S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,549
Posts546,219
Members14,423
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,562 Likes: 22
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,562 Likes: 22 |
IMO from reloading rifles for a long long time, the shell on the right side of the most recent photo is the one with the highest pressure. That primer was forced back into the breechface and flattened by that breechface. Saw it on rifles all the time. Difference with a rifle brass is you could also measure the sides of the cartridge case as additional evidence of high pressure as well. IMO the overload took the path of least resistance and it appears the metal of the barrel/breech/chamber gave way before the excessive pressure would have pushed the shell back against the left side breechface. Short version of the above is IMO there may have been quite a few over pressure loads involved.
Last edited by tut; 02/05/14 07:04 AM.
foxes rule
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 496 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 496 Likes: 12 |
Just the comparison. Here is a picture of primers. From the left, 10ga RST factory, Rem. Gun Club Factory, Rem. Gun Club with AA209 reload 5800psi. I personally don't see much difference to the shells in question. Doesn't the upset around the firing pin have more to do with the length and shape of the firing pin? I believe the extrusion you see around the brass cup is a reflection in both photos. Craig
Last edited by Craig Larter; 02/05/14 08:11 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,431 Likes: 316
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,431 Likes: 316 |
Thanks Craig, and by comparison the subject primer is clearly backed out of the primer pocket slightly. Is the primer cup made of brass or copper? Youz guys R killin' me but I do appreciate the (contradictory) help. I'll get to measuring this morning, and will work on more ultra close up images of the shell heads, and the indentation made by the extractor which is quite obvious.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,384 Likes: 106
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,384 Likes: 106 |
Here is the load recipe from the Hodgdon site, which the shooter has been using for about 2 years http://www.hodgdon.com/basic-manual-inquiry.html Remington Gun Club hulls 1 oz. shot Win 209 primers WAA12SL replacement wads 17.5-gr Clays powder using #32 bushing in MEC 9000G The recipe has 15.7-gr 7100-LUP, 1125 fps; 17.0-gr 8200-LUP, 1180 fps; 18.4-gr 9500-LUP 1235 fps I'm surprised Hodgdon still reports LUP rather than piezo-electric transducer pressures, which are likely higher. An unfired/loaded shell measures 2 5/16” A fired shell 2 11/16” I get that recipe, if we use the "ballpark" formula of LUP + 1,000 = psi, as being pretty close to the modern CIP standard service pressure (NOT proof pressure) maximum of 10,730 psi. Higher pressure than I'd want to go in a vintage gun. I've seen the same blown steel barrel as Mark II, and would definitely wonder about a possible double charge.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,737 Likes: 55
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,737 Likes: 55 |
Drew, thanks for the latest update. The Mec #32 bushing would be the right one for 17.5 grs of Clays, mine throws on average 17.6 grs. on my 8567 Grabber and 17.4 on a 600 Jr Mark V. Looking at all the loads available with using a Remington hull, 1 oz. shot, Clays powder, Win. 209 primer and just substituting a different wad, he could have been in a much lower pressure and not in LUP, which is not very informative now. In my opinion, clays is not a large flake powder and I still do not believe it bridged and threw a double load. If that was the case, one shell out of that box would have had no powder and would have left the wad in the bore. I am just glad that he wasn't seriously hurt.
David
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,431 Likes: 316
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,431 Likes: 316 |
Thanks David. I'll take a pic of the powder also.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,964 Likes: 89
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,964 Likes: 89 |
Several have alluded to the "chrystalline" appearance of the edges of the burst metal. It is my understanding that burst metal, whether damascus or steel, usually has this same appearance. It is the result of the type of failure, a bursting rather than a tearing and not indicating a prior defect in the metal.
When an old man dies a library burns to the ground. (Old African proverb)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,431 Likes: 316
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,431 Likes: 316 |
Thanks for the suggestion Joe. I measured the steel case heads, just above the rim: Loaded shell .806" Empty (from right chamber) .809 Blown shell (from left chamber) .821 I have about an hour of barrel de-resting and scrubbing before I can even start measuring, but this strange wet stuff is falling from the desert sky, so nothing else much to do
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,742 Likes: 496
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,742 Likes: 496 |
Here is the load recipe from the Hodgdon site, which the shooter has been using for about 2 years http://www.hodgdon.com/basic-manual-inquiry.html I'm surprised Hodgdon still reports LUP rather than piezo-electric transducer pressures, which are likely higher. I am sure more than a few people have not or do not pick up on the lup not psi data in the Hodgdon Data Center. Worse some may not understand the difference and "assume" which is always very dangerous. I agree that lup data should be separate or have a footnote attached to it to bring its' difference to easy visual recognition. It is this reason and my natural paranoid nature that cause me to try to verify reloading information by two different sources.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,431 Likes: 316
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,431 Likes: 316 |
NOW I remember why I hated Chemistry Lab on Thursday afternoon at MU in an old building looking out at the Columns on Francis Quadrangle where coeds were sunbathing and my Frat brothers were starting the weekend early THAT was an ordeal. Harvesting the shot was pretty easy. The powder however needed to be gently brushed off the bottom of the wad, and out of the shell case. It's very likely a few flakes are still floating around my office. Shot: .95, .95, .95, and .90 oz. Powder: 17.4, 17.6, 17.6, and 17.8 grains and what David posted Barrel scrubbing next. BTW: was it black powder that the army fed the soldiers to make them impotent? Hopefully inhaling Clays won't do the same thing
|
|
|
|
|