Safer cartridge portfolio

[TheGunGuru]

Look before you load the gun. Simple...guns are dangerous and all aspects of handling and firing a gun should require your attention. The question you ask is similar to asking " what can I do to make sure my bullets don't shoot to far and kill someone?" The answer to both is to think before you act. Become familiar with your equipment and the ammo it fires. I own many rifles/shotguns/pistols and can load them blindfolded because I have taught my self what each gun should have.

As for firing bullets through a gun it's not designed for....Very bad. Sure, sometimes its just scary and doesn't operate the gun right...other times it might cause the bullet to squib and cause a violent explosion. Basically, if your not careful enough to load the correct rounds...I think its safe to say your not careful enough to safely operate a firearm.

 

[highorder]

If you can't trust yourself to put the right ammo in the right gun, then you had better get a system down to avoid such a thing.

or don't handle, load or shoot guns.

I don't trust myself on a motorcycle, so I don't own one.

"every man has to know his own limitations" -Inspector Harry Callahan

 

[Wes Janson]

I'm going to concur, and state that the real issue here isn't ammunition compatability, but the poster's fear of a mishap. There are many ways to screw things up, but chambering the wrong ammo shouldn't be one to worry about. If it's a continual, nagging fear, then perhaps that relates to some sort of other underlying issue.

 

[psalmsinger]

I think some posters might be missing the intent of my post. Of course, I have and will have a system. I do check my cases when I pick them up to ensure that they are not someone else's. I sort cases by brand, weight, number of loads, etc. When I reload, I take steps to ensure proper loads into proper cases. I label everything. When I load, I do observe not only the type of cartridge I am loading, but also the condition of it.

I think that safety includes all steps that one can take to reduce the likelyhood of mishap. For instance, I drive carefully, but I still wear a seat belt. I could be struck by lightning, so I avoid standing in a thunderstorm with a large metal stick. While walking from my car onto the range, I not only keep my finger out of the trigger guard, I leave the rifle unloaded. I not only avoid setting fires in my home, but I have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and I store powder in a type 4 magazine and primers in a smaller separate magazines. My firearms are stored in a safe, and I lock the door to my house and turn on the alarm system when I leave. Safety is often common sense, and common sense dictates taking any additional steps that may be seemingly unnecessary, but are taken just to be sure. Yes, I can look at a cartridge and catch an oddball, but can I run through 10,000 cartridges and spot a similar-looking oddball? after 9,999 have all been correct? I have seen so many procedures like this fail, it seems prudent to take additional steps, even more so when I may have a choice that costs me nearly nothing to avoid it.

I have worked nearly 30 years in high reliability systems design. If I have a system that can deliver 99.99% of the time, I can feel pretty confident that at any one observation, it will be working correctly. However, that 99.99% of success indicates that the system is screwing up almost one hour every year. If two systems can be combined, each delivering independently of the other, and each giving this 99.99% assurance of success, the combined system delivers 99.99999% assurance of success. The 99.99% assurance means that I could just miss that one cartridge out of the 10,000. If I can say that 99.99% of possible wrong cartridges I could have loaded would be benign, I can leave the rest to the safety glasses.

It is my observation that most things break because people are involved. Considering that these people were well trained, had good procedures, and yet still failed shows a general capacity of even the best people to make a mistake. I know I have made mistakes. People do not make mistakes because they know they are doing it. People make mistakes because they either don't care, don't have sufficient information to make a decision, just are not smart enough to apply the information, they are physically incapable, or some combination of these. Because I care enough about this to desire correctness, I desire to gather all the information I can so that I can make an informed decision. In no way should my question be misinterpreted to assume that I do not intend to be careful to load the correct caliber. It is not paranoia, it is prudence.

So far, the .223 Rem does seem to be a candidate. I had discounted the .223, but a mini-14 would look nice in my collection. So does the .243 Win seem to work. The .243 Win I also dismissed too early, because I was thinking that I did not want the round to even fire, but it appears that the .243 is okay, even moreso if I Ackley the .243 chambers so that my reloads will not even go in a standard .308 (the .308 still will not chamber even in an Ackley 243). It even looks like I can do .223 and .243! The .22-250 is kind of short, so the headspace in the .308 chamber could allow for head separation. The 220 Swift may also work well for this -- it is too long to lock in the .308 off the shoulder, and a .308 case is just long enough to block lockup all by itself from the case mouth.

So, thanks for all the help!

 

[highorder]

For instance, I drive carefully, but I still wear a seat belt. I could be struck by lightning, so I avoid standing in a thunderstorm with a large metal stick.

It sounds like your job has influenced your decision making ability by oversensatizing you to minute possibility. Your OP suggests that, all things being equal, the danger of an auto accident are such that you would only drive your car on roads with no other cars, or never go outside when it's raining... Do you see the flaw in the design of your cartridge system?

