error, like most things.
That scares me because this man has 20 years experience over me and I was just getting confident. Never ever forget that humans make mistakes, this is why I am so grateful this was shared here so we can all learn from it.
But it wasn't some fluke in the steel either at the Pietta or Howell factory, nor was it some way over potentate grains of powder. Let's not overlook the lesson here guys, this could well have seriously hurt someone, I for one and very glad it was shared..,...
The op wasn't new to hand-loading, this should be a lesson to us all, it is very unlikely that the steel failed, either in the cylinder or the revolver. It is obvious to me it was human error, like most things.
That scares me because this man has 20 years experience over me and I was just getting confident. Never ever forget that humans make mistakes, this is why I am so grateful this was shared here so we can all learn from it.
But it wasn't some fluke in the steel either at the Pietta or Howell factory, nor was it some way over potentate grains of powder. Let's not overlook the lesson here guys, this could well have seriously hurt someone, I for one and very glad it was shared..,...
rbertalotto
Member
Big cases with small loads of smokeless have been suspect of "predetonition" for some time now.
If you are shooting 45LC conversion cylinders in you C&B revolvers, "Cowboy 45" brass is a no brainer!
With Trail Boss it is nearly impossible to double charge. With BP you have a nice CAS or plinking load. You use less powder so your reloading costs are lower.........
If you are shooting 45LC conversion cylinders in you C&B revolvers, "Cowboy 45" brass is a no brainer!
With Trail Boss it is nearly impossible to double charge. With BP you have a nice CAS or plinking load. You use less powder so your reloading costs are lower.........
I'll give this a shot, so to speak.
The rate at which smokeless powder burns is determined by the ambient pressure. If you were to take let's say 30gr of Unique and pour it onto a plate and light it the result would be a fizzle. But contained inside of a cartridge where the pressure has no place to go, once ignited it will burn faster as the pressure increases. By not filling a smokeless cartridge a partricular powder has room to build just the right amount of pressure and propel the bullet down and out the correct hole. If you were to fill the case the pressure would rise way too fast for the design limits of the chamber and eventually the result would be bad. I realize that TrailBoss does not react this way, but it was designed that way.
Black Powder does not care what the ambient pressure is, it will burn at the same rate on your garage floor as it will in a 45 Colt cartridge. An air space in a Black Powder cartridge gives the pressure time to build up "before" the bullet moves thus creating for lack of a better term "shock wave" that slams into not only the base of the bullet but every surface inside the cartridge and chamber. If you were to take that same 30gr of Black Powder and pour it on a plate, you would want to light it with a match at least a foot long 'cause when it lights it is for all intents and purposes of this conversation, instantaneous. And hot enough to give you 2nd degree burns so I don't advise doing it. Yes I know somebody is going to take me to task for using the term shock wave, it has been beaten to death on other threads.
Leaving an air space in the chamber of a CB pistol won't assure you of destroying the gun but it's not very good for things. Remember these cylinders weren't designed for smokeless so they're pressure tolerance is not the same as let's say a modern S&W 38 Special.
I'm sure somebody else can come up with a much more scientific explanation of why an air space in Black Powder guns is not a good idea but from a laymans point of view what I have written above is what I understand to be the reasoning.
If I'm wrong, please be gentle with me.
The rate at which smokeless powder burns is determined by the ambient pressure. If you were to take let's say 30gr of Unique and pour it onto a plate and light it the result would be a fizzle. But contained inside of a cartridge where the pressure has no place to go, once ignited it will burn faster as the pressure increases. By not filling a smokeless cartridge a partricular powder has room to build just the right amount of pressure and propel the bullet down and out the correct hole. If you were to fill the case the pressure would rise way too fast for the design limits of the chamber and eventually the result would be bad. I realize that TrailBoss does not react this way, but it was designed that way.
Black Powder does not care what the ambient pressure is, it will burn at the same rate on your garage floor as it will in a 45 Colt cartridge. An air space in a Black Powder cartridge gives the pressure time to build up "before" the bullet moves thus creating for lack of a better term "shock wave" that slams into not only the base of the bullet but every surface inside the cartridge and chamber. If you were to take that same 30gr of Black Powder and pour it on a plate, you would want to light it with a match at least a foot long 'cause when it lights it is for all intents and purposes of this conversation, instantaneous. And hot enough to give you 2nd degree burns so I don't advise doing it. Yes I know somebody is going to take me to task for using the term shock wave, it has been beaten to death on other threads.
