Warning: Do not use Tula .308!!! This is why!!!

[jnoble87]

I used Golden Bear .30-06 ammo in my Mossberg ATR 100 once. Fired 8 rounds through the rifle and stopped when I noticed the cases bulging funny and not ejecting properly. The primer faces looked like someone took a hammer to them. No way was I gonna blow myself up, so I gave it back to the guy I got it from. Sorry about your luck man.

 

[zfk55]

Ok RW. This is going to take a while. I'll have to find the typed report my Father gave the Sheriff's dept and anything else I can get from them. That's a lot of years ago. I'll do my best.
When it happened three pieces of metal entered my mid right chest. They hit ribs and one is still lodged near my heart. One is near the base of my spine in the back and the last one is still in my upper arm.
It was deemed to dangerous to operate and my parents were told that eventually they would migrate close to the surface and could be removed. They didn't migrate fast enough and scar tissure formed around them and they're now locked in place.
I'll see how much I can find.

*Forgot to add that I do set of airport alarms and hvae to repeat the same story every time.*

 

[brnmuenchow]

I am also glad that you are okay, and no I do not have an explanation or an excuse for this problem. However, I have found out through my own experiance sometimes guns, ammo, etc.. etc.. are just like cars. You can drive 3 Chevy Camaro's and all be fine till that 4th one just does not get the job done and it's just a POS. So you can write that one off and try again or switch to a Ford Mustang and see what you get. My point is as for the Tula brand of ammo, I use it in almost all my Guns they have chamberings for and so far have never had an issue, and hope I never will. Unlike me where I swiched from GM to Ford vehicles for my own reasons and have been happy ever since, I don't know if this may be a "bad brand" or just a bad batch (refering to the ammo now) in which "all" manufactures have problems from time to time. (And that includes auto companies.)

 

[bigedp51]

Is Russia part of NATO?

Does the Tula plant in Russia make 7.62 NATO ammunition to NATO standards?

Does the Russia Tula plant test their 7.62 NATO ammunition to NATO EPVAT testing standards?

Does "ANY" Russian ammunition manufacturing plant conform to American SAAMI ammunition standards?

Does "ANY" Russian ammunition manufacturing plant conform to European CIP ammunition standards?

Question, where is the thickest part of the cartridge case located?



Question, why did this case rupture at the extractor groove when this should be the thickest part of the case?

NOTE: The red and yellow areas above are the high stress areas where stretching and thinning "NORMALLY" occur.

And last but not least "WHY" did the company agreed to pay any damages by just looking at the photos posted in a firearms forum here of the ruptured case?

Below a .303 Enfield testing the gas venting system, please notice the paper wrapping the action was not blown apart by the venting gas at 46,000 cup or 49,000 psi.





And notice the case did NOT seperate at the rim but 1/2 inch above the base of the rim at a thinner area of the case.

 

[Jackal]

Bigedp51: Exactly. Thank you for substantiating my points. They knew they had a faulty round after looking at my pictures, thats why they have agreed to pay for everything, no questions asked.

 

[Perfesser]

Just an observation...it sure looks like the case body and head may have been separate pieces - maybe welded?? Look at the open end of the case body in the 3rd pic and the case head inside face; looks like a joint was pulled (or blown) apart; it should be ragged, not a smooth break. And the metal on the head at the break looks porous or maybe crystallized. .

 

[brnmuenchow]

They knew they had a faulty round after looking at my pictures, thats why they have agreed to pay for everything, no questions asked.

I am glad to see that they admit to fault, and will compensate for everything... that is good news.

 

[7.62 Nato]

Do you have any lot numbers for this ammo ? Please post them if you do.

 

[303 hunter]

I had the same thing happen with an Ishapore; except it got me in the face! If not for safety glasses, I'd probably be blind. I found out the chamber was VERY over size. I was shooting Lake City surplus. The gun was not damaged, but I never shot it again.

