Secondary Explosion Effect (SEE)

  • Topic Is Locked
  • 2.9K Views
  • Last Post 14 June 2021
303PV posted this 20 May 2021

 A search has shown that this subject has been discussed before, but I would like to get some recent opinions.   I have been reloading cast bullets since 1975. I read the first edition of the Lyman Cast bullet handbook and I started from there. I read the original article about Cast bullet loads in military rifles published by C.E Harris that I liked very much because of the systematic approach.  Since then I have shot many .. many thousands of cast bullets. Recently I have seen a lot of discussions on German reloader forums that the powder volume should not be lower than 80%. Vihtavuori mentions in their 2021 reloading guide (german version)." Risk of detonation through reduced loads etc" Quick Load also warns for a SEE. Are these warnings, caused by product liability concerns? More discussions on the internet?  A mystery factor created by infallible people who won't admit that they could have put a double charge in the case? I have only used fast-burning pistol and shotgun powders or the fast rifle powders like N110.

Please help to put my mind at ease. 

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
99 Strajght posted this 20 May 2021

Yes it does exist. I have had it happen and I can repeat it. I have never had it with cast and have been shooting cast for 60 years. Follow these rules. Stay with the faster powers. Be careful of slow powders and less than 3/4 a case full. Seat your bullets to almost touch the rifling or more. Handloader has a lot of good articles on SEE.

Glenn  

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
RicinYakima posted this 20 May 2021

Norma, the powder folks, did a lot of research and published their findings in the 1970's. Think the results were published in their booklet called "The Gun-bug's Guide". 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
Wheel Weights posted this 21 May 2021

It may or may not be true BUT why take the chance ? So many powders work fine why bother ?

 

Harry Pope didn't have 4831 and he did okay.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • JeffinNZ
beagle6 posted this 21 May 2021

The first I ever heard of SEE was a report by Jack OConnor when he was shooting editor for Outdoor Life Magazine. He was loading 60 grains of 4831 for a 270, if memory serves, and had his powder measure set for 30 grains. A double throw and he had his load. Evidently he didn't throw the second charge on one cartridge. I don't recall the damage but it shook Jack up. He reported it to the NRA who tried to duplicate the event without success. To my knowledge, no one has either. Seems to happen with stick powder slower than 4895 and 4064 and certain ball powders.

beagle6

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
  • Spindrift
lotech posted this 22 May 2021

I've read nothing about this in a long time, but the topic used to come up occasionally. Years ago, didn't P.O. Ackley attempt to reproduce the SEE effect using 4831 (probably H4831)? Does anyone recall this better than I do? Seems he was unsuccessful.  

Attached Files

ray h posted this 22 May 2021

I believe Ed Yard wrote about it in Handloader Mag many years ago.

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 22 May 2021

I think one of the best decertations on SEE was in a Wolfe publication called "Firearms Pressure Factors". There is a lot of detail about testing conducted by Col. G.O. Ashley and Lloyd Brownell. Both sides seem to make viable arguments about weather this phenomenon is a real problem or not. I have seen some very interesting pressure spikes that seem to occur after the bullet has left the muzzle when using a Pressure Trace system. I don't have a good explanation for them. I believe there are examples posted at the Shooting Software site. I am still not sure about it one way or the other although I do watch my load densities. Usually very divided opinions on this. Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
beagle6 posted this 22 May 2021

Squid Boy

Regarding pressure spikes after leaving the muzzle:

back when the artillery was developing the M101 Howitzer ( 105 split trail) there were times when the barrels split at the muzzles. The problem was diagnosed as unburned powder detonating when it gained oxygen at the muzzle. The problem was solved by putting a reinforcing band on the muzzle.