Leaving an air space in the chamber of a CB pistol won't assure you of destroying the gun but it's not very good for things. Remember these cylinders weren't designed for smokeless so they're pressure tolerance is not the same as let's say a modern S&W 38 Special.
I'm sure somebody else can come up with a much more scientific explanation of why an air space in Black Powder guns is not a good idea but from a laymans point of view what I have written above is what I understand to be the reasoning.
If I'm wrong, please be gentle with me.
Last edited:
Beauhooligan
Member
A fact that should be recognized is that smokeless powder loads routinely have an air space, and function properly. I don't accept that what happened with my pistol was a detonation of smokeless powder. Yes, there was a small powder charge in a large case, but I have fired thousands of similar loads without incident. The detonation concept has been around for a very long time, but has never been proven. What is most likely, and Occam's Law says that the simplest answer, the one with the least assumptions, is most likely to be true. The simplist explanation is that I accidentally double charged the case with powder. The assumption that small charges in large cases will cause detonation is specious; it has been theorized and speculated, but never proven. Loaders routinely throw such charges without blowing up pistols. I do think that having the case filled as much as possible with powder is good practice, but violating that concept is not a sure cause of disaster. I would suspect that throwing double charges has a much better chance of causing bad things to happen. 700-X is a very clean, uniform and easy to measure powder that is widely used in shotgun and pistol loads. It is not some kind of "gremlin" powder waiting to cause destruction. I have shot several 8 pound caddies of 700-X without a glitch. The simplest and most reasonable cause of this rests wth me. Somehow I screwed up and double charged a case; it's that simple. I don't think that the cylinder failed because of being damaged by a proof load, or that the problem was double seated bullets, or that aliens or witchcraft caused the accident. The most likely answer is that I was either not concentrating, or was momentarily distracted, and that lead to a double charge. If we had free cylinders to experiment with, I'm pretty sure if we intentionally threw double charges, it will blow a Taylor's cylinder with regularity. Human failure is hard to accept; it's easier to embrace theoretical mechanical failure, no matter how unlikely.
junkman_01
member
Beau,
I'm with you on your theory here. As they say YOU screwed the pooch.
I'm glad you are all right after the incident though! Get well soon and get back to shooting. You are still too young to quit.
I'm with you on your theory here. As they say YOU screwed the pooch.
I'm glad you are all right after the incident though! Get well soon and get back to shooting. You are still too young to quit.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Thats a convenient excuse for a double charge, or two bullets in the case.
But detonation in small charges of smokeless powder really can't happen.
If it could the ATF would not allow smokeless powder to be sold in small cans, and DOT would not allow it to be hauled all over the country in semi-trucks.
Because it would be a High Explosive, not a Flammable.
rc
Thank you Foto Joe for your insight about the compared behaviour of bp and smokeless powders.
Being given that even experts like Beauhooligan should (maybe) make mistakes with smokeless loads, I will stick with black powder and pure lead, which is almost foolproof (perfect for me...).
Being given that even experts like Beauhooligan should (maybe) make mistakes with smokeless loads, I will stick with black powder and pure lead, which is almost foolproof (perfect for me...).
darkerx said:
Although I might be beaten till my ears bleed for saying this on this particular forum
There's no need to limit yourself to just Black Powder, there are plenty of historically significant smokeless guns as well, the venerable 30 WCF (30-30) comes to mind and of course where would we be without the 1911, which just happens to be one of my newest favorites!!
When it comes down to it, I probably shoot more smokeless rounds than Black Powder, but only because they load faster and S&W 9mm's and 1911's spit the loaded rounds out a little faster than a Dragoon or Navy.
We tend to experiment with our Black Powder loads all by ourselves, seldom using published loading data. All with the knowledge that by doing so we're pretty safe in the assumption that the worst that will happen is not using enough of the good stuff and winding up with a ball stuck half way down the tube. Smokeless of course isn't near so forgiving but....by keeping good records of your loading data as well as your target results you can manipulate a particular load for a particular gun with some pretty satisfying results.
The key is to keep your head in the game and design certain checks and balances into your loading regime. We can ALL make mistakes and as I tell my kids, I've lived through most of mine but I probably ain't done yet.
Hum... I don't think I'm limiting myself by using only black powder. After all, 700 joules are enough for a 1858 rem, isn't it?
And where I live muzleloaders are easy to buy (provided you are over 18), while cartridge guns are much more regulated... :/
And where I live muzleloaders are easy to buy (provided you are over 18), while cartridge guns are much more regulated... :/
- Status
