Model 96 Swedish Mauser Accident

[Hamish]

Personally I would rather NOT see it locked. If we can get past the posturing and bashing, there ARE things to be discussed and learned on the subject.

I personally am not willing to stand up and say definitively "yea" or "nay" on the S.E.E. premise. At this point, anyone who does say it definitively exists is supporting conjecture, as far as I know. BUT, there ARE hinky things that can and sometimes do happen during the energy liberation event after the trigger is pulled.

Continual discussion of the perceived parameters that have been found to be associated with these events can only better enable reloaders to use safer practices.

I found this interesting: http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthr...69/type/thread

[BK7saum]

Hamish, stop wasting your time. IF there were such a person at Hodgdon and IF he had said anything about SEE, there is no reason why it could not be reproduced here. Tomme boy is just stirring the pot, he has no facts. As for my not buying a 6.5 caliber rifle, that's another false flag. IF SEE exists, it is not limited to 6.5 cartridges. In fact most "reports" concern large magnum cartridges using light loads of slow burning powders.

The members who believe that SEE exists have now had plenty of time to provide the data requested. They have not.

As you noted NO powder/bullet/primer/gun maker has ever come up with any warnings about SEE. Given the number of hungry lawyers out there, if it existed, they would have. All one need do is look at the litigation industry that has grown up around the Remington transfer bar trigger.

So bottom line, I have a nice 30-06 truck gun for $250 that will escape destruction. UNLESS and IF the data is provided.

Absent that, I suggest the Mods lock the thread before it results in "argumentum ad hominum".

You admit that most "reports" concern large magnum cartridges using light loads of slow burning powders, yet you go out and buy a 30-06 which is a more middle of the road cartridge regarding powder burn rate and load densities. If you were going to prove that SEE doesn't exist why not go with the biggest magnum cartridge and small charges of the slowest burning powder and fire away. No SEE produced in that cartridge combination, then your point would be proven. I did not say that SEE was limited only to 6.5 cartridges, just that you are attempting to debunk SEE in general and state that a lot of reports concern the 6.5 Swede and large magnum cartridges. Just trying to figure out why you don't grab the bull by the horn and go straight to a magnum-ish cartridge. Maybe your afraid you would prove yourself wrong. Don't know, just find it amusing that you want to stack the deck for your little upcoming experiment. I am interested to hear your results, whether they support or refute your conjectures regarding SEE.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

What I actually said in post #125 of this thread is this;

"I have offered Mr. Humble the opportunity to obtain actual test produced facts whether S.E.E. is real or not and can be readily produced or not. Apparently Mr. Humble has decided not to participate to find a definitive answer through an actual test with a 6.5 Swede rifle. I will provide the test equipment, the time and the effort. Mr.Humble need only provide the test M96 6.5 Swede Mauser. I run the risk of damaging $6,000 to $7,000 worth of test equipment while Mr. Humble runs the risk of damaging his M96 if an S.E.E. is produced. If a S.E.E. is not produced then no harm or foul to either the test equipment or the M96 will occur. It is only I that would lose my time and effort. As the undamaged M96 will be returned to him and I will reimburse his shipping and related costs and return the M96.

I also invite Mr. Humble or anyone else to observe the test."

I also did not use "low brow intimidation tactics". Mr Humble does not think S.E.E. exists and is emphatic in his stating so. The fact is it does exist and can be readily reproduced both inside a laboratory and outside a laboratory. I offered Mr Humble an opportunity to prove it doesn't exist. If he so strongly believes it doesn't exist then what risk is he taking?

Hamish, you state; "I'd like to see some actual scientific evidence posted that proves the existence of the problem". I have the equipment to measure the internal ballistics before and up to an S.E.E. event. That is all well and fine but if we create an S.E.E event we must also understand that the firearm will be damaged.....probably catastrophically. Now I already know S.E.E. events are real as I have been directly involved in two events, have seen the results of several others and have produced the same pressure indicators Measured with an Oehler M43) that lead to an S.E.E. on several occasions. While I am willing to participate in creating an S.E.E. event I see no reason I need to destroy my own firearm to prove anything to Mr Humble or you for that matter. Bottom line here is that you must understand if want to "see some actual scientific evidence posted that proves the existence of the problem" that a firearm will be destroyed.

Fact is The Handloader article does post evidence (test results) that were conducted scientifically in an ammunition manufacturers test facility. That lot of 6.5 Swede ammunition used in that test was loaded with a non canister lot of 7828 and was recalled....another fact Mr Humble seems unaware of. Since I can also control the parameters of the ammunition and measure the internal and external ballistics during such a test what other "scientific evidence" would be required?

Now let me further add that if the internal and external ballistics indicate an S.E.E. is immanent I can stop the testing just as the technicians did in the Handloader article before the S.E.E. event occurs. Thus the M96 would not be damaged and I would return it. Would you and Mr Humble then agree to that evidence of an S.E.E. event existence? So you see the rifle does not need be destroyed unless you require proof positive of the events existence. My purpose to this is to simply provide Mr Humble and you the requested scientific testing/evidence to prove the existence of S.E.E. events.

