For all you "reduced load" guys:

quote:

This actually happened to a young fellow in Rexburg. I saw the gun. A 300 Ultra Mag. He was shooting factory ammo. They took apart 2 shells from the box and they had only ½ the powder in that they should have. This raises the pressure and lets all the powder burn at once and boom. All it did was blow the thumb finger off of his new glove. How lucky was he? BE CARFUL

Did this happen in the field or at the range?

Holy S*&t!!! Time for a new set of drawers! I think they call that detonation.

IT STILL WILL NOT DO ANY GOOD------Blue Dot would not have done this !!!

Wait and see --- this one should be good for 5 pages at least!!!

wouldn't have happened with a mauser

I believe I would be on the horn with the factory. I think they owe him a new rifle and scope, at the very least. This is why I roll my own.

Got to love them ss barrels, HUH.

I'm going to wait a bit and post after Hot Core does!!!

quote:

All it did was blow the thumb finger off of his new glove.

Like he77 that's "All it did"! Messed up the front scope mount pretty bad and ruined that case from any chance of ever reloading it too!

Thank the Lord!

quote:

I'm going to wait a bit and post after Hot Core does!!!

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why would anybody owe the guy anything? Reduced loads can lead to detonation. If you want reduced load, get another caliber.
Butch

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
Why would anybody owe the guy anything? Reduced loads can lead to detonation. If you want reduced load, get another caliber.
Butch

Because (according to the original post) it was a factory loaded box of ammo, and two of the remaining cartridges had (again, according to the OP) a half-charge.

How they figured out that it was a half-charge, I don't know, as they did not specify what manufacturer produced the rounds.

BUT THESE WERE NOT RELOADS!

Lost Sheep

Ok ..Unless I read the original post wrong. Factory ammo only had 1/2 the powder they should have ? HIGHLY unlikely..Why did they only pull 2 to check? It seems the ammo should have been sent back to to (federal,remington,nosler? )I dont think you recieved the whole story!. No one would of pulled factory ammo apart to determine wheather it had a half charge. Seems to me they pulled the ammo apart trying to determine if the RELOADS might have had enough powder to push the bullet out of the barrel ??

quote:

Originally posted by ty_falcon:
Ok ..Unless I read the original post wrong. Factory ammo only had 1/2 the powder they should have ? HIGHLY unlikely..Why did they only pull 2 to check? It seems the ammo should have been sent back to to (federal,remington,nosler? )I dont think you recieved the whole story!. No one would of pulled factory ammo apart to determine wheather it had a half charge. Seems to me they pulled the ammo apart trying to determine if the RELOADS might have had enough powder to push the bullet out of the barrel ??

While this seems a reasonable thing to say, here's the OP:

quote:

This actually happened to a young fellow in Rexburg. I saw the gun. A 300 Ultra Mag. He was shooting factory ammo. They took apart 2 shells from the box and they had only ½ the powder in that they should have. This raises the pressure and lets all the powder burn at once and boom. All it did was blow the thumb finger off of his new glove. How lucky was he? BE CARFUL

Speculate all you want....but that does not change the presented data.

Personally I don't believe the OP....I suspect it actually was reloads....but again....no data to lean on!

This was an email I received from folks in the industry with the posted text as the explanation.

vapodog. I'm with you. RELOADS..
We need more info!!Did they pull all remaining (factory) loads to determine that 2 only had half charges?

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
This was an email I received from folks in the industry with the posted text as the explanation.

And I believe you 100%.....I'm not casting arrows at you or anyone.....

That said....the data presented does not remotely fit the norm for this type of outcome....

Almost exclusively it is accompanied by reloads....whether anyone wants to admit it or not....

This does not in any way constitute any type of proof....nor is it likely we here on this forum will ever discover it but is merely a statement of probability.

Only once in my life have I ever witnessed an errored batch of ammo from a manufacturer....actually proven factory error...a mind boggling two bullets stuffed into a single case. The manufacturer did buy a few guns on that one.

What I find curious in the matter is why they pulled the bullets if these were factory loads, I'd just weigh them all and compare them with another box of factory. Otherwise, unless a couple of other guns blow up you aren't going to get much.