beagle6

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 22 May 2021

That's interesting about the M101 but I have very little experience with it. I am considerably more experienced with the M102 but I never saw or heard of a muzzle split in that gun. Also, I could not find a picture of a M101 with a muzzle band but I know they added a muzzle brake later. I wonder if that was the final cure by dispersing the unburned powder? None of the M102's had a muzzle brake that I know of. I suppose that the SEE pressure spike could be caused by the same phenomenon but 80K+ pressure readings after bullet exit do make you wonder. This is always an interesting topic. Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Wineman posted this 22 May 2021

Somewhere in my archives is the work done on Swede Mauser's in 6.5x55 and SEE. If I find it I will post but the Cliff-Notes are this:

The primer fires and the ignition and gas production of the powder starts. When sufficient pressure develops, the bullet is pushed from the case into the rifling of the barrel. In the Swede Mausers, that had issues there was considerable erosion at the throat and and the moving bullet (long and with a heavy jacket) would momentarily "pause" at this point. Rather than proceeding smoothly down the barrel it had become a bore obstruction. Since the pressure has nowhere to go, the weakest part, (cartridge case) now ruptures. These were with normal ammunition. A lot can happen in a short time.

Dave

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • Bud Hyett
beagle6 posted this 22 May 2021

Squid Boy

When I said a reinforcing band I didn't mean a separate band but that the barrel itself was machined thicker for the last 4 inches or so. Sounds like you are a fellow artilleryman

All my experience was on M101 's and M109 155mm. self propelled.

beagle6

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 23 May 2021

Yep that is the Norma study I remember. Also it didn't happen with a clean barrel in their testing, but only after it had been fired. It appeared that carbon in the throat added to resistance of bullet engraving. 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Wheel Weights posted this 23 May 2021

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
RicinYakima posted this 23 May 2021

I have no idea who Nick Harvey is but other than good grammar, it is just opinion. Nothing wrong with that, just not convincing. Bob Shell appears much more convincing and has done some things most of us have done over the years.

Thanks for the links WW.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
JeffinNZ posted this 23 May 2021

Nick Harvey is a prominent shooting writer in Australia.

I have been churning through Handloader magazine from issue #1 through the late 70's then beginning again late 80's.  Many articles and all suggest SEE is not a real thing.  Never duplicated in a lab. 

Cheers from New Zealand

Attached Files

Wheel Weights posted this 23 May 2021

IMHO, there are too many choices in powder to take the most remote chance.

 

Just like the old rule of: "Always use a powder and load that will overflow the case with a double charge."

 

KISS is always my choice when available.

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 23 May 2021

Uncle Nick seems to be repeating the general story line regarding SEE but beyond a blown up rifle, I didn't see much in the way of data. I would like to know just who exactly is this ballistic laboratory that can cause SEE "at will". Since they are the only ones that have found the secret, why haven't they published this ground breaking data? Liability I presume would be the answer but wouldn't we all be better off knowing? Mr. Shell did a nice piece and covered a lot of options for reduced loading but again nothing firm. That's what I like most about this topic, you never run out of possibilities. Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

45 2.1 posted this 23 May 2021

Uncle Nick seems to be repeating the general story line regarding SEE but beyond a blown up rifle, I didn't see much in the way of data. I would like to know just who exactly is this ballistic laboratory that can cause SEE "at will". Since they are the only ones that have found the secret, why haven't they published this ground breaking data? Liability I presume would be the answer but wouldn't we all be better off knowing? Mr. Shell did a nice piece and covered a lot of options for reduced loading but again nothing firm. That's what I like most about this topic, you never run out of possibilities. Thanks, Squid Boy

It was published back fourty years or so ago. They recommended not going below 80% load density for slow powders (slow for the cartridge). It was an excellent idea.............

