S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,443
Posts544,799
Members14,405
|
Most Online1,258 Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,725 Likes: 49
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,725 Likes: 49 |
For some reason I cannot add on to that post so started a new one. I was sent an message saying that the 16 ga. Herters hull was not cut open, that is the way it was picked up on the course. Adds a new light on the subject. http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1373/6511424/24513874/414205901.jpg
David
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,375 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,375 Likes: 105 |
Looking at that hull, I would agree with those who suggested (in the now locked thread) that the case mouth did not open properly. That could be the result of some sort of obstruction. Stuck base wad from the previous round fired?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,702 Likes: 405
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,702 Likes: 405 |
What is abnormal about it? Other that being ripped from stern to stem, it looks normal enough to me on that end.
How the brass sheared so neatly in half is the odd part in my opinion.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,531 Likes: 169
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,531 Likes: 169 |
USAF RET 1971-95
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,146 Likes: 1145
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,146 Likes: 1145 |
I see nothing in that picture that suggests the case mouth did not open properly. What I see is a curling in, on the two corners adjacent to the tear, where the piece of the hull is missing. That shearing could very well cause the curling.
Not that it means much either way. We'll likely never know the cause, but I can easily see how, if the chamber wall gave way first, the shell casing would be ripped in this way.
SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593 |
I am still going to shoot my Smith, and it does not have any cracks in the stock.
Seen some badly crashed cars just like mine. Think someone got killed. Be driving it for three hours straight next monday, 300 kilometers. Risky hey ?
O.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Seen some badly crashed cars just like mine. Think someone got killed. Be driving it for three hours straight next monday, 300 kilometers. Risky hey ? Far, Far riskier than enjoying that Smith. Been a while since I have seen actual statistics but I recall "Accidental" firearms injuries or deaths are at an all-time low. Even if you were Shot while engaged in some shooting sports the odds would still be it would be at the hands of another. Not saying, of course, one should not exercise care in what they feed a shotgun, but with reasonable care, that type of injury is at the bottom of the totem pole.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,375 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,375 Likes: 105 |
Of course we're still all speculating. However, it's interesting to compare the photo of that hull to a couple hulls we know to have blown due only to what was IN the hull, not any possible obstruction. I refer those who may have a copy of the magazine to Double Gun Journal, Winter 1999, and the destruction test involving author Sherman Bell (Finding Out For Myself, Part II), with technical assistance from ballistician Tom Armbrust and doublegun smith Dennis Potter. The hulls in question look nothing like the above example. They're badly twisted as well as being torn. But that's what nearly 30,000 psi pressure--the load required to complete the destruction of the gun in question--will produce.
I no longer have the magazine, retaining only a Xerox copy of the article for my files. If anyone has it and can reproduce the photo, posting it here would provide an interesting comparison.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,709 Likes: 474
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,709 Likes: 474 |
The odds are heavily in favor of our shooting our old doubles without major failure. I figure tens of thousands of old doulbles get used every year. A burst like this one is so rare it is news we talk about for a couple weeks or more. We have a great interest in the failures and probably mention the majority of them on boards like this one. If failures were common they would not hold our attention so long.
Caution and common sense precautions reduce the risk to a minimum but every time a gun is fired there is an infinitesimal risk of failure. A few years back there was a string of K80 trap gun failures. Multiple burst, over a year or so. Final cause never clearly determined but more than a few decided it was either a metal problem or the new AA two peice hull separation that caused a barrel obstruction. Neither view was conclusively proven but I know many K80 shooters who refuse to use AA ammo as a precaution.
Some suggested reloads were the true cause. The one gun I saw personally, was owned by a friend who has never reloaded a shell in his life. He was shooting AA factory ammo at the time. Every failure is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts. What we learn is caution and precautions are very important when shooting these old doubles.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,111 Likes: 195
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,111 Likes: 195 |
That hull looks about as normal as any. My Krieghoff is 52 years old, some of my Smiths are 125 years old or more and my AA empties are from 1 to 20 years old. I try to stay away from two piece hulls, but I have enough one piece AA hulls to last me a lifetime. I feel that the switch away from compression formed hulls was a ridiculous decision that causes all this confusion about blow up accidents. I have never had an accident in 60 years of shotshell reloading.
|
|
|
|
|