doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com High vs. Low

Brent,
I'm sorry to hear of the blow but happy to hear that you will be alright.
From what I understand, 5744 powder is a double based powder vs. single based and double based powders were band this year at the Quigley. I'm not sure why but it could be that it can be easily double charged in large cases or because of secondary explosion effect. I'm sure that you're scanning every website that you can for the answer, so I thought I would post this one person's thoughts on the subject.
From: "Norman Johnson"

Dear Sir:

I believe that your article warning of the dangers of SEE has inaccuracies that will discourage some shooters from safe and satisfactory experimentation.

SEE is an unexplained pressure excursion which has often blown up guns. It is associated with markedly reduced loads of very slow powders.

Contrary to the ubiquitous old wives tale, detonation is NOT a consideration with fast powders such as Bullseye, no matter how light the charge is or how spacious the case.

The phenomena of Secondary Explosion Effect (SEE) is known to occur only with the slow powders at very low loading densities. Precious little is known about the mechanics of the phenomenon and it is not even known if the expression, Secondary Explosion Effect, is accurate. SEE, despite best efforts of the leading powder companies, cannot be reproduced in the lab, at least in the literature that I have been able to find. Some of the powder companies now are putting notations in their manuals not to reduce CERTAIN loads below 80% loading density. One should note that such notations are for a very limited number of powders and cartridges, such as W-W 296 in the .44 Magnum. Actual documented SEE cases were at densities much less than 80% and with slow powders.

Cast bullet shooters discovered SEE while experimenting with some of the very slow powders. However, they have been using moderate speed powders at much reduced loads since the days of Dr. Mann, with no untoward results. Only the very slow powders exhibit SEE, usually those that were developed for the .50 BMG and magnum rifles such as MR-8700, etc. Recent events posted by Charlie Sharps, "Charles J. Sharps Ph.D" indicates that any powder that is SLOW FOR THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION, loaded to a significantly reduced powder density, might be suspect. His was a Hercules 2400, .45-70 Contender blowup.

If SEE were a real danger with other than very slow powders, we would have MANY gun blow-ups. Think about it a minute. The .38 Special case uses only about 20 - 30% of its case volume when loaded with typical target loads. Anyone seen a .38 go high order from a (true) target load? Cast bullet shooters fire millions of rounds each year using VERY low loading densities in most cases.

If that is not enough, the ultra-lite loads have been experimented with for a good many years, where a typical powder charge might be 2-3 grains of Bullseye, 700X, Unique, or any faster pistol powder in a .30-06 or .45-70 case. If SEE were a realizable phenomena for fast powders at greatly reduced loading densities, this would certainly have resulted in many blow-ups. These ultra-lite loads are not isolated uses as the NRA has written them of them over the years, at least as far back as 1967 (NRA Handloaders Guide, Pg. 154). Reloaders, unfortunately, ascribe some anomalies to conditions other than the actual causes. Several other things that can happen to increase pressures:

1. Excessively thick case neck thickness due to reforming procedures or metal flow - causes over-diameter cartridge neck. Jamming the large cartridge neck into a tight chamber neck is a very good recipe for disaster.

2. Build-up of residue in the neck area of the chamber which compounds 1, above. Cast bullet shooters have experienced this from lube build-up.

3. Stretching of case length resulting from both firing and drawing the expander button back thorough the neck during resizing - causes the mouth of the case to jam into the corresponding chamber area and impede bullet release.

4. Significant increase in local ambient temperature over that in which the load was developed. This can have more effect than the unwary may suspect.

5. Changing to another lot or manufacturer of brass that has a smaller internal volume. This is usually a hazard only if maximum loads for the gun were developed using larger internal volume brass.

6. Bullet seated to a greater overall length (OAL) so that bullet is forced into rifling when the action is closed. This is, of itself, not a hazard; many of my cartridges are prepared using this technique. However, if the load was developed with the bullet seated to normal factory load OAL, that same powder charge can be excessive when the bullet is seated so that it touches the lands.

7. A change of bullet ogive so that the effect of 6 is realized even though cartridge OAL remains the same. I have found at least two boxes of .22 caliber bullets that had noticeably different ogives in the same box.