 

[Slamfire]

Question, why did this case rupture at the extractor groove when this should be the thickest part of the case?

I don't know. Maybe it is due to case head hardness.

Take a look at the pictures in this thread. A shooter with an 308 Isaphore and he was shooting Herter's steel case. Notice the case that is split right though the extractor groove.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...08+steel+cased+ammo+failure+(ruined+my+rifle)

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

This guy just doesn't want to believe what we all have been trying to tell him. It was a combination of variables. Probable oversized chamber, steel case, might have been slightly overcharged. I couldn't lay blame of it all on Tula. I've just seen too many of the EXACT same case rupture problems not out of only Ishies but several Enfields. Just don't shoot steel cased out of them and you will more than likely never have an issue. Just because Tula is "supposidly" going to pay all these "damages" doesn't really mean they are accepting the blame. It just means it would be cheaper than having to fight it in court as well as have to deal with bad publicity.

 

[Jackal]

Just because Tula is "supposidly" going to pay all these "damages" doesn't really mean they are accepting the blame

Seriously, why the sarcasm, thats not very high road. You have a factory round blow up in your face and see how happy you are about it.


They are not "supposedly" paying the "damages" , they ARE paying the bills. And yes, they did accept all the blame. I dropped off the rifle today at the gunsmith (he says the bolt is in fact quite set back now and that the round in question did not blow where it would have if headspace or chamber issues would have caused it) and Tula is sending me a prepaid UPS label for the remainder of my ammo. It simply is a faulty round. Not too rare and not unheard of but still scary.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

Was no sarcasm intended. Was flat out stating "supposidly" and "damages". I know how big companies operate. And sending you a prepaid UPS label to pick up your unused ammo isn't paying a thing. They are covering their own butts by you sending them any remaining evidence of possible over-charges. We shall see if they actually pick up any tabs.

And being as I have been into firearms for well over 40 years, trust me, I have had more than my share of blowups. Been reloading for a little over 30 years now BECAUSE of crap like that. Never had that problem since. And news flash, case head separation will split dead on right where yours did 50% of the time because of headspace and chamber issues. You need a new gunsmith if he is telling you it doesn't because he doesn't know his business very well.

 

[bigedp51]

SlamFire1

Its obvious you do not understand bolt thrust or why a cartridge case is to grip the chamber walls when fired. On top of this you can't make up your mind if the case is to grip the chamber walls or not.

SlamFire1May 31, 2011, 09:00 PM
Case head separation or rupture is exactly what you get with excessive headspace, it's the classic sign.

When a cartridge is fired, the thinner parts of the case expand, gripping the chamber walls. At the back, where the case is thicker, it can't expand easily so it stretches to the rear. Normally the bolt face limits that rearward movement. If the headspace is too long that rear movement will go beyond the limits of the case's ability to stretch, and it will rupture. And, since the base of the case is not in contact with the bolt, you get the primer pushed out then flattened since there is nothing back there to stop it initially, if at all.

SlamFire1March 12, 2012, 10:11 AM
Lee Enfields are the only service rifle that I am aware of that requires case friction between the case and the chamber to function safely.

From the 1929 British military "Textbook of Small Arms"



Our reloading manuals tell us not to lube our ammo because the case must grip the chamber walls.



And the United States Army tells you to NOT lube your ammo so the cartridge case can grip the chamber walls.



And our commercial firearms manufactures tell us to NOT lube our ammo so the case can grip the chamber walls.





This is why I tell everyone to NOT lube their ammo and make sure the chamber is free of all oil and grease.

The cartridge case should not have come apart at the extractor groove at the thickest part of the case, the OP case was defective and its as simple as that.

When you have a case head separation the case splits approximately 1/2 inch above the rim, NOT at the extractor groove!

 

[Slamfire]

And the United States Army tells you to NOT lube your ammo so the cartridge case can grip the chamber walls.

