So I was shooting quail in South Georgia this weekend and, after taking a shot at a bird, the guide said it sounded like the gun doubled. I knew it hadn't and wasn't too concerned until I looked down the right barrel and found a piece of the wad firmly wedged in there (pic below). We had to basically ram it out from the muzzle end. The plastic was so hard and it was so tight it seemed like it would have been impossible for that to go through even a lightly choked gun.

I was super paranoid about it for the rest of the hunt and checked to see if the barrels were clear after every shot.

What causes that? Is that a defect in the shell? I feel like I narrowly averted a blown barrel by chance and that makes me extremely uncomfortable.

Old shells? You have me thinking on this one. What kind of shell? ...Geo

Geo, Polywad Vintager purchased within the last month or two.

Melted from a low pressure squib load? I think, even if it felt hard, plastic would've cleared the choke, but I don't know if I'd want to send a second load into it. Good for the guide!

Uh OH! Drive down to Macon and ask Jay Menefee about it. If it'd blown up you could serve papers on him while there...Geo

I would wonder how a squib load would sound like the gun doubled, I've had squib loads and they sound like a cork gun.

On the same token tho, I am with Craigd on the plastic, can't imagine how it couldn't clear the barrel, clearly it didn't, can you mike the wad? Wonder if it's the wrong gauge, and somehow got forced into the hull.

TM

Yeah, can't believe the guide picked up on it. One of the myriad ways he earned his tip that day.

May have just blown out without consequence, but the speculative cause of burst barrels is frequently a stuck wad. I have never knowingly experienced one until now and, of course, it had to be in a damascus-barreled gun...not the kind of internet infamy I am looking for.

TM, According to my micrometer, right around .710.

Glad you dodged the bullet on that one. We all should learn to quickly check the bores before loading every time, but most of us don't. I don't always. But, like you I bet, I check them closely after an unusual sounding load ........... for awhile.

SRH

OK, squib load, goes off bang, but does not burn all the powder, then when the powers exits the end of the barrel, more oxygen and then that residual powder goes off bang, sounds like a slow double.

Wonder if the wad twisted when it was loaded?

Mike

p.s. another thought, maybe this is a base wad that did not get punched for the flash hole.

I think that if you hunt/shoot long enough you will eventually have a barrel obstruction, be it wad, mud, snow, etc.
For just those occasions be it my gun or my partners gun, I carry a multi-piece military surplus cleaning rod in my vest.

Many years ago my younger brother and I were duck hunting in an old rice field on Little St. Simons Island off the GA coast. I heard his 20ga 11-48 shoot a squib load. I hollered not to shoot again, but a big bunch of bluebills came in and he fired.

The barrel burst at the choke. I've had a number of squib loads myself but always stopped to clear the barrel ever since that time...Geo

Flip that puppy over and show us the other side.

If there's witness marks from pellets, the wad was loaded upsidedown.

The hollow sound from a poor gas seal does sound like a double.

Been there, heard both.

Here is the bottom:

Well....

It's certainly scorched.

Could possibly have been loaded cocked and didn't seal.

The shotcup was melted or torn off.

One thing for sure though, had you reloaded and fired the barrel would have blown.

Glad it turned out well.

Straight or pistol grip? I've heard that the higher POI of the pistol grip makes for more dud shells.

WTS, straight grip. So, would a high bird theoretically increase the chance of a stuck wad as well?

You realize WTS is just messing with you, right?

Was the left barrel shot, too? If so, sounds like the guide helped you diagnose two problems, one with the shell and one with the gun. We all know we should check the barrels of a double after shooting, but my adherence is more in the breach than in doing so. I need to get better at doing it. The guide prevented a bigger problem. Good for him. Gil

Just the wad will certainly not always burst a barrel, it normally takes a bit more weight to do so. This from tests run many years go as reported on by Burrard. Never-the-less one would certainly not want to intentionally fire another shell knowing there was a wad, or anything else, in the bore of the gun. Always better safe than sorry.

Ancient history on barrel bursts
https://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA91

As Miller said, Greener had trouble bursting a barrel with obstructions
http://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA92

BUT a study by the Royal Military College of Science, sponsored by the Birmingham Proof House and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, showed that an obstruction by 2 fibre wads (total weight of 4 grams) was sufficient to bulge or burst a 12 gauge barrel shooting a 28 gram (slightly less than 1 ounce) load.