Larry Gibson

As a post script let reiterate my earlier statement in my 1st post in this thread that I believe the topic 6.5 Swede rifle of this thread was destructed probably do to a double charge of powder. There is no indication it was a S.E.E. event nor any other of the theoretical causes.

I'm far from convinced of some things you say. I don't think it is disputable that some kind of aberrant pressure effect can take place, once in a while - or that it is usually associated with a small charge of slower powder, in a larger case, than we have in the incident which started this thread. I think Secondary Explosion is a misleading term, for there is just one process of combustion, just as the formerly used term detonation was wrong, as it is very unlikely to be caused by detonation in the sense of chemical change induced by an enormously fast pressure wave moving through the grain.

I also think that such an event is so unusual that if it can be made to happen one time in six, it is by practices of very little relevance to what shooters actually do. Similarly it may not be accurately predictable by external or internal ballistics, or case and primer examination, with identically loaded rounds or those escalating close to that load.

Regardless of possible aberrant events, my belief, like yours, is that this particular accident arose from some more mundane cause, the hot favourites being a double charge or a bore obstruction. We are told that the number of bullet holes in the target matched up. It is possible that after a powderless shot, a normal round caused two bullets were projected at the target together, and just possible that only one of them showed substantial accuracy. What I also find believable is that the single bullet from the disaster went who knows where, and another shooter had accidentally crossfired onto his target, equalising the totals of his shots and holes in his target. Our perception of recoil and report varies very greatly, and so can our perception of the lack of them, when more shooting is going on.

As an issue quite separate from the science and technology, however, I would trust you not to skew available evidence, or the results of unwitnessed experiment, to "prove" what you have claimed. I can't imagine what made me mention that.

[runfiverun]

I believe Felix called it a detonation deflagration.
where the powder shatters and burns at a much accelerated speed.
it's basically turning your 4831 into 4198 or something even faster based on powder size.

[rosewood]

I have heard of the flash over occuring using H110/296 and therefore is the reason why Hodgdon strongly recommends against reduced H110 loads. However, I have never seen anyone state that it happens with 2400. Furthermore, there are lots of light load data out there using 2400 in a 45-70. In such a large case, the chance of a "flash over" would me greater, yet I have never heard of it happening in that case. Any one else heard of it happening with a 45-70?

I may be off base, I just assume the "flash over" is what is causing the SEE???

Rosewood

[tomme boy]

Why can't you people just pick up your phone? I can not believe that you are that ignorant that you can't just call Hodgdon. You don't want to be proven wrong is why!

[rosewood]

Hodgdon doesn't make 2400.

[Jailer]

Why can't you people just pick up your phone? I can not believe that you are that ignorant that you can't just call Hodgdon. You don't want to be proven wrong is why!

Probably because most of us dont want to waste the time of a tech at a powder company to settle an internet dispute when we dont have any skin in the game.

And why must you resort to name
calling and attempts to degrade others just because they dont agree with you?

[NoAngel]

I'm sure you could call any number of techs and get any number of opinions on any number of subjects. In the end, it's the goal of any of those companies to only use fact in their publications. Since it's never been published, it remains theory and conjecture. Theory, that I imagine, has differing opinions even amongst the experts. Why then would only one persons opinion carry much weight? It obviously doesn't or they would have a care and make it known.

[tomme boy]

Probably because most of us dont want to waste the time of a tech at a powder company to settle an internet dispute when we dont have any skin in the game.

And why must you resort to name
calling and attempts to degrade others just because they dont agree with you?

No because you don't want to be proven wrong.You asked for proof and I gave you a resource to prove it one way or the other. But to keep on pushing the speal that this can not happen is ignorant(duetoorshowinglackofknowledgeortraining).

Like I keep saying, CALL THE NUMBER I GAVE AND TALK TO THEM. yOU GUYS WANTED PROOF ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. There it is. If you don't call then you are the problem.

[Jailer]

No because you don't want to be proven wrong.You asked for proof and I gave you a resource to prove it one way or the other. But to keep on pushing the speal that this can not happen is ignorant(duetoorshowinglackofknowledgeortraining).

Like I keep saying, CALL THE NUMBER I GAVE AND TALK TO THEM. yOU GUYS WANTED PROOF ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. There it is. If you don't call then you are the problem.

show me where I ever asked you for proof.

ETA: And show me where I said it can not happen.

[Preacher Jim]

Humble is taking a year vacation for attitude adjustment, who is going to be next if the thread don,t stay civil and debate with out the attitude. S.E.E. is a serious problem that rears it's ugly head and it should be a caution to all. In 58 years I have seen 3 rifles destroyed by it.

[Hamish]

Humble is taking a year vacation for attitude adjustment, who is going to be next if the thread don,t stay civil and debate with out the attitude. S.E.E. is a serious problem that rears it's ugly head and it should be a caution to all. In 58 years I have seen 3 rifles destroyed by it.

