For the first time since I've been reloading, I had hangfires today. The whether was mild for this time of year 30F, but much colder than when I was working the loads. I was shooting a 350 Rigby, imagine 358 Norma capacity, or ~10% more then a 35 whelen. I was using the 358009, and the load I worked up, 44 gr RL15 was based on a 10% increased 35 whelen load I'd seen. I imagine the load is doing ~2000 fps, but I killed my chrony, so not sure.

Anyhow, I loaded the 44 RL15 over CCI 200, CCI 250, Fed 210 and Fed 215. The CCI 200's all hangfired, but all other primers lit right off. Just wondering if anyone else has had this problem. I know this is a really reduced load, as normal charge weight of RL15 would be 66gr over 250 gr jacketed.

Paul,
I too have had some issues with slower powders, reduced loads and cold weather. I move to faster powders with reduced loads, especially in very cold weather. When the loads get reduced in larger cases, I like to stick to powders that are no slower than reloader 7-through the 4198s. Good luck.

regards, and rest well knowing that your old max barrel is still driving tacks! Got me a NEI combination mould with 4 cavities of a 200 grain flatnose and 2 cavities of a 232 grain flatnose.

life is good.

Graycg

Isn't H4895 supposed to work well with reduced loads?

Paul, you are holding a rattlesnake too far behind the head and it can bite you. NEVER drastically reduce loads with slow powders, you can blow up your rifle. Go to a faster powder and maybe put a little dacron over the powder to keep it against the primer. Also SR4759 was made for light loads in large cases. It takes up a lot of room for it's weight.

Since I use the CCI flavor almost exclusively, let me add that I've only once run into something similar.

I thought that I had several mis-fires. Don't remember the powder, would have been an IMR of slow persuasion. When I took the rounds apart I found the unburned powder fused together - almost ignited. The powder crumbled apart when teased with a screwdriver.

Good to see ya using the 009!

FWIW

I know nothing about your powder, but I gather from the full charge weight is is one of the slower powders. Never...I repeat never...use slow burning powder for reduced loads without a filler, and then I even won't do it. You run the risk of SEE (secondary explosive effect),which nobody seems to understand, but is non-the-less real. Understood or not, it can turn your rifle into a grenade. Use medium burning powder like 4895 or 3031 when reducing loads. Listen to the grey headed old man, don't argue, just quit and go to a faster powder.

All the warnings so far have been right on the mark, and I'm piling-on too.

If you have any of that ammunition still on hand, pull the bullets and return the powder to its can. The VERY NEXT ROUND of that stuff which you fire may be the one that takes your rifle apart.

My wife had a beautiful FN Mauser (Browning Safari-Grade) blow up in her hands due to a hangfire which got out of hand with a full charge of SLOW-burning powder, not a reduced load. The primer, and possibly a bit of the powder charge, pushed the bullet about four inches up the barrel where it STOPPED. The rest of the charge than ignited and destroyed the rifle, causing serious injuries. Her eyes were ony saved by the glasses she was wearing....her face was full of brass and steel fragments, some of which were still emerging from her skin many years later.

The bullet was still in place, about four inches from the chamber. The greatly-increased volume behind the bullet when it stopped created exactly the same effect as a much-reduced load of the slow powder, and also created the conditions for the blow-up.

There are legions of good cast-bullet loads available, and many for reduced jacketed-bullet loads as well. NONE of them use reduced amounts of slowburning powder. The risk is not "urban legend"; it is REAL and deadly-serious. I'm really glad that you posted about your situation, because we can head-off the danger to you, and also warn everyone else about it once again. Be safe, amigo, and I mean that!

Regards from BruceB (aka Bren Mk1)

Ditto to everything said Paul. The 200 is about the softest primer for lite-ing powder and your loads appear to be past what it'll lite effectively. Might be that lot number being tainted... heat exposure or ? or just how they came off the line.



Now read this one casting fans.... I had a load of 'old' 4198 fail to lite when a CCI 200 went off over it. 45/70... the powder was laying on the case wall and I here the barely audible 'pop' and no boom. Pulling the bullet showed primer residue and just a trace of what appeared to be burnt powder . Jssssss... methinks-- did I dodge one or not, did Lady Luck save my assss yet again? Gave me something to think about. The remainder of the can of 4198 made some nice fertilizer for the daylillies. But be sure I knew this can of '98 to be very old... in Paul's case I doubt the powder is flawed.