I sure wasn't there and I don't know the rifleman here, but if we do assume these were reloads and not factory, instead of this being a flashover phenomena, I'd hazard a guess that this was a powder measure bridging issue and actually instead of this being a half charge it is a 50% overcharge.

Ammunition companies are very reluctant to admit any type of error that may make them liable. I bought a Norinco SKS in 92, after shooting several boxes of the cheap import ammo I bought a couple of "good" remington ammo for hunting. I took it to the range, loaded the gun and dropped the bolt, BOOM, a round went flying down range. I thought "damn, I must have brushed the trigger when I dropped the bolt." I aimed the gun down range a squeezed the trigger, boom boom boom, three rounds lit off. I very carefully unloaded the gun and went home and called Remington, a week and three phone calls and they never did admit any fault, they said I hadn't cleaned my gun well enough and some cosmoline stuck around the firing pin was the culprit. It's a good thing I practice gun safety and keep a loaded gun pointed in a safe direction at all times or someone could have been hurt or killed and Remington still would have said it was my fault. Just last year I discovered that shortly after that they changed the components they used to manufacture their 7.62x39 rounds.

No, if I had a problem like above with factory ammo I wouldn't send all the ammo back, I would definitely look into it myself going as far as going and buying more of the same make ammo, hopefully some from the same lot and some from a different lot and tear a few of them down to look for differences that might explain what happened because I wouldn't expect them to admit a problem even if they knew about it.

Reduced loads are cute, the proud owner of the rifle that was rendered scrap choose to reduce the wrong powder. By design the factory loads the case with powder, a powder that comes close to filling the case, filling the case allows the primer to ignite the powder in a column from the rear to front, and the factory knows the primer burns faster than the powder, they also know primers have been know to lodge a bullet into the throat without powder, the problem with some that manipulate components is 'they can not keep up with more than one thought at a time'.

Reducing a charge by half allows the powder to lay in the bottom of the case with space over the top, when the primer ignites the ability of the primer to launch the bullet increases, again the primer burns faster than the powder, this causes the bullet to hit the forcing cone and rifling, the resistance causes the bullet to stop, the flame front of the primer, instead of igniting the powder in a column, ignites the powder from the top down, this increases the flame front, as I said manipulator of components can not keep up with more than one thought at a time, the fast burning primer launches the bullet, it stops when it hits the rifling, then the burning powder starts to build pressure fast, this should not be a problem but the bullet can not get out of the way 'fast enough', and as a results the rifle is rendered scrap.

Pictures were posted on another forum, seems another proud owner was being kind to his non-Weatherby rifle in a non-Weatherby chamber by using reduced loads of pistol powder, the pictures were similar to this thread, his thinking was "Nothing before, then suddenly and all at once, the rifle swarmed" and all he had ever shot in that rifle were reduced loads, at least hundreds if not thousands. The first page of responses "You 'musta' doubled charged one of those cases"

No one gave sudden shock a consideration, reduced loads are cute, pistol powder burns fast like BG, rifle powder burns slower, like BAAANNNNNG, in my opinion the non-Weatherby had all the sudden shock it could stand over a period of time, the rifle was not rendered scrap by the last round fired, it was the accumulation of all the reduced loads it had been hammered with over it's short life time.

Meets and or exceeds: Basically, that is determined by the distance a proud owner is required to walk when retrieving the parts after his rifle swarms and scatters, there are a few that curiosity got the best of them, before sending LOW NUMBER 03 receivers back for exchange they decided to hit the receivers with a shop hammer, the exchange was for 'dead or alive' the hammer impact exceeded the receivers ability to absorb shock.

Keeping up with more than one thought at a time, example: "I like my bullets right up there against the rifling" Me? I like the running start, I want free bore, I do not like my bullets setting still at the rifling when the pressure starts to build.

F. Guffey

Then there is filling the reduced load with case cereal and or t-paper ect., again-cute but when the filler is placed between the powder and bullet the filler must compress, if it compresses it must expand outward, when it expands out against the case does it have a tendcy to cut the inside of the case with a ring?