 

[Ed Ames]

I appreciate the desire to reduce error opportunity. I have a similar background and have spent more time than I'd care to admit contemplating failure modes.

One problem is that your analogy is faulty. 99.99% from one system and 99.99% from another system doesn't automatically give you greater reliability. If both systems share similar types of flaws the combined rate will still be 99.99%. In the real world the flaws can compound to reduce total reliability if you aren't careful.

Imagine a dam...an imperfect dam. A 99.99% dam. Let's say that the difference between 100% and 99.99% is a single 3" hole. What good will a second 99.99% dam, placed immediately behind the first, do? Will the amount of water that flows through the hole change? No. You can have an infinite number of 99.99% dams and the water levels will still go down. If the holes are at random places on the various dams eventually the water will flow to the highest hole and that's the only dam that makes any difference. That's the only safety net that matters.

That's an imperfect analogy as well of course, but it illustrates the core problem.

You can control your chambers but you have far less control over the types of ammo you are exposed to. The world is a complicated place full of all sorts of error. Your ammo suppliers, your buddies (and strangers) at the range, the list of potential sources of error just grows and grows. Therefore you need to excert full chamber/cart. discipline at all times. The additional layer of chamber choice doesn't buy you any real security...

But let's say you think it does... deep down inside you know you are safer. The fact that you "know" that your choices are "safe" may reduce the quality of your chamber/cart. discipline. That's the human factor for you. False senses of security are a real source of error. Suddenly you go from 99.999% reliable (most people go their whole lives without such a failure...many have never even seen such a failure... so 1 in 100,000 as the base chamber/cart. failure rate sounds about right to me) to maybe 99.993%. Not much of a shift but it's in the wrong direction.

So -- since the manual process will still be essential -- a better area of obsession is the consequences of error. Try to find firearms that, if they blow, minimize the risk to the user.

That doesn't mean you can't choose safe sets... but leave that choice for range days. When you pack up to go shooting pick a set that won't cause confusion at the range. I do that myself... well, actually I don't... but I can see myself doing that in some strange alternate universe.

 

[psalmsinger]

It sounds like your job has influenced your decision making ability by oversensatizing you to minute possibility. Your OP suggests that, all things being equal, the danger of an auto accident are such that you would only drive your car on roads with no other cars, or never go outside when it's raining... Do you see the flaw in the design of your cartridge system?

No, sorry, I don't see it.

If I have two ways to travel, one with cars and the other not. Even if the way with cars is 1% shorter than the one without, I am likely to go the longer route to avoid the traffic (aka the other stupid drivers, the risk of a tie-up, etc.). Now, if the longer way was significantly longer, I might opt to take the shortcut -- this is called risk assessment. If the cost of the option is too high, I might risk the consequences. But, what is the cost of .243 Win AI over selecting 6mm Rem? Only a few ft/sec? But the .243 Win is cheaper per round, so...

If it is raining, I don't cut the grass. I don't golf in the rain. I don't do many things in the rain. All other things being equal, there are some things I choose to enjoy in the sunshine rather than in the rain. So, I can choose, if given the luxury to do so. I am now given the luxury of choosing a new caliber. The question I ask is, what does it look like to walk in the sunshine -- then I can decide if the cost of waiting for the rain to stop is too long for me. If there are options to choose from, like the .243Win, .223Rem, or .220 Swift, then I don't see why it is unreasonable to consider this. Now, if these were rare or underperforming or otherwise problematic calibers, I can see the question as to whether avoiding a caliber mixup is worth it. But, I thought the question worth asking, and the offering of these calibers has demonstrated that it was indeed the best course for me.

It is true that the best safety is between the ears, but I still use the one on the gun. I may be choosing the narrow way, but I prefer it. Yes, my sensitivity to details is why they gave me this job. I assess everything. I identify my target, look beyond it, and between me and it. The small caliber is my target; the cartridge performance, costs, weapons choice, reloading, laws, and other things are between me and it; but I desire not to fail to look beyond the target, should I miss.

 

[psalmsinger]

Ed Ames,

Let me build on the dam analogy. The chasm between the two dams is normally empty, until a fault emerges in the dam holding back the water. If the chasm begins to fill, you know you have a fault and you can take corrective action (e.g. fix the hole). In the case at hand, I always check the cartridges anyway, so once I see that this one is different than my mental image of what it should be, I have detected the fault and can take action (including failure analysis to see why the fault happened and try to stop that source from re-occurring). Fault detection is important for any hi-rel solution. Yes, often people try to build hi-rel by simply adding what they think is redundancy, but actually add complexity and correlated faults.

Now, let us say that the water detection between the dams fails, the second dam may provide protection from the collapse of the first. This keeps the downstream town dry. If the second dam is found to save the town, you once again can take corrective action. How many who have fired a wrong caliber have redoubled their efforts to check carefully? I mean the ones who lived and can still see. Indeed, there are articles in gun magazines that speak of this.