Because the increased bolt thrust presumptions behind the article are not true, I decided to call UASTCES and find out if they had data. I was able to reach the man who actually wrote that section.

USATCES is not a engineering design bureau, basically I would categorize it as “logistical”. Most of the guys I talked to had retired from the Army and now were supporting the troops in deployments.

Now understand that these are good guys, asking on the best information they were given, which came from their years in the service, and they are trying to do the right thing.

It is unfortunate that “the best information” came from the Army Tin Can ammunition coverup of 1920/1921. A coverup that Gen Hatcher and Col Townsend Whelen of Frankfort Arsenal repeated in the popular press for decades.

The following are excerpts of communications between myself and the author of the article. The author is an outstanding conscientious gentleman who decided to find if there was a factual basis for the claims of increased pressures and increased bolt thrust that were made in the article.

USATCES:
I have asked a number of organizations, Army and private.

To date, I have received no answer from the government agency (Army Marksmanship Unit at Ft. Benning).

All private organizations responded (Speer, Remington, Ruger,
Hornady, and Nosler)

They all do not recommend oiling cartridge cases. Some cited increased thrust on the bolt, but others cited primer contamination, others simply indicated "increased pressure" with no further explanation.

None indicated they had any data on increased thrust on the bolt.

Thus, the results are inconclusive at this point. I hope I hear from
Benning.

All of this is a legacy memory from 1920 and the 1921 National Matches. In 1920 Frankford Arsenal was looking for a means to mitigate their responsibility for the kabooms resulting from their poorly manufactured ammunition and those Army made single heat treat receivers on the line. They found that many of the competitors were dipping their bullets in grease, to reduce jacket fouling. Shooters been doing so for decades. Frankford Arsenal initiated a coverup, "proving" Government ammo was safe but that greased bullets were bad. This coverup totally passed the blame onto the civilian shooters and absolved them of all responsibility in the accidents.

In 1921 Frankfork Arsenal issued NM ammunition which used tin coated jackets. The tin was there to reduce jacket fouling. Unfortunately cold welding was not well understood, and the tin bonded with the brass case necks and caused a bore obstruction. Apparently there were serious rifle blowups a number of which are documented in Hatcher's Notebook.

The 1921 NM tin can ammunition was very dangerous but the Army had an out; the use of grease on bullets was still common. They simply expanded the coverup of 1920 and ignored the effects of cold welding. Again, it was all the civilian shooters fault. Gen Hatcher and Col Townsend Whelen (who was in charge of Frankfort Arsenal 1920/21) spread this coverup in the popular press for decades. Eventually it morphed, from greased bullets, to all greased and oiled cartridges were bad.

Interestingly British shooters were lubing their bullets as "never nickle" grease was being sold by Parker up to the 1960's. Of course we all know that the Swiss greased their bullets up to the 80's.






I do not disagree at all with his statements of oil dudding primers or oil attracting dirt. These are primary reasons why oilers were designed out of machine guns and you don't see them after WWII. There were plenty of actions, as you know, prior the WWI that used oilers. As you know through many threads, oilers were used in the Schwarzlose, the Nambu, the Italian Breda, and even today cases are being coated with teflon :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_5.7×28mm

FN's 5.7×28mm cartridge cases are covered with a special polymer coating for easier extraction with the PS90 carbine due to the high chamber pressures and lack of case tapering.[32] In addition, this coating ensures proper feeding and function in the magazines.[32]

The cartridge case should not have come apart at the extractor groove at the thickest part of the case, the OP case was defective and its as simple as that.

Probably was, can’t see how it could be otherwise, but that is not the only case picture that I have seen where a case broke through the case head.

Wish I have saved them, but I have seen pictures of brass case heads that look exactly like steel tula case head.

Why did these cases crack through the head? I don’t know, sometimes stuff happens.

 

[bigedp51]

SlamFire1
Because the increased bolt thrust presumptions behind the article are not true

Go back and read the section from the "Textbook of Small Arms" I posted above and stop being in denial about bolt thrust.

