https://forums.gunboards.com/s...shared-from-Facebook

Looks like a 1916 Carl Gustav bit the dust. User wasn't wearing eye protection and paid for it. Very heavy load. Had a brain fart and used IMR 4198 instead of 4350. When you see this failure you understand why Mauser increased the ring thickness and Springfield 1903's and M1917/P14 Enfields had ring bolsters on the right side. Appears to be a case head separation. A great example of why you shouldn't push these actions. Can't handle gas.

This is why I only read and follow AR; other sites are populated with way too many idiots. And not just the shooter.

BUT we have biebs and his blasers

True; that malady falls into another category of human.

Ballsey of you to show/admit..Ahhh…"lack of attention"..It's ALWAYS a hand load!

Still...shows how well the action design gave you a second chance..

Hope your eye is OK

As long as you were right handed. But, that kind of failure was unlikely with military or commercial ammo of the day. This is obviously a gross over-pressure event.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Ballsey of you to show/admit..Ahhh…"lack of attention"..It's ALWAYS a hand load!

Still...shows how well the action design gave you a second chance..

Hope your eye is OK

It wasn't Bob who did it; he is just posting what some guy did; Bob is way too smart to do that.
However, it does show what too much escaping gas can do to a pre 98 design; about ten years ago a guy here blew two Rem 700s in 243 using pistol powder; he locked up the first one, and when he couldn't get the bolt open, he took his other one, and proceeded to lock it up as well; broke the handle off this one. The 3 rings of steel advertising does really work; I removed the barrels; everything was budged but nothing broken. Brass was melted.

Reminds me of an incident that happened about 8 years ago. I was at my friends shop. Guy brought in a remington 700 that had the bolt welded in place and wouldn't open. After removing the barrel, got it all apart and the case was totally melted into the bolt, and the bolt face cracked. Lug setback into the receiver made it all junk.

The owner had the ammo with him, pulled one apart and it had the wrong shape of granules in it for the powder it should have had. As i recall it was a .22-250, can't remember for sure. The rifle had locked up on the first round fired.

He called his buddy that had reloaded the rounds for him, and his buddy said bullshit. I'll go to the range with my share of the ammo and show you. He hung up the phone. An hour later we had the rest of the story. Buddy is now missing two fingers and an eye. His rifle didn't hold and lock up, it grenaded.

I guess I don't see this as "a great example of why you shouldn't push these actions"
I see it as a great example of why you should pay close attention to your handloading.
I have a 96 action Husky that I run warm but not much over book max in 257 Roberts and have no issues with it.
There isn't an action out there that can't be blown up by using the wrong powder no matter how strong they are.

Exactly; it is not that they won't handle pressure; the swedes routinely make them into 30-06s, but that they won't handle massive escaping gas.
Neither will a lot of other ancient actions.
The lessons are two;
1. Morons should not reload.
2. If they do, they should only shoot them in Remington 700s.

You left out my last sentence: "Can't handle gas". When I posted this it had not yet been revealed the owner overloaded the round with the wrong powder. I originally thought he had a hot load of 4350 and suffered a case head separation with a re-load of unknown origin.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
I guess I don't see this as "a great example of why you shouldn't push these actions"
I see it as a great example of why you should pay close attention to your handloading.
I have a 96 action Husky that I run warm but not much over book max in 257 Roberts and have no issues with it.
There isn't an action out there that can't be blown up by using the wrong powder no matter how strong they are.

Did you all notice that it blew the opposite direction of the unsupported side? Opposite of the gas venting?

dcpd, we've all been morons at one time or another.

On a few of these rifles which have failed this way and which I have seen, there was evidence that the receiver was cracked along the corner(s) of the race way, previously. In some cases, I thought it may have started from the use of an inside wrench. It is not at all uncommon to seem these receivers squashed by overenthusiastic tightening of an outside wrench as well.
I have seen the same failure on small ring BRNO actions. When you look at these, there is not much material at the corners of the raceway.
In this particular instance, of course, the issue was a severe overload due to a powder substitution. I've seen a few of those too. Regards, Bill

There was a fellow on Gunbroker a few years ago selling damaged M96 receivers bought from Kimber of Oregon. They were torqued, cracked, and some had the receivers completely split at the right raceway. Looked like an inside wrench was used. All were listed as "repairable by a qualified gunsmith" - yeah right! No telling how many got out with unnoticeable cracks.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
On a few of these rifles which have failed this way and which I have seen, there was evidence that the receiver was cracked along the corner(s) of the race way, previously. In some cases, I thought it may have started from the use of an inside wrench. It is not at all uncommon to seem these receivers squashed by overenthusiastic tightening of an outside wrench as well.
I have seen the same failure on small ring BRNO actions. When you look at these, there is not much material at the corners of the raceway.
In this particular instance, of course, the issue was a severe overload due to a powder substitution. I've seen a few of those too. Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:
Did you all notice that it blew the opposite direction of the unsupported side? Opposite of the gas venting?

It failed where the receiver ring is thinnest, at the right, extractor side lugway which is cut deeper than the left lugway.
Exactly where Springfield and Enfield put that extra patch of steel.

Notice how it also failed right at the transition from a thin section to a thicker one on the bottom and top of the folded out piece.

I suspect gas pressure was more or less uniform in that small enclosed space.

That was my understanding as well.

I noticed it looks like a piece of brass exited through the bolt stop/ejector box.

Did anyone put the load in to their fancy load software and see what pressure it was developing?

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
https://forums.gunboards.com/s...shared-from-Facebook

Looks like a 1916 Carl Gustav bit the dust. User wasn't wearing eye protection and paid for it. Very heavy load. Had a brain fart and used IMR 4198 instead of 4350. When you see this failure you understand why Mauser increased the ring thickness and Springfield 1903's and M1917/P14 Enfields had ring bolsters on the right side. Appears to be a case head separation. A great example of why you shouldn't push these actions. Can't handle gas.

Is this what is meant by "gun violence"?