Thanks for the replies. I would like to note that Reloader 15 isn't a slow powder, it is a medium speed powder. I will however work up with RL 7, and hopefully find another 5 shot moa load. It would figure that when I come across my best ever cast bullet load, I have to scrap it and start over from scratch.

I am curious about those using the ~40gr charges in the 35 whelen with the same bullet, as my load is similar, and in a case not that much larger.

I had similar experience ( kind of a click-bang thing ) with CCI200 primers, medium load of H414 and 155gr bullets in an 03-A3. Thought it was a weak firing pin spring. Tried three different higher power striker springs before I realised it was the primer/powder combo. That 30# spring just about knocks the primer through the front of the case. Changed to Fed primers and no more problem. I don't think I was ever in danger, but the slightly delayed ignition did nothing positive to my scores.
Greg

SEE does not require a slow powder. This has happened with 4895 in a 30 BR shooten jacketed bullets at a reduced charge wt.

My other hangfire indicent was shooten the old H205 in a 257 Roberts with BR 2's. Being a near max loading, the odd sounds of hissing etc were quite surprising the first time it happened. This before I knew of/understood SEE. H205 wasn't around long, but did work decent in a 7 Mag using 215's. Used it in the 220 Swift with 70 gr Speers for a deer hunt one yr and it appeared to perform fine.

Anyone ever heard of SEE and hangfires related or occuring because of the hangs? I have not BTW.. go figure too, they should be.

I'm having the same type problem right now with my 354X404 IMR7383 and WCC846 and WLR primers and the loads are not greatly reduced. 83.5 gr. of WCC846 isn't reduced it's just ball powder and it looks like it doesn't ignite well with a std. primer. I've got this posted with more detail in reloading.With the 846 it has happened with jacketed and cast bullets. Roger

I am always hinky about making broad/blanket statments about handloading/reloading because it is such a subjective activity. Our experiences differ and you get slammed pretty easy on these boards if your blanket statment doesn't square with somebody experience, even though that experience is limited. However this thread moves me to make one a broad/blanket statment.

I have reloaded many hundreds of thousands of rounds in several score calibers since 1958 abd I am convinced that powder position and load density are very important factors in producing accurate, reliable and safe ammo for our guns.

Anytime load density drops below about 75% it is time to think about a bulkier powder or a filler. Keeping the powder column in place against the primer goes a very long way in producing reliable ignition, consistant velocity and good accuracy.

The question of fillers always raises a varitety of opinions. I am sold on shotshell buffer as a filler.

None of the above applies to small charges of fast pistol powder in handgun cartridges. That is another discussion, I am talking rifle here. Although small charges of powder in large cases like the 45 Colt has caused some SEE problems.

Paul, I use RL 15 in my .35 Whelen, but only with jacketed bullets. Charges are 57.0 to 59.0 gr. with bullet weights between 225-250 gr. I use CCI 250 Magnum or WLR Magnum primers (I think Alliant's web site recommended Magnum primers, or maybe the late Finn Aagard in the Rifleman.) For lighter cast loads I use 20 gr. Alliant 2400 with 220 gr. NEI and 17 gr. with 255 gr. Hoch. 2400 is not position-sensitive and gives good accuracy. For nearly 2100 fps with 255 gr. Hoch cast bullet I use 33 gr. IMR 4198. 4198 is also accurate despite rattling around in a large case. All my cast loads are lighted by Magnum primers on my (untested) idea that with the powder who knows where in the case, I'll take all the fire I can get. HTH curmudgeon

I had my first hangfires 20 plus years ago. I was using either a .222 or .223,53 grain(not cast) boolits, H-335 with standard CCI primers and definately had click-bangs. I switched to a magnum primer and they went away.-JDL

Thanks for the posting, Paul. And thanks to the rest of you for sharing.In my 47 years of reloading I've stayed away from ball powders for 40 of those years. Until last month I had never experienced a delayed ignition. I've had some wierd results with a deteriorated can of 4895 but no click bangs.I now see why many of the reloading manuals advise mag. primers only with certain powders. Now that it's all comeing together in this thread I am a believer.The story of the bullet 4 " up the barrel and than exploding was a real gut wrencher to me.What made that happen? roger

Paul....I had some missfires in cold, damp weather with reduced loads in the 375 H & H using WW Large rifle primers. 4895, Reloader 7 and 4198 as well as I recall....it's been years now so records are gone and memory may fail me.