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I'm going to wait a bit and post after Hot Core does!!!

I can hear belk now, "Must have been a Walker Trigger!"

Actually, I'd speculate that Boss Hoss nailed it, but in reverse - a Non-Factory Tested Reduced Load from some arm-chair internet expert.
-----

So the guy wasn't seriously injured? Speaks well for the Action!!!

By the way, if that had of been a Leupold, they would not have repaired it under Warranty. However if had been an (El Cheapo) Optronics, they would have Replaced it. Your only cost would have been returning the pieces in an envelope.

Don't know but if I'd just filled my drawers, I don't think I'd have the presence of mind to say, "let's take some of the factory ammo apart and see if it's a light load". And, FWIW, if you took the ammo apart, wouldn't that cloud any claims you would have?
It does sound similar to all of those ADs where the shooter absolutely NEVER touched the trigger.

I wouldn't take it all apart just three or four to identify the problem. Someone suggested weighing some of the loads earlier, that would be a good place to start. It certainly wouldn't happen right then but it's obvious you're not going to shoot up the rest of the box of ammo right away either. I'm by nature a trouble shooter so I'd be looking for an answer if not right away, definitely within a couple days.

I don't disclaim it being factory ammo. I have seen some very strange occurences with factory ammo over the years and why not? Considering the massive amounts that are loaded do we expect every single round to inspected numerous times during the loading process? I don't and really am not surprised by this occurence considering the large number of "over bore" magnums there are these days. It was bound to happen.

What we see here is a classic case of SEE. The cause of SEE was discovered and reproduced using factory ammuntion in a factory test facility. It was all reported in an excellent article quite a few years ago. If we look at the evidence we can plainly see there was a bore obstruction in front of the throat causing the barrel to slit and rupture. Has nothing to do with "detonation" or "sudden shock" (all old theories that were disproven by the lab tests). It was simply a bore obstruction (the bullet) that caused this. If you doubt this I can post the article but it is lengthy and the associated pictures will probably not post. Ask if you want it.

If the factory ammunition was faulty (again I do not doubt it)then the owner has a probable claim against the manufacturer for damages +. I'll bet they settle with him and it includes the usual non-disclosure clause so we will never hear the outcome.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
I don't disclaim it being factory ammo. I have seen some very strange occurences with factory ammo over the years and why not? Considering the massive amounts that are loaded do we expect every single round to inspected numerous times during the loading process? I don't and really am not surprised by this occurence considering the large number of "over bore" magnums there are these days. It was bound to happen.

What we see here is a classic case of SEE. The cause of SEE was discovered and reproduced using factory ammuntion in a factory test facility. It was all reported in an excellent article quite a few years ago. If we look at the evidence we can plainly see there was a bore obstruction in front of the throat causing the barrel to slit and rupture. Has nothing to do with "detonation" or "sudden shock" (all old theories that were disproven by the lab tests). It was simply a bore obstruction (the bullet) that caused this. If you doubt this I can post the article but it is lengthy and the associated pictures will probably not post. Ask if you want it.

If the factory ammunition was faulty (again I do not doubt it)then the owner has a probable claim against the manufacturer for damages +. I'll bet they settle with him and it includes the usual non-disclosure clause so we will never hear the outcome.

Larry Gibson

First you say what we see is a classic case of SEE. Then you say we can plainly see that there was a bore obstruction that caused the kaboom. I myself cannot plainly se evidence of a bore obstruction in the image. A bore obstruction kaboom and an SEE kaboom are two completley different scenarios.

craigster

Not 2 different scenarios at all.

SEE is caused by a bore obstruction resulting from the bullet getting stuck in the throat. This is from the primer driving the bullet forward into a rough or fouled throat before the reduced load of slow burning powder has burned enough to keep the bullet moving. Then the powder begins to burn and as the bullet is stuck the powders burning charactorisics change and the pressure skyrockets. Note the main bulge in the barrel is just over and ahead of the chamber.

Would you care to see the article? Here it is. Sorry I am unable to make the photo's post.