Jim, can you give us particulars?

[Jailer]

Jim, can you give us particulars?

I too would love to hear the particulars.

[dubber123]

If the tech Tomme boy talked to is correct, and they can make it happen 1 out of 6 tries, I call that VERY replicable. 3 kabooms per box of 20 is pretty spooky. If they claim the 243 is one of the worst, that would seem to be the caliber to test. I don't have the equipment, but plenty of people do. I would be curious to see if Hodgdon would basically give a "formula" to make it happen.

[Larry Gibson]

Ballistics in Scotland

"I'm far from convinced of some things you say. I don't think it is disputable that some kind of aberrant pressure effect can take place, once in a while - or that it is usually associated with a small charge of slower powder, in a larger case, than we have in the incident which started this thread. I think Secondary Explosion is a misleading term, for there is just one process of combustion, just as the formerly used term detonation was wrong, as it is very unlikely to be caused by detonation in the sense of chemical change induced by an enormously fast pressure wave moving through the grain."

Actually I concur with you in the above. In that I find the first sentence puzzling? To clear up the matter for the members interested is why I proposed the test. Two members have pretty much demanded proof. What is apparently not understood by them is that to "prove" the existence of S.E.E a firearm will probably be destroyed. The question remains as to WHO's firearm it would be. One is emphatic in demanding proof yet want's no stake in it but finds me "low" in that I ask Mr Humble to supply the test rifle to provide the proof that S.E.E is a readily producible event he demands. One would think if someone demands proof of something they might be willing to share the expense of getting that proof?

"I also think that such an event is so unusual that if it can be made to happen one time in six, it is by practices of very little relevance to what shooters actually do. Similarly it may not be accurately predictable by external or internal ballistics, or case and primer examination, with identically loaded rounds or those escalating close to that load."

This is where I disagree. S.E.E. is many times the result of precisely the practices that some reloaders use. We see examples quite often on this forum with questions such as "I have some XXXX powder I want to use but can not find any data for my XYZ cartridge....I plan on starting at XX% and working up.....do you think it will work?" Problem really is many times those who experience a S.E.E. event don't ask. The actual S.E.E. event may or may not be "predictable" by measuring the internal and external ballistics ( events have been reported after as little as 1 -3 rounds fired) however measuring the ballistics, internal and exterior, leading up to the event would certainly give us a lot of data. It could also give data that an S.E.E. event was immanent and we could stop just as the technicians did in the Handloader article with out destroying the rifle.

"Regardless of possible aberrant events, my belief, like yours, is that this particular accident arose from some more mundane cause, the hot favourites being a double charge or a bore obstruction........"

Again let me mention the topic event of this thread was not, I believe and S.E.E. event, but the result of a double charge.

"As an issue quite separate from the science and technology, however, I would trust you not to skew available evidence, or the results of unwitnessed experiment, to "prove" what you have claimed. I can't imagine what made me mention that."

Precisely why I have offered Mr Humble, you, Hamish or anyone else the opportunity to witness the loading of the ammunition and the conduct of the testing.

Larry Gibson

[Peregrine]

So, 11 pages of, as the very soon to be ex-president of the United States put it, okie-doke.

At this rate if we've got this many people sitting around twirling our thumbs and calling each other names, can we crowd fund a swede and send it to Larry so he can do his thing with it? I'll kick in $10 or $20 for my part, and it's not like they're expensive rifles (yet). Although let's make sure it's fairly beat to **** to keep costs low and so we don't harm a beauty, it's gotta be possible to find one that'd been bubba'd for cheap. And having a worn barrel/throat will only improve the chances of SEE occurring from what I understand of the concept.

For the record i've seen enough accounts of SEE that I think it's very unlikely it's just a myth or conspiracy to cover for poor reloading practices, but I think this is a fantastic opportunity to gain a solid data point instead of people just calling each other names and getting b&.

[Hamish]

By all means, test away! The more data points the better!

Independent amateur testing many times reveals interesting and useful information.

[lefty o]

Hamish, glad to fill you in. As per usual the eunuchs running the site are so afraid of a few loudmouths that anyone who crosses them is punished. They claim a member was "insulted" whatever that means. Now we even have a mod claiming to have seen SEE with, as usual, no proof shown. If they want to believe their myths that's fine. As for banning anyone for any time, there are probably more previously banned members on the site than those who never have. The good info on the site is available to anyone but participation in any topic carrys the risk of pizzing off the "in crowd". So much good on the internet but also far too many control freaks. Good Luck !

took about 2 seconds to figure who this is!

[NoAngel]

Why can't you people just pick up your phone? I can not believe that you are that ignorant that you can't just call Hodgdon. You don't want to be proven wrong is why!

Is your one guy God? How is ONE person's opinion going to be definitive? Lots of educated people have differing opinions. They don't get published often, if ever.
If one person's word was good enough to prove hearsay then we'd just take a dixie cup full of Jim Jones-Gibson Grape.