Posted on 11/19/2009 7:48:01 AM PST by Notoriously Conservative
Some powders are density sensitive, if there is too much airspace in the load they will detonate rather than burn progrssively and pressure will skyrocket. Experimentation is best done carefully by experienced people.
I concur.
Subj: Kaboom
A guy came into our department the other day to ask a favor. He had a S&W 629 that he wanted to dispose of after a mishap at the range. He said there was a loud bang when he tested his new load and the gun smacked him in the forehead, leaving a nice gash. When the tweety birds cleared, this is what he saw.....
The revolver in post 18 is a 610 in 10mm. It’s an N frame. The 686 is an L frame. The easiest quick id method is to look at the crane. It’s much larger and squared off in the N.
You’re right (bad eyes). I enlarged the photo and then saw the 10MM on the barrel. I stand corrected (but it sure looks like the 686!)...
Those full underlug Smiths start to all look the same after a while.
and if you think that’s bad try keeping up with all the 3rd generation Smith auto designation numbers!
That’s when you just throw the gun at the guy......
It’s a new SAAMI spec... how much of your eyebrows are left.
Exactly! An overcharge stressed the cylinder to the point of failure and the failing cylinder walls took the two adjacent chambers with it when it let loose. Probably, as you suspected, a double charge of a fast burning powder like Unique. Good thing about a bulkier powder is that a double charge won’t physically fit in the case and you’re more likely to notice a case topped off to the rim if you do accidentally double charge.
Looks like Government run Health Care to me........
This picture looks phony. One chamber exploding, yep, can see that. Two chambers exploding would mean that after the first one blew all to he** the shooter fired again. Not only would he not have been in any condition(mentally)to fire again the cylinder would not have turned in order for him to fire the second chamber.
I’ve seen a number of pics of blown up revolvers including some Elmer Keith did in. It’s not uncommon to have the chambers on either side suffer that type of damage.
Only if the obstruction was close to the chamber, if it was down the barrel, near the end, it would not cause the chamber to blow up but rather the barrel would split. Two chambers blowing like that is damn near impossible, IMO, one chamber, yes. Two?no.
Perhaps someone electroplated the cylinder with nickel and did not perform the hydrogen embrittlement bake-out properly after plating.
It’s a stainless gun.
Well there goes my theory....
Funny how stainless does not suffer from hydrogen embrittlement even though it still has iron and carbon in it. We have a lot to learn about WHY embrittlement occurs.
Something massive happened to it, Smith is been on the forefront of firearms metallurgy for many years. They produced the first magnum (.357) in 1935, the first stainless (Model 60) in 1966 I think. Light alloys too.
my smith called me and said the ammo wasn't hot loaded at all, but that the "chamber" on the #2 was at fault. it seemed to have been cut in a conical shape, where the back of chamber was too large diameter and front was a lil too small with a small lip of extra steel hanging out into line of bullet. maybe someone forgot to inspect? or forgot to finish the machining? i don't know, but i've contacted S&W's online support to see what they have to say.
Badly overloaded handloads seems to me to be the culprit.
Im guessing the first handgun is a S&W Model 629 44 mag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.