 

Attached Files

GP Idaho posted this 24 May 2021

Talking to some about SEE's is akin to telling them you believe in Bigfoot. Personally, I'm just not taking that chance. Ninety % of my rifle loads are cast and if I do load jacketed bullets they are not reduced loads as I have no need of such.  In my cast bullets, most of the cases are charged with powders fast enough to put any worries of such an explosion to rest in my mind. It seems that the last article I read on SEE's concerned very slow military surplus powder loaded way below case capacity without a kicker charge. No danger of me going there either. Now, on the very fast powders, Bullseye, TiteGroup and the like I have no worries using VERY small charges.  If you're confident in your loading practice, load away. I'm just not confident in small charges of slow powder so I don't load them. Gp

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • sluggo
  • RicinYakima
Squid Boy posted this 24 May 2021

I think everyone here has read that about not loading below 80%. I have read it a hundred times and there is still no proof to back it up. Repeating it does not make it true and posting it in bold doesn't make it any truer. I think I have a valid question about anyone claiming to do it at will and not publish that data. And what is "slow for the cartridge" anyway? Who gets to say what is or isn't? How slow is slow? Of course it is only my own opinion. Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 24 May 2021

The real cause of SEE was indeed found and proven 40 +/- years ago with the advent of transducer and strain gauge pressure measuring.  All of the old theories regarding detonation, waves, etc. have been disproven.  What occurs is essentially as wineman states in his post; the bullet, given certain circumstances becomes a bore Obstruction.  Knowing the circumstances required it it is easy enough to reproduce.  being able to measure pressures and observe the time/pressure curve I have done so several times but have stopped just before the SEE probably would have occurred.   It is easy to produce and the catastrophic results are very predictable.  

BTW; not loading below 80% load density was an incorrect solution.  An SEE can result from 100% load density or even with a compressed load.  SEE is also not a phenomenon of just slow burning powders in over bore cartridges. 

LMG 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 24 May 2021

Larry,

Tell us more.  If it can happen with 100% load density or with other than slow burning powders, then what does it take to be sure, or almost sure, I avoid it? If it is so well understood and reproducible, those that understand it and can reproduce it have a responsibility to let the public know how to avoid it.

In a more perfect world our major gun organization would be assuming that duty instead of preaching fear and loathing about the other that are about to get our guns to increase their donations. 

Where can this 40 year old information be found?

John  

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 24 May 2021

John

I believe I have posted the Handloader article from the '80s on this forum before(?) and for sure on the cast boolit forum.  I would repost now but won't be able to til July.  

Those of us that do know have been trying to let the public know but we constantly run up against the old beliefs in detonation, waves, etc.  It is very difficult to overcome old beliefs, even with facts.

For the average reloader "how to avoid" SEE" is to use published tested proven data.  But, again, we come up against those who say something like "I've got this powder but can't find any reloading data on it.....how much should I use in a yadda yadda cartridge".   Further, unfortunately, they get "advise" based on supposition.  What they should understand unless they are very, very experienced reloaders they should not use that powder without reliable tested data.  There is many times very good reasons why there is no data for some powders in some cartridges.  I tell people often that many times what we want to do just shouldn't be done or won't happen.  It falls upon deaf ears because many internet experts think anything can be done.  

What "major gun organization" are you referring to?

LMG

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 24 May 2021

Well said John and exactly the point I was trying to get across. I want to challenge the status quo because in my mind it has not been proven. I have seen anomalies in Pressure Trace readings but the gun did not blow up and the world did not come to an end. The next shots did not produce the phenomenon again and so it isn't proven one way or the other. I mentioned "Firearm Pressure Factors" as one of the best arguments pro and con but it doesn't actually prove anything. I was waiting for someone to mention that if anyone can knowingly produce this effect at will than they have to have blown up more than one gun. I am reasonably certain that a case full of Norma R1 will blow up a lot of guns but does that prove anything? P.O. Ackley did some interesting tests of military rifles to destruction but he was trying to blow them up. So to try to get to the bottom of all this I wrote a question to "Ask Uncle Nick" and here is what I sent:

"Please ask Uncle Nick the name of the ballistic laboratory that can cause a secondary explosive effect at will. He mentions one lab in an article on the web site and I would like to contact them about the details. Thanks in advance for your reply. Best regards,"

I did sign with my real name which I deleted for obvious reasons. 

