doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Blown Baker

Im with Shotgun Jones. It appears to be a detonation type failure. I will guess that the primer firing failed to inginte the powder charge and only moved the shotcharge about an inch ahead and the crimp partially opened holding the payload in the forcing cone, then the powder charge finally combusted and its pressure wave hit that partially advanced shotcharge whuich became an obstruction and it let go.

Theory sounds good...if it's possible.

Has a list of all the components and outside temperature been posted ?

Pete,

Is the Baker for sale? If so email me at pmurphy@aol.com.

Phil

Unfortunately, the posters on this thread don't seen to be familiar with the content of the original thread. If they had read (or remembered the content of) the original thread, they would have known that the shooter of the Baker has not mentioned dismantling and weighing the remaining shells, measuring the wall thickness of the Baker bore, chamber, or forcing cone area, or done much else to diagnose the problem. One poster on this thread brought up the primer in the powder charge possibility, a possibility that was discussed on the previous thread and discussed by email with a poster. A poster on this thread also claimed that a primer cannot drop into the powder charge in a PW loader, an absolutely incorrect assumption. In an email conversation with one of the posters, I explained that this can happen and also explained how. The poster who blames the PW for double powder charging is describing a phenomenon that can happen in any loader if the powder is damp, affected by static electricity, or bridges in the tube for any reason. The only way a double powder charge can be thrown in a progressive PW other than the three ways I mentioned is if the operator experiences a problem and unwisely decides to "back up" the loader, possibly causing a second powder charge to enter the tube. This is a bit unlikely, since more shot is also likely to enter the shot tube at the same time. It is real hard to "back up" a PW loader without creating havoc with the ratcheting mechanism and the limited capacity of the shell. KYjon tells the unlikely story of stopping on a heavily travelled two lane bridge to throw a sixty pound piece of steel over the side of a bridge with small craft traffic as well as shipping traffic below. If he had been observed by law enforcement, he would still be in the Queen Annes County lockup. Well, maybe not still there, but at least until his attorney arrived. I don't believe the story. I imagine he is referring to my friend Jim Cunningham as the PW guru that could not diagnose his problem before he sent the loader to PW. Jim Cunningham has probably loaded more shells on PW loaders than I have, but not by many. I have probably loaded between 350,000 and a half a million on the six I am now using. I have also been loading on PW loaders for longer than Jim has. I have a pretty good idea how they work and how to diagnose problems. Although Jim and I spend more than a few days together every year, and have for about twenty five years, I have never had to call on him or the PW factory mechanics to fix a PW loader or diagnose a problem. I have been willing to participate in the threads about the Baker blowup although I have mentioned that the discussion would make a lot more sense if the shooter would dismantle and weigh the components of his remaining shells and do some measurements on the remaining pieces of his gun. OK, my rant is over and I apologize to any posters I may have offended, especially my friend KYjon.

Looking at the latest posted pictures, the forcing cone and immediate area ahead of the forcing cone look more like bore thickness than common chamber thickness. I think some posters agree with me that someone has been in that barrel with tools to which he should not have had access. Remember it may be hard to measure the wall thickness of the blown up barrel, but the other barrel is intact and ripe for measuring. On another point, the straight wall rupture at the rear of the blowup area is, as a poster suggested, along a weld line. However, in my opinion, that rupture at the weld line is not a result of a weak weld, but a result of the "peel back" and high speed bending of the ruptured area farther forward. I am still willing to test the primer in the powder possibility as I mentioned in the previous thread, if posters will donate, at most,six good or bad shotguns to the tester. As I mentioned, I will return the shotguns to their owners after testing if requested. After reading KYjon's post stating that a primer, ignited simultaneously with the powder, would cause pressure to go up "a tad", I am even more interested in conducting a primer in the powder test. I have alway heard that an igniting primer in the powder charge creates a serious pressure spike but have never read about the results of such a test. I think the results of such a test would be enlightening and a good addition to Sherman Bell's research.

HomelessJoe:

I can't imagine any rifle pwder that would be fast enough to cause pressure problems when loaded in a handgun like you reported. Will you give you kindly give us mor details?

Thanks,

Franchi

My nephew first claimed he hadn't made a mistake in his handloading but after a little looking he discoverd he had used a rifle powder that he had been loading in a 30/30 rifle...I never asked him the details because it was something he wanted to forget.

Luckily I was standing behind him when he shot.

Joe, as posted in an earlier post the specs on the reload is as follows. STS hull,Win209, Windjammer/CBequiv.,17.3gr Clays,1125FPS, 5,500PSI. Day was typical summer N.MI. 50-70 degress. Look at the wad, I find it as telling as anything. How did it get to look like that? Torn post and fingers disfigured front and back. Normal one as comparison. How did that one get so tore up unless it got hung up in the ruptured area on its way down the tube.

EightBore, I mentioned earlier in this post or the one prior to the photos being posted that I weighed the remaining shells and then took them all apart and weighed the powder seperately. All were right on the specs. Then we went through the PW to see if anything was out of wack. Also tried to duplicate a double charge. We did replace(a month or so ago) the finger in the wad placement station to stop the poor sideways entry into the hull.Found nothing. We also use a static strip in the powder canister to cut down on static. As for my brothers thoroughness and detail orientation in problem solving, he usually buffs, then waxes all moving parts to make sure nothing hangs up with friction. Barrel is with a friend in Ohio, frame/wood is with a member of this board. At the time of the incident I did measure the exposed areas of the rupture but did not record any red flag measurements. The chunk I have at home here measures .112". From Petes contribution of the schematic of the barrel wall thickness, it seems in line. Randy

Would a barrel fatigue rupture show pressure signs on the hull ?

Phil,

It is not my gun. It belongs to Randy, RMC.

Pete