I do agree that knowing that there is a net under your performance may lead to complacency. This can affect things a bit. There is a psychological component. However, I already know that manufacturers make mistakes and I can get an oddball. I have a whole selection of ammunition I did not buy -- one of 20 or 50 that is different, a couple of time a whole box. So, I check. But, I don't need to increase the likelyhood of failures in the input stream. Using your dam example (gee, that sounds nasty if you say it out loud) I don't need to make the input dam out of weaker concrete. Will my diligence wane still knowing that my manufacturers and even my own reloads can fail me? I hope not. I check today and I am not going to give this up just because my choice of another caliber is safer than one that can burn me.

The comment on a good action is also a good one. Any suggestions here would also be appreciated. I like the Rem 700 for my own builds (strong, good quality, etc.), but I was considering Savage (mod 16 stainless) and the Ruger 77 Mark II for off-the-shelf .243 Win. I have not looked for offering in the .223Rem or Swift. I also like the CZs, but I think I have better choices here.

Thanks!

 

[Wes Janson]

We're all going to die sometime. It's only a question of how and when.

Worrying endlessly over one-in-a-million events destroys enjoyment and probably increases stress-related health problems. A certain exclamation from Sergeant Major Daly springs to mind. Your signature, as it relates to this, is rather telling.

Bottom line: choose a caliber because it performs a task you want to accomplish. Do not choose a caliber based on the incredibly remote possibility of a mixup error. If you're that concerned about personal safety and risk reduction, I'd strongly recommend giving up shooting entirely. There will never be 100% safety or certainty with 50,000 PSI of pressure contained in a brass and steel vessel beside your face.

 

[Ed Ames]

It depends on if you are viewing things from a process or instance failure perspective.

From an instance failure perspective -- in other words, the perspective that the dam will work at 100% until it fails -- the two dams, with monitoring, can provide a safety margin. Even there an engineer would need to calculate the relative safety margins of two dams vs. one double-strong dam.

You were coming at things from a process perspective, though, and from that point of view things are a bit different. A 99.99% reliable process for producing widgets, or a 99.99% effective dam, will pass 1 failure in 10,000 units. If you are producing 10,000 units an hour, or holding back 10,000,000 gallons of water an hour (and yeah, that's strained but you get the idea), that means 24 failures/thousand gallons will seep through every day. You expect that flow of failures.

Simply putting another check in place, even with sensors and feedback, may do absolutely nothing to change the failure rate. Disregarding evaporation and seepage the chasm between the dams will fill and then 0.01% will start passing through the second dam. Not 0.01% of 0.01%, but 0.01% of the total... which means 24,000 gallons a day in our hypothetical example. The failure rate is identical.

I understand the desire to simplify the problem. All else being equal simplicity is easier to deal with. I just don't think the simplification will really buy you the sort of gains you anticipate.

At the same time it may actually cost you real utility.

An example is cases that are within resizing or trimming/processing range of each other. Choosing pairings that way (which will naturally give you cartridges that are in the same family and therefore break your "safety" rule) may allow you to extend the life of reloading brass (reload cart. 1 util cumulative failures are excessive, anneal, resize to cart 2, and continue loading for another N cycles.

Other benefits of similarity (magazine compatibility, storage ease, etc) are also lost.

The main issue, to me, is that you are giving up your ability to choose the cartridges you really want without gaining anything of significant value. If you could demonstrate a single order of magnitude safety enhancement you may have a point but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the actual enhancement was above a few percent.

So... you don't gain any ease (still must check each round). You don't gain an appreciable safety marging (consequences of failure are identical). You can't demonstrate a significant difference in failure rate (emperical evidence doesn't support the contention that this is a major source of danger/failure in rifle shooting). You potentially lose flexibility, performance, economy, and other benefits.

There are problems with some of your other examples too... less traveled roads are often significantly more dangerous than their high-traffic equivalents even when the distance traveled is shorter. Compare the fatality rates per vehicle mile on interstate and rural highways... interstates have a LOT more traffic but are far safer. The presence of other drivers scares a lot of people off of interstates (even today) but that fear is actually driving them to riskier behavior. The perception of safety strikes again.

 

[highorder]

The main issue, to me, is that you are giving up your ability to choose the cartridges you really want without gaining anything of significant value.

Ed;

I may as well quit here. You have said everything I have thought about this better than I have.

 

[psalmsinger]

Simply putting another check in place, even with sensors and feedback, may do absolutely nothing to change the failure rate.

True! You cannot simply check the same things twice. The checks have to be substantially different.

Disregarding evaporation and seepage the chasm between the dams will fill and then 0.01% will start passing through the second dam. Not 0.01% of 0.01%, but 0.01% of the total... which means 24,000 gallons a day in our hypothetical example. The failure rate is identical.