I am standing by this fact, that if you don't blow up several guns each of different makes and calibers using very specific powders and load densities that can be repeated and have the data in hand, than you have proved nothing. I just hope that Uncle Nick does contact me.

Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 25 May 2021

 Squid Boy

I have been present when two SEEs occurred which destroyed both rifles.  I also have investigated several others being able to inspect the destroyed rifle and question the shooter/reloader to determine how the ammo was loaded and what occurred during the shooting.  I also have duplicated the test pressure results and like the technicians conducting that test backed off when the pressure got into or above proof load pressures.  I do not fancy destroying one of my rifles to prove a point to you. 

However, I am more than willing to destroy several of your rifles.  If you would send a 6.5x55, 25-06 or any of the short magnum of 270 or less caliber rifles I will gladly show you how its done and provide complete data of the loads and pressure traces.  You or anyone else is free to attend and witness.  Would still cost me 3 or more strain gauges plus the components but I'll go that if you will provide the rifles?

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
303PV posted this 25 May 2021

First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their time and effort to comment on SEE. The reason I asked about SEE is that all of my Cast bullet loads with powders with a burn rate faster or equal to Acc 5744,  Norma 200, H4277 are below 80%.  I will continue using those loads. I have no interest in using slow powders like 4831. And I still think that a lot of blown-up rifles are caused by double charges and mixing up powders at the reloading bench. I have only witnessed one rifle (1903A3) blowing up and that was because he used N110 instead of N150. We looked at the powder in his other reloads and the granulation certainly was too fine for N150. He did not believe that he could have mixed up the powders. He shopped around until he found someone who told him that the rifle had a problem. Stock completely splintered and a piece on the extractor side of the receiver was missing. He was lucky, only the phalange of his thumb was also missing.

The problem I have with SEE is that I have never seen an official report about what causes it and how to avoid it. In that respect, I fully agree with Squid Boy.  I would also like to discuss air space in Black Powder cartridges. But I will start another post later when I have finished loading my 7x57 cartridges with Green Dot and NOE cast.big_grin

This website might interest reloaders who want to go subsonic or worry about volume: https://samereier.de/en/reduzierhuelsen/

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 25 May 2021

"The problem I have with SEE is that I have never seen an official report about what causes it and how to avoid it. In that respect,"

 

The caveat "official"......depend on what your concept of "is, is"......  I will post the Handloader article here the 1st week of July.  That's as soon as I can.  It will provide the "cause" which gives a good idea of what to avoid.  As I've mentioned here and numerous times in other threads/forums, It is best , for the average reloader, to avoid using powders for which there is no reliable, tested data published in major reloading manuals or furnished by the major manual publishers on the internet.

As to and SEE with cast bullets.  In all my years shooting cast bullets I know of only one reported incident of an SEE with a cast bullet.  That was just reported with no further details known.  Thus was it really and SEE is not known either.  many incidents believed to be SEEs are really overloads caused by the shooter/reloader and not actually SEEs.  We regularly use many powders at less than 80% load density.  I also have recommended, based on observed pressure test results, that a dacron filler be used with some powders in some applications when load density is less than 80% {does not apply to fast burning pistol/shotgun powders].

In my considerable experience pressure testing I have had a few instances when using a hard to ignite ball powder at low load density under a heavy cast bullet where symptoms of a potential SEE appear in the pressure traces [time/pressure curves].  I have backed off without finding out if it would lead to an SEE because, as I've already said, I don't like blowing up my rifles.  It also appears the cast bullet which "paused" in it's movement in the throat got moving again before the psi got hazardous. 