A change to Fed 215s cured it and I haven't been plagued since./beagle

I haven't yet gotten a click-bang, but when I first started experimenting with WC680 in .45-70 with the #457122, my initial load was 32 grains with a CCI 200 primer, no filler, and a Lee Factory Crimp. (The crimp effectively increases the bullet starting pressure much less in large calibers than small ones, due to the larger area of the bullet base.) Several shots made a dull BOOM! sound, with a subsonic muzzle velocity, and a considerable amount of unburned powder was left in the bore. I tried Dacron filler and it eliminated the bloopers, but it was messy and the velocities were still inconsistent. Switched to CCI 250s, worked up to 37 grains and ditched the Dacron. I'm happy with how it shoots now.

I've also had a lot of hangfires and misfires with my 45-70 and re#7 ,3031 etc and was using cci#200 primers. With the misfires the bullet would be lodged about an inch in the barrel and there would be a little cake of half burned powder sitting behind it. Didn't like that. Switched to federal lr and mag primers and no mre problems.Just use CCI#200 in my gas operated rifles with meduim capacity cases.

Chargar,

I think it is not so much an issue of the percentage of case capacity used but rather the amount of air space left.

In my experience the worst combinations for reduced loads are big case capacities but where the case capacity is small for the bore size (eg 458 and 460), light for calibre bullets and lots of freebore...the 458 and 460

As far as I am aware our powder being ignited (for ideal results) is not like the spark plug in the car engine in which the fuel gradually burns throughout. I am under the impression that all the individual grains of powder should ignite at once and each grain of powder determines the pressure build up as opposed to the pressure building up because one grain of powder burns than then other burns and so.

One problem with hanfires that does not seem to get a mention occurs with ball powder and in big cases and where the hangfire is so short the shooter does not notice it. Powders like 760 in a 7mm Mag or 300 Win come to mind. What can happen is that hangfires that are so small they are noticed take place and this results in lower pressure and then the reloader increases his load. He ends up increasing the load beyond what would be maximum for say 760 in the 7mm or 300 and then with the extra powder he gets correct ignition and of course an unexpected overload.

By the way, I still don't buy Secondary Explosion idea.

Mike

Hi Mike..Good to hear from a caster down under. I think we will have to disagree on a couple of points.

1. I do think the problem is the relationship to the amount of powder and air in the case. Of course the primer has more work to do in a large case than a smaller case, but hangfires and SEE can occur in smaller bottle neck cases. You could reach a point in case capacity (22 Hornet) where the ignition chamber is so small, there is no place for a small charge to hide from the primer.

2. I am not real certain what you mean, when you say you don't buy secondary explosion. Do you mean, you don't accept the explanation that some give, or there is no such thing. I don't pretend to know why it happens, but I am 100% convinced that it does happen.

3. We could have a good discussion on whether all grains of powder ignit at once, or whether they form a chain. Smokeless power is progressive burning and that is what makes it a flamable solid rather than an explosive like black powder. Each grain of powder it's energy progressively. O2 is produced by the burning, and this fuels the fire, the higher the heat the more O2 is released, which in turn fuels the fire, which produced more heat.etc. etc. This is why smokless powder burns when not confined and produces such high pressure when confined.

Om 1947 a ship loaded with nitrate fertilizer caught fire in Texas City, Texas. The fire was in the hole and following standards of the day, they battened down the hole to rob the fire of O2. That turned the ship into a huge cartridge case with no bullet and no barrel to release the pressure. The ship blew up like a grenade and took the harbor and some of the city with it.

It is my impression that all grains do not ignite at once, but I am willing to learn on this point.

Charger -
I think the concensus is that the powder burns progressively. It seems to me that there is respect for the shorter cases over longer for accuracy - shorter burn time.