Well, the dam model breaks down at some point. Yes, if we are only talking about water seepage, any dam will pass the water because each checks only by the same parameter. When I pick up a cartridge, I cannot measure dimensions to a mil, but I can assess general shape and proportion, get some idea of weight, and read a headstamp. The chamber is possibly a substantially different check, verifying maximum dimensional character in all three dimensions to a fairly great precision.

At the same time it may actually cost you real utility.

True enough in theory, but does it in practice. What cartridge gives me significant increases in utility that is excluded by my parameters? If the utility (value) is high enough, I might take on some additional risk. The reason for asking the question may be partly due to having already determined that the differences in value did not produce a clear winner. If there was an ideal cartridge in this space, like one with a 6mm bullet range from 40g to 140g and MVs of 4000 to 3000ft/s respectively, the question might be different, like "anyone want to buy a couple dozen .308 rifles, reloading dies, etc?"

An example is cases that are within resizing or trimming/processing range of each other. Choosing pairings that way (which will naturally give you cartridges that are in the same family and therefore break your "safety" rule)

I'm not sure this does break the "rule." The .243 Win is exactly the same case length as the .308 Win. Even though it locks in a .308, it looks like it could be benign, at first glance. It fails, but it most likely will fail safe. Poking around the internet a bit more I found this article: http://www.levergun.com/articles/wrong.htm
The .243 Win is looking more attractive. It is definitely popular It looks to be quite flexible, low cost, etc.

Other benefits of similarity (magazine compatibility, storage ease, etc) are also lost.

My .308 mags for the CZ-550 are actually .243 mags. Could be a plus in going .243 then, or a minus... I have not seen an issue with sidearm calibers. I have at least ten magazines for every sidearm I own (each numbered to track them). Each sidearm caliber has its own distinctive reloading dies, plates, holders, boxes, shelf space, color, log book, storage bins, ammo cans, etc. I do the standard thing and put everything away between calibers when reloading. I have organized things to make this as painless as I know how. Only the consumable stock (powder, primers, and bullets) are located in a cartridge agnostic way. If I do a .243 CZ-550, I suspect I will be doing a bake on finish of the magazines dedicated for it to the new color for the .243 Win to distinguish them from my existing .308 ones, if I follow my SOP. For instance, currently my .45ACP mags go in a lockable container labeled and colored to the .45ACP color (blue). All .45ACP ammo is likewise in blue MTM boxes and/or in ammo cans labeled in that color, either as a paint spot or sticker. The reloading dies have a blue color spot on their mounting plate or are in a box with a blue sticker to identify them as well. A bin with a blue sticker and label holds many tools, such as dedicated .45ACP OAL gauges, reference weights, hole and pocket reamers, go/no-go gauges, etc. Another bin with a blue dot and label holds extra barrels, springs, and other small parts. Another bin with a blue dot and label holds the ziplock bags with fired brass. I think you have the idea - reuse is not a bit thing for me; I am more interested in neatness and correctness.

Okay -- enough with the Garanimals jokes...

 

[TimboKhan]

Hey, do what you want how you want to do it, but I think you are letting fear restrict you far too much. At last count, I have guns in 12 different calibers, and I have only once ever had an instance in which the wrong round went into the wrong gun, and even that was a minor incident at worst. 7.62x39 simply won't chamber into a .223, though it will fit into the magazine!

Really, if you keep your ammo in boxes and not rattling around loose and pay just a very little bit of attention, it's darn near impossible to mix things up.

 

[dmazur]

psalmsinger -

I'm an engineer, but not in high reliability design. One of my responsibilities in management is safety, and I am appropriately concerned about the consequences of failure in a lockout system. (A little patience here, please, with my analogy. I also work at a dam, but I'll refrain from dragging those structures into the discussion...)

A proper lockout system has redundancy. Not a lot, but some. Typically, you open a breaker, then check at the terminals with a DMM before beginning work while someone operates the controls that normally energize the circuit. This verification step checks for 1) wrong breaker got opened, or 2) breaker handle moved but contacts were welded closed. You don't assume the primary isolation system works. Use it, then verify.

So, if you have your consistent labeling system on your ammo boxes, you are reasonably sure nothing's improperly boxed. That's the first safety procedure. Just check the headstamp as you load. Don't get in a hurry. This can also be done if you are putting cartridges in an ammo carrier, loops, etc. That's the verification.

If you change rifles, put the rounds back in the proper box.

With a "label and verify" system, with only one operator involved (you), it just isn't going to go wrong. Be very, very careful if you add an assistant to the problem...

 

[Markbo]

Man if I had known an Engineer started this thread, I never would have participated!

 

[Jeff F]

I know of one case where a .308 got fired in a .270. It wasn't good for the gun