LMG

 

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • JeffinNZ
Wineman posted this 25 May 2021

The surplus powder IMR 7383 was obtained from M8C 50 caliber spotter rounds used in the M40 106mm recoilless rifle. It was tested by a number of shooters and it was found that when the unburned powder just disappears, you have enough powder in the case. Any more and with any sort of compression, it was said to get very grumpy very quickly. It has a lot of deterrent coating (you were not supposed to see it fire after all) and while I believe it is a single base powder, there were reports of it being triple based. I have some and used at 90% of a charge of IMR 4831 it is OK but very dirty. It was cheap but it does not really fit into my shooting style and it will probably end up making some rose bushes happy.

Dave

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 25 May 2021

Everyone please step back and take a breath, I am not trying to cause trouble here. I am willing to stick my neck out to have a discussion about something that is very important to all of us. I have no desire to sacrifice any of my own guns to prove this and that is my point as well. Once the gun has come unglued it is very difficult to determine the exact cause unless it was instrumented when it occurred. Even then, duplication of the event is difficult without destroying another exact copy. This I believe is a big part of finding out for sure and what makes it so difficult.

However, my note to "Sporting Shooter" garnered an immediate response from Marcus O'Deen who kindly sent me the address to reach Uncle Nick. I plan to have a letter in the mail later today if possible and I will report as info comes in. I would be happy to see any data someone might have regarding this phenomenon. I lost nearly thirty years of accumulated load data in a fire that destroyed my shop and barn several years ago. I also lost the only 6.5x55 I ever built as I had just sunk it into the wood when the fire occurred. So unfortunately, I have only recollection to go by now and nothing on paper. 

Thanks, Squid Boy 

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

JeffinNZ posted this 25 May 2021

The surplus powder IMR 7383 was obtained from M8C 50 caliber spotter rounds used in the M40 106mm recoilless rifle. It was tested by a number of shooters and it was found that when the unburned powder just disappears, you have enough powder in the case. Any more and with any sort of compression, it was said to get very grumpy very quickly. It has a lot of deterrent coating (you were not supposed to see it fire after all) and while I believe it is a single base powder, there were reports of it being triple based. I have some and used at 90% of a charge of IMR 4831 it is OK but very dirty. It was cheap but it does not really fit into my shooting style and it will probably end up making some rose bushes happy.

Dave

This is what Larry is referring to above when he talks about lack of proper data. That powder was designed for a very special purpose and handloaders buy it because it was cheap.

Cheers from New Zealand

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 25 May 2021

I am familiar with that round but mostly because I wanted to wildcat one 50 years or so ago when I had a few to play with. The detonator for the spotter charge in the nose made then a bit unhealthy to mess with. That is also the first smallish cartridge I played with that had an extended primer flash tube. That led to all sorts of experiments with front and middle ignition in rifle and pistol cartridges. Powders like this for which there is no or darned little data really complicate things. This brought back some old memories.  

I did send off a letter to Uncle Nick this afternoon and hope for a reply. Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Ross Smith posted this 25 May 2021

I'm with squid boy. In my experience either double charging or bridging of the powder is the culprit. At least one of the culprits. My experience was with 4759 powder, everyone's favorite. It bridges horribly in my rcbs powder measure. Short on one load and extra on the next. Luckily I was weighing charges and caught the error. Then just throwing charges and weighing to confirm. The differences were actually visible. I don't use 4759 and I'm willing to bet that was one reason it was discontinued. Can't speak for any other powder. We all use less than 80% charges when it comes to pistol powders.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Squid Boy posted this 26 May 2021

My letter to Nick Harvey (Uncle Nick) about SEE:

 

Nick Harvey

Ask the Gun Editor

3 Reef Street

Hill End NSW 2031

Australia

                                                                                                       26 May 2021

 

 

 

Dear Uncle Nick,

 

I saw an article about Secondary Explosive Effect you posted on the Sporting Shooter web site on 27 July 2017. I wanted to contact you about something you mentioned in the article and sent a note to the site. A very nice fellow, Marcus Dean responded quickly with your contact information and I am happy to be able to write you directly.