8. Change to another lot of powder that is faster albeit of the same manufacturer and type.

9. Excessive headspace (or too short cartridges) which can result in head separation and allow hot gasses and molten metal to blow back in the shooter's face. This is not necessarily a pressure excursion, but that is often blamed as the problem.

10. Excessive powder charge. Reloaders are usually not willing to admit this possibility, but we all make mistakes. About 100 years ago, on the second box of .38 Specials that I ever loaded, the charges were so excessive that the web my poor wife's hand was split open. The gun held together and so has our marriage (five kids).

Of these causes, I have found numbers 3 and 10 to be the most common cause of pressure excursions.

SEE is a very real phenomena, but it is blamed many times when the shooter has, in fact, allowed one or more of the above conditions to occur. For those who care to investigate further, back issues of The Cast Bullet have a number of articles discussing same. Handloader has also treated the subject a few times.

SEE is a real phenomena, but, I suspect, not as prevalent as rumors would indicate.

Bob, thanks for that note. Actually, I haven't been searching the inet at all about this thing. It's pretty much behind me except for the chunk in my cheek.

I think I have seen this post by Norman Johnson before. It sure it helpful to see it again though. Numbers 3 and 6 may apply here, but then I would expect to see the chamber well distorted. Perhaps a large interaction between these two things and the brittleness of the metal. Or maybe just the latter. But regardless, I'll not be firing another low number 03 again. And I'm looking at my sportized Krag with thoughts of maybe it should find a new home... These modern firearms just aren't my thing and given that, why take the chances with them?

I've also seen this post by Norman Johnson before, and mostly agree with his conclusions. The only thing I question is his definitive statement that S.E.E. can only happen with reduced charges of slow burning powder. While powders like H 110 or WW 296 aren't near as fast as Bullseye, they are a lot quicker than some like 50 BMG. And some people who report S.E.E. problems seem to have had more problems with reduced charges of fast burning powder in bottleneck cases rather than in straight walled cases. But that is hearsay that I can't prove or confirm. If those incidents were actually from double charges, they should be equally distributed among fast and slow powders and straight or bottleneck cases.

I was surprised to see his root cause #3 come under suspicion here. If the cases were only on their second loading, I wouldn't expect much if any neck thickening due to firing or resizing/expanding.

I assumed that the pressure might have jumped a bit above the advertised 30,000 psi due to going slightly over max overall loaded length. But that didn't really set off any alarm bells with slight engagement of the rifling with a bullet cast of Lyman #2 alloy. What does jump out is the comment about the bolt being hard to close due to that into the lands seating arrangement. I wouldn't think slight engagement of the lands would add much effort to closing the bolt. But of course, I don't know just how much extra effort was involved. I've seated jacketed bullets to a point that they would leave slight land marks on the jacket, and that didn't add much effort at all to closing the bolt.

It's obvious that you are hardly a novice reloader Brent, so I believe you when you say headspace was not an issue with nearly new brass. So for the head to completely separate from the case, it had to be unsupported. That would mean either the bolt got set back or the bolt moved rearward because the lug recesses shattered. Can we assume that the safety lug is the only thing that kept the bolt from hitting your face? When I had my complete head separation on that .22-250, the case came out of the chamber pretty easily at home by making a little hook out of stiff wire and snagging the case mouth from the rear. I've also heard of jamming an oversize brass brush into the case and then pulling it back out.

I too have no idea what the min or max thread dimensions for your Springfield would be. From some articles I read by Frank DeHaas and others on blow-up testing of the Weatherby Mk V action, there was only slight expansion of the barrel just ahead of the receiver ring when pressures exceeded 100,000psi by firing a standard 78 gr- IMR 4350- 180 gr bullet load in a .300 Weatherby Mag into another 180gr bullet that was jammed into the throat. It increased from 1.147" to 1.1496"... nothing you'd see just by looking. Other sources tell of Remington 700's that had a .308" bullet fired down a .270 bore without blowing up the barrel, and 6.5 m/m Arisaka's that were rechambered to 6.5-06 and later fired with standard .30-06 ammo without changing bore or chamber dimensions. I also saw recommended 4895 loads of 47 grs. for a 150 gr. bullet at around 2700fps, so I'd assume Michael's 44 gr. load was moderate, and not much reduced.