Larry Gibson

Handloader- readers have doubtless heard of a term called secondary explosion effect (S.E.E.). It is a theory that attempts to explain the catastrophic failure of some rifles while firing seemingly reasonable handloads or reduced loads using slow-burning powders. Theories have been offered and debated in these pages and elsewhere, but they have been just that, theories, because no one has been able to reproduce effects under laboratory conditions. The purpose here is not to debate S.E.E. but rather to report on a specific incident and the results of tests done to discover the cause of catastrophic failure.

One of the great problems with attempting to theorize on the cause of catastrophic failures is that we must do so after the fact. We have the corpse, usually with some parts missing and must try to figure out what went wrong. Learned theories are offered, sometimes conflicting, and we end up with a bunch of folks shouting in print, 'You're wrong.' "No, you’re wrong." Since the event they're arguing about what without benefit of instrumentation, either one could be right. The events I describe here represent the first instance of an event produced under controlled laboratory conditions and documented on industry standard pressure measuring equipment that provides a plausible explanation offered to explain S.E.E.

The following is simple. It goes all the way back to Shooting 101 where we learned that bore obstructions blow up guns. There are no explosions, no mysterious wave amplifications; it's just a case of several factors, combining in worst case conditions to create a bore obstruction with the bullet.

In early 1989 a major manufacturer began development of a load for the 6.5x55mm Swedish that was to be added to their product line. Development was uneventful and all work was done using the copper crusher pressure measuring system, for there were no standards established for piezo-electric pressure measurement in the 6.5x55mm. The copper crusher method of pressure measurement has been with us for generations, but it is not without its limitations. The results obtained are not true "maximum" pressures, and it provides only a single data point. There is no way that one can deduce what is happening during the period the powder is burning, nor can one see other significant ballistic events.

A quantity of ammunition was loaded using a relatively slow-burning, non-canister propellant with a 140-grain bullet. After load development in ammunition manufacturer’s pressure guns, it is common practice to function test ammunition in a variety of available rifles to ensure satisfactory performance before it is released for sale to the public.

As function testing of the 6.5x55mm ammunition was begun using Swedish Mauser rifles, they noticed some of the same signs of excess pressure every handloader is taught. to look for - flattened primers, enlarged primer pockets and heavy bolt lift. All the ammunition fired in the pressure gun had been perfectly acceptable, but SAAMI test barrels and chambers are made to tightly controlled specifications so the first supposition was that some element within the test gun was contributing to high pressures. Then a "spontaneous disassembly" occurred that destroyed the action but left the barrel undamaged. The bore was clear and showed no bulges. It was immediately identified as a high pressures failure and an investigation was begun. The barrel from the wrecked Mauser action was fitted with a collar that allowed it to be mounted in a universal receiver, and an industry standard conformal piezoelectric transducer was installed. Another test was performed using the Oehler Model 82 piezoelectric pressure measuring system equipped with a trace hold oscilloscope.

(Fig !)
round pressure (psi) velocity (fps)
1 48,820 2,601
2 53,849 2,662
3 57,609 2,708
4 57,999 2,720
5 54,093 2,687
6 58,634 2,731
7 62,150 2,754
8 82,120 2,875

Pressure tests are commonly done with a 10-round string and as you can see from the chart, pressures increased very gradually on rounds I through 4. At the fifth shot, pressure dropped and then continued to increase until, at the eighth shot, pressure, went to 82,120 psi; and the technician wisely stopped the test. The raw data was then used to prepare additional graphs (fig. 1) which show that, after ignition, pressures dropped momentarily to near zero on the graph before beginning to rise again.

To interpret this data we have to first understand the ground rules applicable to pressure testing with conformal transducers. The key term here is 'offset" which relates, primarily, to the specific cartridge and the brass used therein and must be determined for each transducer and lot of brass. The offset is the amount of pressure required to obturate the case to the chamber and begin to exert pressure upon the transducer. In this case the offset was 3,800 psi so when we look at the time/pressure curves produced in the test; we must understand that we are not actually seeing pressures below the level of the offset. There is a distinct dip in the curve, however, shortly after the pressure begins to rise when it drops to a level somewhere at or below the offset pressure. All we can say for sure is that, at this point, the pressure is <3,800 psi. Engineers calculated that for the specific bullet being used it would take pressure of at least 5,000 psi just to keep the bullet moving.