 

I have been embroiled in a deep discussion regarding the phenomenon that you describe. Here in the USA we are divided into two camps, those that believe and those that don’t. I am more moderate and want to see some hard data regarding the effect. I have had some experience using a Pressure Trace system that showed very high-pressure spikes after bullet exit. However, the gun did not come unglued and the next shots did not reproduce the phenomenon. It is a rare occurrence at best. However, you mention at least one ballistic lab that can reproduce the effect at will and I am extremely interested in finding out more about that. I would like to be able to contact them myself to find out more about how and why this happens and ways to avoid it. The blanket “don’t load below 80% density with slow powders” just doesn’t hold water for me. I am hoping you could put me in touch with this lab so I can discuss it with them myself or you could send me the corroborating data that I may study it.

 

I do intend to share this data with a concerned group of members in the Cast Bullet Association and while we as a group have been lucky to avoid the SEE so far, there is a good deal of concern in the lack of facts one way or the other. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

 

Best regards,

 

My personal name and address deleted for obvious reasons. I did take some liberties but hopefully I will receive a reply and report what I know. Thanks Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Lee Guthrie posted this 26 May 2021

I seem to recall this discussion years ago in The Fouling Shot.  However, a check of my Index does not contain either "SEE" or "Secondary Explosive Effect".   It does show lots of articles on "Chamber Ringing", which as I recall has often been attributed to SEE.  If I had nothing to do I would pull each of the articles and look, BUT .........  (have not retired yet).

 

Chamber Ringing      Nos.   4-2, 27-2, 37-22, 66-17, 69-8, 73-3, 74-13, 77-10, 78-12, 79-13, 80-3, 83-24, 84-3, 85-3, 91-16,

                                             140-13, 142-15, 144-7, 146-20, 185-11

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Bud Hyett posted this 28 May 2021

I've stayed away from this discussion for a time to see where it is going. There are many factors in this discussion. I think some excess pressure accidents are misclassified. We can have over-charges for reasons noted in the replies above and we can have Secondary Explosive Effect in rare instances. 

I've been present when five rifles were blown up to where they were unusable; bolts stuck, case welded to bolt face, etc. These were loaded with W-W 296 in two instances, Hodgdon 110 in one instance and IMR 4227 in two instances. 

The common factors here were that powders in the same burning rate range, bottleneck cases, and stuck bolts. All were bottleneck cases, reduced loads, four were less than 50 percent loading cast bullet loads, and one load was 70% reduced .221 Fireball with W-W 296.

In four incidents, the bolt was forced open by hammering it with wood mallets while another shooter held constant pressure on the bolt. These actions were checked for headspace, the bolt head examined, found to be swelled and returned to Remington for repair of the bolt. All four were returned to service and shot as well after repair.

In the fifth incident, the bolt was shredded and bolt face disappeared (Salvage 12 BVSS Action). The rifle was returned to Savage at their behest and examined. Savage stated they had never seen a bolt action that destroyed and were happy no one was injured. They kept the action for their examination and replaced the action.

The reason I am bringing this up was the difference in sound for the fifth incident and the .221 Fireball load. The other three shots were a louder boom and gas escape when the case ruptured. What one would expect from a possible double charge or the result of bridging in the powder measure. The .221 Fireball and fifth shot was like the crack of a grenade, or the setoff of an explosive like dynamite, the volume and higher sound indicating a rapid propagation of the shock wave. The fifth shot was different both in noise and effect. The action face swelled and the bolt was shredded back one-third of the length. 

I believe this was Secondary Explosive Effect caused by the primer flash igniting the powder on top, burning the deterrent coating on some powder, and then the powder burning rate becoming uncontrolled. This was both the .308 Winchester case with a cast bullet, IMR 4227 powder and the .221 Fireball with W-W 296. 