The British used a copper crusher method of measuring chamber pressure where the copper crusher pellet was located at the base of the case. An oil cartridge delivered approximately 40% to 50% "MORE" thrust to the bolt.

"In Britain, a third set of crusher standards were developed, using a "base" crusher. The crusher was a short, thick tube placed behind a piston at the base of the cartridge, and the firing pin passed through the center. The cartridge case was well oiled before firing, to minimize cling to the chamber walls"

Cartridge Pressure Standards
http://kwk.us/pressures.html

The oiled proof cartridge was used to seat the bolt head to the bolt body and seat the bolt lugs to the bolt lug recesses in the receiver. After proofing if the headspace increased over .003 the rifle failed proof testing.

Oil or grease in the chamber doubles the amount of bolt thrust and can and will damage any firearm.

 

[Slamfire]

Oil or grease in the chamber doubles the amount of bolt thrust and can and will damage any firearm.

Maybe for Lee Enfields which cannot be fired in the rain without danger of the bolt breaking, but for modern well designed actions, case friction is totally ignored in lug/action design.

Of course you have been here before:

http://www.varmintal.com/a243z.htm

 

[R.W.Dale]

Oil or grease in the chamber doubles the amount of bolt thrust and can and will damage any firearm.

As an absolute this is not true. The Swedish ag42b for example depends on lightly oiled cartridges for proper function. Nor will a no1 or modern bolt action care. Thousands of deer get shot every year from gins with squeaky clean well oils bores and chambers.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

You guys are trying to argue a point that really isn't in question here. The problem with steel cases is they do not have the "flexibility" of brass. In an oversized chamber, this can lead to all kinds of problems. Combine that with improper head-space, and you have a blowup waiting to happen. Now, if Jackal used the same inept smith that is telling him that case head splits never happen at the point of the groove to check his head-spacing previously, then I am in doubt that he knew how to properly check head space.

Now granted, most all military chambers are cut oversize to accommodate for dirty ammo to lessen feed issues, but the fact is, not all military rifles are configured in this fashion with steel cased ammo in mind. Steel just doesn't have the flexibility to function properly in these actions. As most of us have already said, it's not all Tulas fault. The evidence that has been shown to us more or less shows a failure of many factors.

Anyway, just glad you have no real injuries.

 

[Shadow 7D]

DUDE
I don't have it, but I have read it
it was a discussion of oil on ammo, and CIP proof procedures, one of the proof rounds is oil SPECIFICALLY TO REDUCE CHAMBER grip and therefore test JUST THE BOLT STRENGTH.

so um,some dude, I can call lots of people in the army, and I can get a private to tell me anything... most will look to see if a relevant TM covers it. Sorry but I'll take a PROOF house and scientific/engineering paper over some guy in supply.

 

[B!ngo]

Ill bet the OP is OK wrt metal in his skin simply because as you can see from the pics pretty much all the case is accounted for with nothing missing.

posted via mobile device.

I would not take that bet. Though many vets carry metal in them, and it often migrates out, that does ensure that it is a healthy situation. I would definitely consult an informed physician (sorry to hear that it is a financial stress but it is your health we're talking about here) and err on caution.
Sorry to hear about this. I had an H&K P7 (of all things) blow up in my hand recently when a case split open. Not fun - for either my hand and arm, or the firearm. Not as bad as your case, but it got my attention.
Best of luck,
B

 

[bigedp51]

Freedom_fighter_in_IL

You guys are trying to argue a point that really isn't in question here.

Actually you are wrong, the steel case gripped the chamber walls and the very bottom of the case blew off and set back the bolt. (BOLT THRUST)



I own a 2A1 and collected the Enfield rifle for over 15 years, on top of this I collected and supplied 95% of all the Enfield books and military manuals you see on the Internet today.

I even have Dutch Enfield manuals.