I understand your reluctance to shoot any more low number Springfield's again. It was a number of months before I tried that sporterized VZ-24 after being temporarily blinded by it. The first shots with brand new brass were with the gun tied to a tire and me pulling a long string tied to the trigger... from behind a big oak tree.

I measured the barrel this morning with calipers and I find no unevenness that suggests anything terrible happened to the barrel itself. I don't think #3 really can be an issue here or I would see some swelling or at least the calipers would.

Some folks looking at the bolt think that it lifted straight up. I tend to agree. it was laying beside me while I did my body part inventory immediately after the blast. Two large objects punched big holes in the metal canopy as well. The blast went mostly up, not back, my face not withstanding.

The tire and string method is always a good idea at first, but I had already shot over 100 of this specific load. The first 100 fireformed the brass. It was the 119th shot that did the dirty work. So, unless you are going to do the tire and string forever, well....

Actually, one other thing to add, may that two things. First, I am very definitely a novice when it comes to loading bottleneck smokeless cartridges. I have very little experience with any smokeless loading. I'm a bpcr guy, and that I do know a little about.

Second, I thought I would post this picture just to implore people to buy and USE good glasses. I took this quite a few hours after the event while I was becoming bored in the hospital. You can still see a faint red flush on my skin from the blast and the peppering that is everywhere on my face- except behind where my glasses were. They were first rate Randolph Ranger Edge glasses. I ordered replacement lenses today for them. Expensive - hardly! Several hundred dollars were the cheapest insurance and protection one could ask for. Don't buy cheap stuff and don't trust your everyday glasses get good, purpose built, shooting glasses.

Glad you are alright Brent. I had a low number Springfield in my collection. Almost 100% condition: case color, blued barrel, proper WWI stock, sling and cleaning kit. I never fired it! Various sources attributed receiver failure to improper case hardening/heat treatment during the build up for the war effort. New employee's got them too hot and burned the actions causing them to be too hard. All were supposed to be recalled but many never were. Supposedly, Rock Island manufactured rifles did not have this problem but I did not own one and would not have trusted it anyway. From the early reports, everything would be fine until a catastrophic failure. I believe this is discussed in Brophy's fine book on the 1903 rifles. Again , glad you suffered no serious damage.

Strange that every now and then one hears of a LN '03 failing (this makes a couple I'm aware of happening in my five decades of shooting, aside from historic accounts from several generations back), but one never hears of Krags experiencing similar catastrophic failures even though supposedly of an inferior design but of essentially the same carburized low carbon steel.

I am grateful you are essentially ok, Brent.

Brent: First, Thank GOD you were not hurt! Second, I have read this blog for years and yours[I believe and recall]is the first instance of a DGS blog member having a major 1903 Springfield failure. I understand your feelings, but I compare this situation to someone who has had a near fatal car accident. They can tell you about it, but no one stops driving a car. Everyone must do what they feel is appropriate for them. I applaud you for bringing it to our attention in such an even-handed manner.

GOOD LUCK

H

Yes, you might think about it like driving a car, but consider whether your brakes are in good working order before you punch the start button.

Even cars, at some point cease to be driven.

Which brings me another question. If you had an action that you knew to be too brittle, or maybe if you had one you just suspected of being too brittle, can the beast be retempered somehow to "fix" this like one can put fix worn out brakes on an old car? Or is this a terminal disease for a rifle?

I'm glad you're able and willing to share the story. What a nightmare.

Maybe for curiosity, the barrel, near the chamber and several pieces of the receiver can be rockwell hardness tested. Except for the bolt, those two things were containing the cartridge. One seems okay, the other sounds to have failed in a unique way, many bits and pieces.

If wanted, a few thousandths could be polished off some receiver samples if there was a worry that a case was giving a falsely high reading. Anyway, with just a ballpark idea of the receiver steel composition, there's a fair chance that the steel could be temperature cycled and annealed, to bring the receiver steel closer in characteristics to the barrel steel that seemed to have been okay.

It's a tough one. I wouldn't want to wreck the finish of a rare classic just to 'try it out'. Then too, why go through that on a project action, because there must have been a worry in the first place and it's still a question mark. Maybe just start with another action, but I suppose a project could be recreating a unique historical piece.

Glad you're okay.