As I said, there are a number of variables at work here, but the main culprit is a very long leade or throat erosion. It takes relatively little pressure to eject the bullet from the cartridge case (de-bullet), which produces a significant increase in volume. Unless the rate of gas production is fast enough to keep up with the increase in volume, pressure must drop. The simple equation is PIVI=P2V' where P = pressure and V = volume. It is helpful in considering the phenomena reported here to view the rifle barrel and chamber as a cylinder whose volume is determined by the position of the bullet at any given point in time. If the bullet is moving, the volume is continuously increasing until the bullet exits the barrel.

If P2 is at or below the pressure required to keep the bullet moving it must stop. Then we run into our old friend inertia. Bodies at rest tend to remain at rest, but all the powder burning behind the resting bullet doesn't know about that. It keeps burning and pressure rises. Sometimes we get lucky and the bullet starts to move and relieve some of that pressure, but in a worst case of a rough bore and/or soft bullet it doesn't, and pressure continues to build until something else lets go. Most of the time this will occur around the primer pocket and gas will be released through the flash hole, but we're talking about events that are taking place quickly (milliseconds); and if pressure rises at a rate faster than it is being relieved, a catastrophic failure is inevitable It has been theorized that many 'accidents" represent a combination of effects which combine, in worst case conditions, to produce a catastrophic failure. Robert Greenleaf (Rifle No. 146) presents convincing evidence to show that conditions rarely remain the same, and the condition of the barrel and throat combined with different bullet characteristics can produce markedly different pressure levels for the same load. This is certainly seen in this data where a series of eight shots of the same ammunition delivered pressures ranging, and steadily increasing, from 48,820 psi up to 82,120 psi, at which point the test was stopped. We can, from looking at this test data, presume that all rounds (except perhaps the first) displayed some degree of temporary bore obstruction, but that the bullet was blown out of the barrel. Fortunately universal receivers are capable of containing considerable pressures, and it is certainly possible that the pressure generated by the last shot would have wrecked a standard rifle.

One factor that cannot be accurately measured with this data is the possible contribution of fouling from the bullet itself. It seems reasonable to assume that some accumulated fouling was blown out on the fourth shot, which accounts for the drop in pressure at shot No. 5.

When the engineers were able to examine and expand the time/pressure curves produced during this test, it became obvious that each shot showed a pronounced drop in pressure very early in the ignition/burning cycle and, on the shot where the pressure reached 82,120 psi, it dropped to the baseline before resuming a climb to the stratosphere. It would be easy to think that the fire went out, but a more reasonable explanation is that the burning rate of the powder became even slower. We know that pressure is a major component of the burning rate of any powder, and it depends upon adequate pressure levels being reached and maintained. In fact, what is shown in this case is that the amount of gas being generated was not sufficient to keep the bullet moving. If pressures drop below some optimum level, burning slows down and is often incomplete. Of course there will always be a quantity of unburned powder from any shot, and this observation has led to some of the conclusions regarding S.E.E.

In order for the pressure to rise to catastrophic proportions some other adverse conditions must also be present. These involve the cartridge case, the bullet, chamber and barrel and need to be discussed individually.

Bullet pull: We know that an adequate amount of tension between the case neck and bullet is a prerequisite for uniform combustion. This term, called bullet pull, is independent of the firearm and is routinely measured in the factories. Crimps may or may not be used to increase bullet pull, but most centerfire rifle cartridges depend primarily on tension between the case and bullet. If you've ever committed the sin of firing a cartridge into which you have neglected to dispense powder, you know that the primer alone is perfectly capable of propelling the bullet several inches down the barrel. Pressure generated by a primer alone can be as much as 4,000 psi in a conventional centerfire rifle cartridge; so it is certainly possible, in a normal round, for the primer impulse alone to be sufficient to get the bullet moving before little if any pressure has been generated by the powder charge.

Chamber: In the area of the case neck there must always be some clearance between the case and the chamber wall, but if this area is too large there is little resistance and the bullet can be released with very little pres sure behind it.