So lets cover some facts, the OP stated the headspace was checked before he bought the rifle. What headspace standards were used? There are no, none, zip, official printed headspace specifications for the Indian made 2A1 rifle to be found anywhere, so how was the headspace checked?

On top of this what are the specifications for Indian made 7.62 ammunition, meaning case dimensions in the base web area.

What standards are the Russian made ammunition made to, NATO, SAAMI, CIP or Russian. What are Russian headspace standards for their ammunition?

What happens when you fire a commercially made factory cartridge designed for less headspace in a "LONGER" military chamber? Let me give you a hint, the case will stretch in the base web area beyond its design limits.

The Tula cartridge case let loose at the extractor groove because the case was not formed correctly when made. Any "NORMAL" case would have ruptured well above the extractor groove where the case is thinner.

The Australians were the ones who perfected the design of the 7.62 NATO No.1 SMLE Enfield rifle and the Indians just used the Australian data and information when they built their 2A1 Enfield rifles with higher grade steel. The story of the development, testing and finial design is written about in the book by Ian Skennerton below.

 

[Slamfire]

Firearms Maintenance 101

Protecting oil, in the bore and especially in the chamber, should be removed before shooting. At the moment of ignition, a cartridge case expands to tightly grip or seize the chamber walls; when this happens, because the case is seized tight, the backwards thrust upon the bolt face is lowered greatly. How much? Most of today’s modern, centerfire rifle cartridges are designed to operate at between 48,000 and 52,000 psi. When you lubricate the chamber, the cartridge case still expands, but the lubrication keeps it from seizing tight. Consequently, thrust on the bolt face is equivalent to a 70,000-psi cartridge being fired--about equivalent to a "blue pill" proof load. Dry that chamber before firing!

http://woodsdrummer.com/ml06.html

And why should I consider the author of Firearms Maintenance an authority or a reliable source?

Especially after I have talked to gun designers about what they used as loads when designing their mechanisms?

 

[bigedp51]

Show me one factual printed article written by the firearms manufactures, ammunition manufactures or the reloading companies telling you to grease or oil your cartridge cases. (you can't there isn't any)

Or we can talk about P.O. Ackley and his Ackley improved cartridges that produce "LESS" bolt thrust.
(gee I wonder why)

 

[Slamfire]

Good pun in the picture though a bit sexist for this era.

P.O Ackley was selling snake oil.

Cases don’t act as wedges or inclines. Unfortunately they stretch. They don’t carry load, or should not carry load, when they are expected to carry load, as in the Lee Enfield, they inevitably fail at some condition; cases are simply a gas seal.

At the time ole PO was selling his Ackley improved (AI) cartridges, he was blowing out the shoulders, straightening the case, to increase powder capacity and raising pressures. It is obvious that ole PO was taking flak from folks who were claiming that his high pressure cartridges were overstressing the action.

Savants on other forums give out a rule of thumb that a 40% increase in case volume provides a 10% velocity increase, implicit is the assumption that this is isobaric. This may is crude rule of thumb, and I have done nothing to verify this.

Below are comparisions of Ackley's published data compared to pressure tested data.

49th edition of Lyman Handbook, the max load of a standard 30-30 with a 150 grain bullet and using 28 grs IMR 3031, the velocity is 2145 with a pressure of 38,000 cup.

In Ackley’s own handbook, the maximum load for a 30-30 AI for a 150 grain bullet using IMR 3031 is 38 grains for a velocity of 2700 fps.

From web data, the case capacity of the 30-30 Ackley vs the unImproved Winchester parent differ by 5% http://www.gmdr.com/lever/3030atext.htm yet here you have Ackley stuffing in 10 additional grains of powder and claiming a velocity increase of 25% over the standard 30-30.

Remember the rule of thumb, 40% increase in volume 10% increase in velocity. Ackley increased volume by 5% and got a 25% increase in velocity.