Obstructions are no problem...until they are not.

Remington Arms ran a test many years ago and filmed it where they dropped a 20 ga shell in a 12 gun then fired it. No barrel rupture. Don't know how many times they ran the test but I saw two different guns where they did it. A 870 and a1100. I got the impression even they were surprised when it did not cause a blown barrel. Perhaps they did it for an in house test in case they got into a lawsuit over a failed barrel or perhaps they were just extreme testing their guns to destruction. Glad they never released that film because you just know some other idiot would try it and not take the safety precautions that they did.

As you wish.

I've only seen the recent aftermath of 2 incidents.

A 12 gauge Model 12, and a 28 gauge 1100.

They both split open between the muzzle and the end of the fore stock.

That's only 2, but it's 100% of the guns that I know were fired with a stuck wad.

Remington was sued for "poor" barrels", and settled a class action suit. I had a number of Remmies, and got a check for about $100, which I promptly endorsed to an outfit whose mission is to fight horse pucky lawsuits like this. I ended up talking to the law office. Their lack of knowledge was stunning

KY, I've seen the result of a 20/12 accident too.

This was a Beretta 390.

No burst, but one hell of a bulge that split the forend wood into splinters and caused minor injury.

Modern barrel steel is quite ductile and it's a lot thicker just forward of the chamber than a few inches from the muzzle where I've seen the splits from stuck wads.

Buzz, in my defense, that was a pre-coffee response. Much slower prior to the ingestion of caffeine.

I was standing behind a gentleman on the skeet field, next in line to shoot, when this very thing happened. It was an auto of some kind and blew out just in front of his hand and he got only a scratch from the splintering wood. He had a couple other 20ga carts in the bag so the 20/12 thing seemed like a reasonable explanation. No one bothered to mention how incredibly stupid it was to mix the shells like that.

Well, in a case like that gravity is working against the wad so it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that out

I don't doubt barrels blow up. We all have seen examples either in person or on the internet. What does surprise me is how much abuse and stupidity they seem able to withstand. If they can withstand some of the stupid reloaders I've seen they are tough indeed. Why is it a man will pay ten grand for a gun then shoot cheapest ammo around or reload crap and shoot it in his nice new gun? Should have bought a cheaper gun and used the savings to buy decent ammo.

Note however that this was a new shell from a boutique maker known for high quality.

The 20/12 thing is preventable, but people do need to use their head for more than a hat rack.

I was at a charity shoot where the shells were provided. We had nice new Fiocchi shells in both 20 and 12 available IN THE STANDS.

This at a usually well run facility. I've no clue how this was considered a good idea.

We were the second group to shoot. Mind you, this is a hospital benefit shoot with many novice shooters. First group had some idiot woman and the usual 'helpers'.

She loads and calls, her auto goes 'click'. We hear, 'you forgot to load'.

All five of us, in unison, shouted 'STOP'.

Sure enough, she loaded a 20.

That's how accidents happen. It's a chain of errors.

that's an interesting question. having it remain the barrel and being very hard to get down the bore all fits with it being a base wad. If I had some unfired loads from that company, I would cut one apart and verify that this is, indeed, a shot-cup wad and not a base wad. I suppose it could be a shot cup wad that was inserted in the shell BEFORE the powder was dropped. That would do about the same thing. There would be a delay between the primer firing and the powder firing which might be what the guide heard.

That guide earned his paycheck, tip, pat on the back, and beers for a LONG time.

It's not a basewad.

It's a Gulandi wad, just like it says.

Pictures are available on various web sites of what these in their several forms look like.

It had fire on both sides of it, we can see that. The rest is unknown.

It's good to look out after each other. If you hear an unusual report, do inform the shooter. He may not have heard it from his vantage point.

I have never seen a Gulandi wad, and I do not know whether they make base wads or not. It was an interesting idea.

fire on both sides would primer below, powder above - at least it could be.

I've stopped one shooter whose wad did not clear the barrel on a blooper. I don't know what would have happened, but it was easy to catch and fix - at a trap range.

I do not believe a primer would get fire through a thick plastic wad like this and ignite the powder, if it had been an under-shot wad with the powder on top of it, but I could be wrong.