Condition of the barrel and throat: The impact of conditions within the chamber and throat are difficult for the handloader to analyze, and a throat that appears normal under cursory inspection may be revealed to be rough and irregular when seen through a bore scope. Greenleaf's report (Rifle No. 146) details how pressure increased as the number of rounds fired through a test barrel grew larger. This can only be attributable to a deterioration of the throat and leade on that particular barrel. In this instance SAAMI standard barrels were used and showed no irregularities, and it was only when the same ammunition was fired in a 'field' barrel with more generous tolerances and wear in these areas that problems were seen.

Bullet hardness and stiffness: The shape and construction of the specific bullet used can be a major factor in the levels of pressure developed by any given load. Bullets undergo some degree of deformation as they enter the bore, and the force required for them to engrave the rifling and obturate to bore dimensions can vary considerably.

Temperature: We know that pressures tend to increase as the barrel heats up, and a round that produces perfectly normal pressures from a cold barrel might show signs of excess pressure when the barrel is hot.

Work presented here answers questions. Some of the findings support theories offered to explain S.E.E. some don't. We haven't, for example, seen any evidence to indicate that there is ever an explosion, and many authorities doubt that there is. Perhaps what we need is a better name. Taken to its most basic component, what we have is that most fundamental cause of catastrophic failures: a bore obstruction. The difference here is that the offender is the bullet itself effect rather than some external source is both predictable and reproducible in the light of this new evidence, but it is highly dependent upon a combination of factors that produce disastrous results. If one or more is absent, everything will probably turn out fine; but when all come together, pressures rise and, sooner or later, sooner or later, something will fail. While it would appear that slow-burning powders contribute significantly, until now we didn't exactly know what to look for. I think it's at least theoretically possible for a bullet to stop in a barrel if the other conditions are bad enough with propellants other than the slower grades.

Have you ever fired a load that you had used often and suddenly gotten signs of excess pressure such as difficult bolt lift or flattened primers, and then fired another that seemed perfectly normal? I think this happens with some frequency, and our normal recourse is to shrug our shoulders and also be a bright red flag waving in keep on shooting; h6wever, this could front of our nose that is telling us that something is wrong. In the light of these findings, it could be telling us that a bullet did a stutter step before it went on out the barrel. The question then becomes what should we do about it. My first suggestion would be a careful investigation of the condition of the bore, especially the throat or leade to see if there is any erosion or roughness followed by thorough cleaning. A chamber cast might be in order to get precise measurements. If the barrel shows obvious signs of wear or throat erosion, the cure is obviously to replace it or set it back and rechamber. If the barrel appears to be within specifications, however, a change of bullet or propellant may be enough to solve the problem. The importance of this information is that it explains, with laboratory documentation, what can happen when the wheels fall off in the worst way. It seems like such a reasonable answer to many of the mysterious ka-booms that good reloaders have had with good handloads, and it is something we all need to keep in the back of our minds in case we encounter something out of the ordinary. While the data here was generated using the 6.5x55 Swedish cartridge, the observations are not specific to that round. They could occur with almost anything.

Gentlemen,

It was said the cartridges had half the powder they should have had. There is really no way to know that since if they were factory loads you wouldn't know what powder they were loaded with. They could even have been loaded with the wrong powder.

I've had once incident in which a light load appeared to produce high pressure. It was in a FA 83 454 Casul. When I shot, the primer was flattened more than usual and the cylinder was almost locked up.

I believe what happened is the bullet started down the barrel, almost got stuck but then the pressure rapidly built up and managed to shove it the rest of the way out. We all know, it takes more pressure to start a bullet stuck in a barrel from a dead start than it does to start it with a little jump to the lands and with enough pressure that it continues to accelerate until it's out of the barrel.

Thanks for posting the article.

I'm with Larry on this one. A prime example of SEE regardless of who loaded the ammo. Didn't know the labs had finally duplicated the pheomenon in the lab tho. Glad the guy's ok & hope things work out for him.
Bear in Fairbanks

If this was really factory loaded ammunition----you can bet my fist call would be to my attorney after I picked myself up off of the ground and changed my pants!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
This raises the pressure and lets all the powder burn at once and boom.

quote:

This was an email I received from folks in the industry with the posted text as the explanation.