I was impressed with the misfires I referred to that were clumped together and had failed to ignight.

The coating that each grain has - graphite or otherwise will restrict ignition.

charger, I agree with you 100%. SEE does happen. The best article I read on trying to prove it in a lab was that somehow the bullet moves forward under low pressure and stops in either the throat or barely in the rifling. Then the powder reaches full pressure and slams into the bullet which now acts like a bore obstruction. They have not figured out what causes the first low pressure surge (measured) or whether a pressure wave moved back and forth in the case. They found freebored rifles are more prone to SEE.
I had the experience with my 6.5X55 Swedish with 46 grs. of 4831. Not exactly a light load and every powder charge was weighed. This rifle has a lot of freebore which can cause the problem faster. I had shot hundreds of these. Then one day I had a heck of a time getting the bolt open. The primer fell out when I got it open and the back of the case was expanded as if I developed 200,000 psi. No damage to the rifle however. Then my friend had it happen to him. Same deal. I switched to Varget and will never use 4831 in this rifle again. I never had this problem with a heavier charge but accuracy was not there and being a 1919 rifle, I didn't like to shoot more powder. By the way, 46 grs. is listed everywhere as the best load for this rifle.
This is a problem that will sneak up on you. You can fire a load for years, then it happens. No one knows why.
I can only suggest not to download any powder too much. Go to a faster powder for lighter loads and be safe.
If you read WW loading data for 296 with a 240 gr. bullet in the .44 mag., WW states never to load less then the max load. A little too cautious if you ask me, but they want to protect themselves. There must be a reason!

The reason W-W warned not to reduce the loads of 296 in the .44 Magnum was that they felt lighter loads had a risk of underignition sticking the bullet in the barrel. That was a big problem in very cold weather with the 295P that was Winchester's original powder for that cartridge. They fixed it by going to the slightly faster burning 296 and put that warning on the loading data. The story's in George Frost's "Ammunition Making."

I've only had hangfires with one load. Nearly identical to JDL who said:

"I had my first hangfires 20 plus years ago. I was using either a .222 or .223,53 grain(not cast) boolits, H-335 with standard CCI primers and definately had click-bangs. I switched to a magnum primer and they went away.-JDL"

Mine were in a 7X30 Waters with H335 and standard primers. Three hangfires in a row and I stopped shooting that load. A switch to magnum primers cured that problem.

As to SEE. Dave Scovill (Wolfe Publishing) debunks the idea and repeats what many others have said. Namely, that it has never been duplicated in a lab nor proven as the cause of a destroyed gun. Check your back issues of Handloader or Rifle magazines for the article. FWIW..

shooter...

"As to SEE. Dave Scovill (Wolfe Publishing) debunks the idea and repeats what many others have said. Namely, that it has never been duplicated in a lab nor proven as the cause of a destroyed gun. Check your back issues of Handloader or Rifle magazines for the article"

shooter I wonder if ol' Dave has a vested interest there. Powder companies advertize there... SEE steers some away from their slow powder and reloading.. do you SEE the connection?

Of course I see it. In fact, one of the points he made in the article was that powder and ammunition companies are viewed as having a vested (biased) interest. He also made the point that no one has ever claimed to have had SEE with factory ammunition. Only with handloads. Also interesting I think.

I have no opinion one way or the other. I've never had SEE nor do I personally know anyone who has claimed to have had SEE. I have no ax to grind. Just reporting what he said.

All, I had one or perhaps two hangfires with a cast bullet load recommended by Lyman in the 46th & 47th (!) editions of their "Reloading Handbook." The rifle was an 8mm. Mau. with Fed. brass, Fed. stand. LR primers and 36.0gr. Win. 748 with #323470 (~165gr. Loverin). A few years later while reading a Winchester reloading pamphlet, I came across a warning not to use reduced charges of 748 in the 8mm Mau. cartridge. I wrote a letter to Lyman to alert them to this, but they didn't think enough of it to amend the 47th Edition of their manual. You can still find the load on p. 307. Btw, I'd sense enough to switch to IMR 4198 and IMR 3031 when using that CB. ...Maven

Ricochet, thanks for that bit of info, clears up a lot.