The only way to get those sort of velocities through incredibly high pressures.

If you go to your 1957 Gun Digest, factory ballistics for the Winchester 180 grain Super Speed 30-06 is 2700 fps. Modern reloading data shows you can push a 180 Barnes with 55.7 grs IMR 4350 to 2685 fps, in close agreement with older factory data.

Ackley’s handbook gives reloading data of 61 grains IMR 4350 with a 180 grain bullet for a velocity of 3053 fps.

Noslers shows a max load for the 30-06AI of 56.5 grs IMR 4350 with a 180 gr bullet at 2835.

For the 30-06AI Ackley is putting 5.3 additional grains of powder in the case and claiming a velocity increase of 13% over the parent cartridge. His data is pushing bullets 218 fps faster than modern pressure tested ammunition of the same case.

The only way to do this is through incredibly high pressures.

Clearly anyone now, or then, who had access to a ballistic lab or even crude rules of thumb would be able to say that the only way Ackley was able to achieve those high velocities was by raising pressures.

Given that egos were the same than as now, Ackley heard the opinions of the loyal opposition and did not like what he heard.

Ackley was taking heat because he was getting high velocities from his improved cartridges, cartridges which were being used in actions not designed for those levels of pressures. P.O. wanted to show that his high pressure cartridges did not increase bolt thrust so he ran a rigged experiment to protect his reputation and prove a bogus point, that is straight walled cases reduce bolt thrust and therefore his overpressure loads are safe to use in standard actions.

You just have to read his section in his handbook, it is his way of addressing concerns of the critics and he starts off by claiming that no one knows the design limits of actions. What is certain he did not know, it is also certain that designers are not going to provide that information to the general public, and it shows the limits of a skilled machinist when it comes to matters of mechanical engineering design. Ackley does not know, does not know how to calculate such things, and he goes off in the direction if the action holds it, it must be safe.

P.O Ackley cartridges are very interesting and P.O’s test of a straight sided cartridge holding pressure without a breech block has been duplicated. The tester swabbed the chamber out with alcohol swabs between shots. The Ackley cartridge held. However the other cartridges, such as the 30-30, 35 Remington, blew out of the breech at 1900 fps. A 150 grain cartridge case flying at 1900 fps will go through both sides of most people's skulls.

Read carefully Boatright’s papers one of which he shows how a 308 case, in a clean chamber, can lock in and hold pressures by itself up to 25K psia.

Go to Jim Boatright’s web page.

http://www.thewellguidedbullet.com/

Look for yielding of the brass case in these studies

http://www.thewellguidedbullet.com/mechanical_studies.htm

However once pressures go above 25K psia, Boatwright shows the brass case stretches and if not supported, the case head will blow off.

Regardless of taper, cases are made out of brass and will stretch. There may be bolt load reduction due to friction and stretching but it is inconsistent and not to be relied on in any way.

If you notice, P.O. Ackley never printed experiments conducted with a 30-06 or a similar high pressure cartridge. I am certain if he had reported the results, it would have been a litany of case heads blowing out the back of his lug less rifles at lethal velocities. It is likely he did, given all the actions and barrels he had around, I believe it is more credible that he ran tests in a number of Ackley Improved cartridges but only published the test that supported his theory. We see this all the time when reputations and money are at stake. If he did not, then he should have bought a lottery ticket because he was very lucky. We do know that Ackley and others did not conduct sensitivity tests, varying chamber finish, (chrome for example), powders, primers, or much of anything else. There are axial loads which must be taken into account and case taper does nothing to reduce them, in fact his straight taper reamers reduce barrel thickness when used in a standard barrel. I totally disagree with the conclusion that Ackley and others have drawn, that his cartridges reduce bolt thrust and therefore a user can just pour the coal into the cartridge and let fly.

Ole P.O. was interested in promoting his cartridges, found a “one off” and left a very misleading legacy in terms of case friction, load, and chamber roughness.