You've got to be kidding? "Folks in the industry" described this occurrence in this manner? Perhaps convenience store clerk industry is more like it. What a joke! And then inferring that a handloaded reduced load caused it adds insult to injury.

Just too many things don't add up.

Hey,

I just posted this to pass on the information I received. It was a mail. I took it at face value because it came from a trusted source although it was forwarded. I've received plenty of mails and I'm sure you have too that are fabrications. Like the guys shooting "Taliban" in Afganistan video mail that is really just guys shooting rock chucks.

Everyone reading it is like me, you can believe it or not believe it. Draw your own conclusions; I don't have any stake in it or give a damn.

Maybe your should check Snopes, I don't know how to research its validity.

I named the thread "reduced load" because it stated it had half of the normal powder charge. I wasn't "infering" anything. It is clearly stated that it was factory ammo!

Is there a better way to describe it?

quote:

Originally posted by onefunzr2:

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
This raises the pressure and lets all the powder burn at once and boom.

and here's the OP statement:

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
For all you "reduced load" guys:

quote:

This actually happened to a young fellow in Rexburg. I saw the gun. A 300 Ultra Mag. He was shooting factory ammo. They took apart 2 shells from the box and they had only ½ the powder in that they should have. This raises the pressure and lets all the powder burn at once and boom. All it did was blow the thumb finger off of his new glove. How lucky was he? BE CARFUL

Not at all the same....and the work to change it to the way onefunzr2 has posted it is just plain lying!......an intentional fraudulent post!

What a jerkface little asshole!

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by onefunzr2:

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
This raises the pressure and lets all the powder burn at once and boom.

and here's the OP statement:

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
For all you "reduced load" guys:

quote:

This actually happened to a young fellow in Rexburg. I saw the gun. A 300 Ultra Mag. He was shooting factory ammo. They took apart 2 shells from the box and they had only ½ the powder in that they should have. This raises the pressure and lets all the powder burn at once and boom. All it did was blow the thumb finger off of his new glove. How lucky was he? BE CARFUL

Not at all the same....and the work to change it to the way onefunzr2 has posted it is just plain lying!......an intentional fraudulent post!

What a jerkface little asshole!

No fraud intended, just edited to get to the point.

As for the jerkface little asshole quip...Merry Christmas to you too!

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by onefunzr2:

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
This raises the pressure and lets all the powder burn at once and boom.

and here's the OP statement:

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
For all you "reduced load" guys:

quote:

This actually happened to a young fellow in Rexburg. I saw the gun. A 300 Ultra Mag. He was shooting factory ammo. They took apart 2 shells from the box and they had only ½ the powder in that they should have. This raises the pressure and lets all the powder burn at once and boom. All it did was blow the thumb finger off of his new glove. How lucky was he? BE CARFUL

Not at all the same....and the work to change it to the way onefunzr2 has posted it is just plain lying!......an intentional fraudulent post!

What a jerkface little asshole!

Please Vapo, don't hold back!

Tell us how you really feel!

quote:

He was shooting factory ammo.

Really and does anyone know which factory ???. As I'll be making a successful bid on it for a $1.00 !. I've seen people ,deceitful people carry factory ammo an use reloads ,then attempt to blame factory in case a problem occurs !. Forensic testing confirms tracers within powders !!!. I'll be waiting for the name of the Factory !.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog: ...a mind boggling two bullets stuffed into a single case.

I wonder, though, how valid this could be. Wouldn't this bulge the case? Imagine sitting next to the poor sap at the range.

quote:

Originally posted by Clem:

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog: ...a mind boggling two bullets stuffed into a single case.

I wonder, though, how valid this could be. Wouldn't this bulge the case? Imagine sitting next to the poor sap at the range.

As hard as it is to believe....I personally witnessed it!...not a second hand statement.

But this is only to point out that factory errors are in fact real and do happen....but it's darn rare!

Recall on ammo & rifles happens. Remember the Tikka 2004 recall?

Is that the "take down" model?