You're welcome. Frost's "Ammunition Making" book is a very interesting read, and I'd recommend it. I haven't looked lately, but it was on sale at the NRA's online store.

shooter I meant no question to what YOU were reporting.



Just enough handloaders of merit have reported it... something is going down. I heard one of the bullet making labs had an 'event'-- but this again 'I heard'. This 25 yrs ago BTW. BruceB had one too?

Chargar

In a 375 H&H around 40 grains of H4227 and 220 grain Hornadies give about 2100 f/s in most rifles and accuracy that is up to the potential of the gun. However, 60 grains of H4227 in a 460 Wby with 400 grain Speers is real click bang stuff. In both cases the percentage of the case capacity being used is about the same. Also both the 375 and 460 are very similar in their powder choices.

When I say I don't but the Secondary Explosiion idea I mean that I believe (my belief might be wrong ) there other explanations.

As to all the powder granules burning at once there might be someone up on the Reloading forum that knows for sure.

But it is my belief that the design is for all of the powder granules to be burning at the same time. The "progressive" aspect occurs with each individual grain.

Mike

bartsche

I replied to your PM but I can't tell if those things go through or not.

Mike

Mike, I think you are right. The design of a "progressive" powder is such that it burns progressively more as time passes. That is, generates more gas as time passes. It does this either through use of deterent coatings, or the shape of the powder, or (perhaps) both. Each granule is supposed to meet the criteria. Therefore, for SEE to occur those design parameters would have to have failed, or the manufacturing process was screwed up. If the latter were true the whole lot of powder would be bad and SEE might be a more common occurence. I suspect that either failure of the design or the manufacturing process are very rare and that is why some have difficulty accepting SEE.

I've seen two destroyed guns. Both were revolvers and both were attributed to excessive charges of fast powders. Both had half the cylinder gone and the backstrap separated.

That said, I am keeping an open mind. On one hand some failures cannot be explained by a faulty reloading process. For example, a double charge. On the other hand we are told that SEE has never been done in a contolled environment.

"On the other hand we are told that SEE has never been done in a contolled environment"

are told IMO is the operative phaze. If you were a powder company and produced the event under controlled circumstances-- albeit with a long shot range of conditions to be met, you'd be MUTE. All that could come of it is reduced sales and being this event is hard to produce....quiet is what ya hear.

Think about it. Say Hodgdon puts out a warning tomorrow about 4831-- what would that due to sales? It'd scare the H otta alot of people-- primarily the ones NOT well versed in handloading.

Scoville is miles and miles from being an authority on internal ballistics. Miles.

Shooter,

You might well have nailed it with faulty powder.

Like you I keep an open mind and in particular with reduced loads of slow powders in real necked down calibres.

Human nature being what it is there would be a strong tendency to claim Secondary Exposion when the real problem might have been the reloader's fault...wrong powder etc.

Mike

In our present litigation-driven society, I would think the powder manufacturers would err on the side of caution and report any known issues with their products. It seems that I saw a powder recall notice from one of the manufacturers posted at the local gun emporium just this past week.

There are too many bottom-feeding lawyers (that's redundant, isn't it?) out there looking to make a "name" for themselves, and if an incident/accident occurred to an individual and the manufacturer had even the slightest inkling that there could have been a problem, the manufacturer would be out of business.

Resp'y,
Bob S.

"I would think the powder manufacturers would err on the side of caution and report any
known issues with their products."

That would be tricky for the powder makers. On one hand, it would be an admission of their culpability, and OTOH, a recall of the entire lot for some unlikely problem doesn't do much for the bottom line. It's a tightrope that anyone in business has to walk. It's probably also the reason that it's so hard to get info outside published (and lawyer-approved) data.

I have been reloading long enough to know that ANYBODY can make a mistake once in a while. SEE may or may not exist, but a hell of a lot of guns are damaged and cases blown and primer pockets expanded that are due to PSU (personal screw up) not SEE, though it may get the blame. This is particularly likely in loads involving powders that are a bit too fast for the task and bullets up against the rifling. And we all know that the internet is full of people using loads that are off the charts, but are "safe in MY gun." Until one day it isn't.