Sensation piece/warning on Savage 10ML-II ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

il_10

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
440
Location
Virginia
My dad sent me this link yesterday, it's a sensation piece on an exploding 10ML-II, and pending lawsuit.

(warning, image at the top of the link is graphic)
https://apnews.com/adbc910fa9064d4f...ploding-rifle-leaves-trail-of-injured-hunters

I'm curious about what could have happened here. I believe the 10ML-II was designed to shoot some smokeless loads, so my gut is telling me someone used pistol powder, or a BP measure for smokeless, or maybe a compressed smokeless load that pushed the pressure up? I'm not sure I'd feel great about running smokeless in a ML rifle even if it were designed to do it, but I'd be very surprised to learn that these were exploding with BP charges.
 
I have a Savage 10ML-II and have shot it about 50 times. It is accurate with the right bullet/powder combination but is very front heavy due to the thick barrel. For that reason I don't hunt with it much; it keeps flipping down when carried with a shoulder strap.

The thick, heavy barrel makes me think that either the operator/shooter loaded it with the wrong weight or type of powder or the barrel steel is faulty. For those who are not reloaders, loading the powder charge may not be as precise as it needs to be. When people who are used to measuring and loading black powder switch to smokeless powder, they may measure it by volume which is a big mistake with smokeless powders. They may also view their ML10 as being "bomb proof" and load it with whatever powder they have on hand.

I tend to think that Savage may be correct in stating it is operator error.
 
I have a Savage 10ML-II and have shot it about 50 times. It is accurate with the right bullet/powder combination but is very front heavy due to the thick barrel. For that reason I don't hunt with it much; it keeps flipping down when carried with a shoulder strap.

The thick, heavy barrel makes me think that either the operator/shooter loaded it with the wrong weight or type of powder or the barrel steel is faulty. For those who are not reloaders, loading the powder charge may not be as precise as it needs to be. When people who are used to measuring and loading black powder switch to smokeless powder, they may measure it by volume which is a big mistake with smokeless powders. They may also view their ML10 as being "bomb proof" and load it with whatever powder they have on hand.

I tend to think that Savage may be correct in stating it is operator error.

The vast majority of metallic pistol and even rifle loads are loaded with powder measures. Even Lees dipper set will load accurate safe loads if done correctly. The whole grains issue, grains by weight, grains by volume is confusing, there has to be a better way to state it.
 
I read the article in our local newspaper this morning. It claims that "Martin Crimp, a Michigan State University metals expert who examine a 10ML-II that exploded and caused a hunter (Ronald Hanson) to lose multiple fingers in 2009, told the AP the barrel of that gun was 'metallurgically defective'."

An expert hired by Hanson's lawyers came to a similar conclusion, saying the steel used to make the rifle was prone to catastrophic failure after repeat firings.

Savage Arms argued that operator error is to blame for the explosions, saying users must have created too much pressure inside the barrel, either by loading two bullets or using the wrong amount or type or powder.
The article indicated that Hanson was knocked backward by the explosion, which damaged his right hand and ear, and burning his face.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen pictures of several rifles that have exploded from poor metallurgy, but though the barrels exploded, there was not excessive recoil. The barrels ruptured at a thinner place, several inches ahead of the chamber. I tend to think that the Savage findings may be correct...that either two bullets were loaded, or the wrong powder, or amount of powder may have either been the cause, or contributed to the failure. That's because the failure was at the rear of the barrel and there was excessive recoil. Of course, I haven't examined the rifle, so my opinions may not be valid.

What do you folks think?
 
I can tell you from first hand experience that you will react in a very violent manner moving away from an explosion like the one described (mine was an out of battery discharge and damage to left hand). I'm quite sure it looked like I was knocked back by the explosion when in fact it was simply an involuntary reflex. In the case cited no one but the shooter will likely ever know for sure if there was excessive recoil, and even he may not remember.
 
I wonder to what extent it can be forensically proved how many bullets were loaded or what the actual charge weight in the gun was at the moment of ignition?
 
I'm surprised that the article didn't address any of the testing that was done on the barrel prior to the court case. Not even any testing on the inside of the barrel to see if there are any signs of smokeless powder even a small amount
 
Couple of "outdoor" writers have devoted reams of paper to this "phenomena". Google Toby Bridges and Randy Wakeman. Fun to read their differences of opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top