SRH

I think I've posted this story before.
I was hunting with a guy who was using reloads. He shot them a lot at targets with never a problem. He had a few squib rounds while hunting though. The problem was the wads were slightly to small for the casings. The shells bouncing around in his game bag let some of the powder sift to the upper side of the wad. Causing a problem similar to what is shown in the photo.
terc

Didn't we establish this was a shot wad and not a base wad? If it were in crooked, I'd think primer ignition and maybe partial powder ignition might burn both sides...Geo

My hypothesis.

For Wonko - it was the No. 7 shot

For the rest of us
Tipped wads occur in factory loads

Gun Club



Winchester Universal



Dissected. Note unburned powder past the base



Enough powder remained to propel the wad partially down the barrel as the powder past the base ignited and fried the plastic. The LOUD report (NOT a squib) was because of the functionally short barrel. Short barrel shotguns ARE loud.

Jay Menefee is a good guy. Dan might alert him to this thread
http://www.polywad.com/contactus.html

That's a very likely scenario Drew.

I had a bent Gun Club wad a couple weeks ago and caught it when the shell would not freely chamber. Bent at the crush section near 90 degrees.

Polywad uses wads designed for the hulls they use. There will be no powder migration if the wad is correctly loaded.

The point of my other thread was that factory shells are not necessarily of higher quality than those reloaded by someone who follows good procedure. Power driven equipment while equipped with lots of nifty safety features does not give tactile feedback to the operator.

No product is perfect.

Stan, I"ve shot a fair bit of primer wads in BPCR/TR competition loads. I find it amazing at what merer rifle primers can burn through. Shot shell primers could do much more I suspect. However, I don't think that's required here. Just moving the powder-filled wad down the barrel a bit until enough powder gets past the wad or primer fire going the other direction and then ignition occurs and the gun fires leaving the wad (mostly) in the barrel and scorched on both sides.

But who knows for sure? In any event, a significant disaster was avoided because of a sharp onlooker. That's all that matters.

On the 12-20 bursts there are two factors at work. First the 20 rim will hang in the forcing cone so there is a bit of clearance for an obstruction situation, however on the other hand it is so near the 12 that actual chamber pressure is raised as well. These bursts will be in the chamber/forcing cone area. The rim on a 20 gauge shell runs around 0.760". This will go beyond the 0.798" diameter of a normal chamber end of the 12 but will not enter the bore of even an 11 gauge @ 0.751", but will stop at some point in the cone dependent on exact angle of the cone. it will not enter any bore except something on the order of a chamberless gun. A barrel which bursts out beyond the hand doesn't sound ike a typical 12/20 burst but purely an obstructional burst, "Me Thinks" that one needed a lot more investigation.

Nonsense. The larger shot provide more resistance and keep the powder from burning too fast.

Ah...now I understand the mystical qualities of 5 1/2 shot!

Now how do these decrease recoil while increasing velocity and range?? Do they put sodium bicarbonate in the air chamber to extinguish burning fibre wads also?



And a blessed day of Thanksgiving to all. Despite the frustrating BS, I'm thankful for most everyone here, and for this site
https://sites.google.com/site/anotherdaysjourneybackhome/worship/be-thankful

Maybe I missed something but did you get the bird by chance? I'm guessing not, but if you did,that would be something to add to th puzzle.

Simple. The cushioning provided by the wad, identical in action to most plastic wads you'll notice, allows the gun to held tighter and with more substance to push against the shot go faster. And the faster wads stay ahead of the flame front and don't catch fire.

I was totally unaware of the fact that the "Law" stating actions have an opposite & equal reaction had been repealed.
Anything I read stating that Velocity & Range have been increased while reducing Recoil I take with a Very Large Grain of Salt.

Fortunately for you the "you learn something new every day" business is still going strong.

I'm always happy to help out the less well informed.

Wonko;
Thanks for all the help, think I'll just pass on this bit of it though. If all the tricks, gadgets etc Ive seen or read about over my life time which increase velocity while reducing recoil actually worked guns would be pulling away from us today rather than recoiling.
Only thing which has ever given me that sensation was a 3.5" Rocket Launcher. It of course is just an open tube for aiming the rocket, while thrust all goes out the back. the forward pull comes from the friction of the rocket traveling down the tube.