Because of my observations, I do not load any powder with less than 50% loading density for cast bullets in bottleneck cases. IMR 4895 or the similar burning rate V-V N-135 are my choice for the bottleneck cartridges. I like IMR 4227 in .44 Magnum and .45 Colt (Ruger) loads, but 2400 works as well.

Farm boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
sluggo posted this 28 May 2021

Is their data on what % of s.e.e.'s are caused by factory loaded ammo as compared to hand loaded cartridges? Is this almost an exclusive hand loaded event?

Attached Files

Wineman posted this 29 May 2021

However you get a bore obstruction it is never a good thing. Remember the gun does not "blow up". The weakest part of the rifle, the cartridge case, ruptures and the high pressure gas has a much larger surface area to press against and much weaker parts to restrain the pressure. The chamber area is intact but magazines, floor plates, stocks, bolt faces and firing pin holes all take forces they were not designed for. It has been over 130 years since smokeless propellants were developed. When the company that produces the propellant, says "this is dangerous" don't say "hey, hold my beer and watch this". Be careful out there and have fun.

Dave

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Millelacs
  • sluggo
Wheel Weights posted this 01 June 2021

I have shot 1000s of cast bullet loads in BN cases using powders LISTED for them.

I.E. 4227, 4198, Trail Boss, 4759 and red dot.

No reason to use anything else.

I don't put Kero in my 911 either.

Attached Files

303PV posted this 02 June 2021

I would like to know what type of loads, powders, and conditions I need to avoid. The only way out is to design an experiment to prove or disprove the theories and opinions. I can't run an experiment, because I would lose my license.

I just came across the following: As with any ball powder, do not use it for reduced loads.  p.35 NOBEL SPORT (VECTAN) Handloading Manual, René Malfatti,1997.  Another Warning!

Please advise which powders are often mentioned as the culprit for SEE. I will then check with Quick Load how much pressure these theoretically develop with a reduced load.

Cheerful greetings from sunny LUXEMBOURG.

Piet

 

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 02 June 2021

I will post the Handloader article when I am able to, unfortunately not until the 1st week of July.  Not putting you off just unable to post it now.

When you read it the article will provide the conditions that are generally present for an SEE to occur.  Also the general type of powder that was known.  In the 35+ years since the cause of SEEs has become known (and replicated) we have learned a lot more than what is that article.  Different burning rates of powder are now suspect as are lighter weight for caliber bullets if the conditions for an SEE are present.  

Too often, as in this discussion, some want a specific answer as to what to use and what not to use .  Just isn't a hard and fast list of "what type of loads, powders, and conditions I need to avoid" because the types of loads, powders used and conditions can vary.  That's why we have vague answers and/or warnings from the manufacturers.  They do not have a list of such either and are also continuing to learn and understand the dynamics if SEE.

Best to stick with tested proven data.  Or if you have some esoteric powder you want to use "just because" for which there isn't any data you'd be wise to understand the real cause of SEE, what the conditions are, use a chronograph and understand what it is telling you and be careful.....

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 04 June 2021

I think I understand the point you are trying to make but once again you are repeating the often used story that it has all been figured out and even replicated. If two guns are blown up and someone thinks it might be SEE than it is not replicated. Manufacturers are loath to say anything that the lawyers and insurance people object to. I could not agree more about using proven data but I work on all sorts of things for which there is no data. Does that mean I should stop? If you load by chronograph then you are playing roulette just as much as anyone trying to work up loads with no data. If you are verifying cookbook loads with a chronograph then you are reasonably prudent. My beef is I keep hearing about proof but none is forthcoming in the form of hard numbers. The article I mention on pressure excursions is the best I have seen so far and yet it proved nothing. I am waiting for a response from Uncle Nick about his claim but expect it to be weeks away if at all. This is a very thorny subject at best and doubt if it will ever be completely put to rest.

Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 04 June 2021

Squid Boy

Not an "oft used story" at all.  The evidence it was an SEE does not come from the blown up guns but rather from the sequence of events and load used.  Most blown up guns are from overloads.  That is not an SEE but many want to think that is what occurred rather than accept the fact that the loader made a serious mistake.  A load that creates an SEE, on the other hand, is not from a mistake of too much powder but is exactly as the loader intended.  

Apparently nothing will satisfy you as "proof" other than a blown up gun?  My offer is still open;  you provide me with a M96 or M38 6.5 Swede and I'll show you how the SEE was replicated with the pressure data for each shot fired leading to the event of the blown up rifle.  I'll risk my several thousand dollars worth of pressure measuring equipment and you risk the rifle.  If I can't produce the SEE I will return the rifle un-blown up.  Also, you or anyone else may witness the loading and the testing.  

Experienced people who "work on all sorts of things for which there is no data" still have "accidents" or things go wrong.  Mostly no harm is done.  However, when dealing with an SEE where thousands of psi are released right in front of your face and serious personal risk, including death, can be involved then perhaps it might not be wise.......

"If you load by chronograph then you are playing roulette just as much as anyone trying to work up loads with no data. "

That is your opinion not mine.  Data obtained by the chronograph can be very useful in developing loads even if there isn't any data, wildcatters do that all the time.  One just has to be experienced enough in the use of the chronograph and what the data it give means in relation to the load.  

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • JeffinNZ
Wheel Weights posted this 05 June 2021

Another SEE report. As usual it's 2nd hand.

Insofar as I know, it has yet to be duplicated under lab conditions.

 

https://www.longrangehunting.com/threads/safety-reminder.272441/

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 05 June 2021

Larry, do you operate a ballistic lab? Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Wheel Weights posted this 05 June 2021

lotsa "Larrys" here.

Larry Gibson has done a lot with transducers.

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 05 June 2021

 Yes, you are certainly correct but I meant Larry Gibson the post prior to mine. I am curious about him doing this professionally since he mentions thousands of dollars worth of equipment and most hobbyist don't expend that level of cash. I am certain everyone is happy there is only one Squid Boy. Thanks.

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Wheel Weights posted this 06 June 2021

I like the Bigfoot comparison.

SEE has never been duplicated in a lab, nor has a Bigfoot ever been killed or captured.

But why take the chance ?

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 06 June 2021

I've been following this with lots of questions in my mine and with caution.  I will have to agree with many that say if it's been proved scientifically and reproduced at will that it would be more written about.  I haven't see evidence of that.  Mr Squid I too would like to know just what equipment the one poster said he had thousands of dollars worth of. 

Attached Files

Wheel Weights posted this 06 June 2021

"heard about", "read about","seem to recall"," could not duplicate", "try to find story"

 

Notice the common thread ? Even Bigfoot stories have pictures and videos !

 

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • JeffinNZ
  • Ross Smith
Wheel Weights posted this 06 June 2021

P.O.:

 

Again --- assumption w/o proof.

 

Ackley summed what he BELIEVED caused the event thusly:

What causes these unpredictable pressure and occasional blow-ups is the use of heavily coated slow burning powders in reduced charges that leave a lot of air space in the case. When this is coupled with under-ignition from a weak or faulty primer, the whole charge does not start burning at once. Instead, gas is apparently formed. This ignites, causes a violent wave. More powder ignites, and all hell breaks loose.

 

 

Attached Files

alphabrass posted this 06 June 2021

A well documented hazard for rocket motors is slow cookoff.  This occurs when solid propellants (fuel and oxidizer) are subjected to a relatively slow heating as might occur with a fire near enough to a motor to heat it.  As such the heating is fairly uniform throughout the propellant and a large mass reaches a critical temperature a body.  Nearly instantaneous explosion occurs and the result is the wreaking of havoc on surrounding structures etc.  Although on a much larger scale than small arms cartridges it is an example of a radical change in the behavior of a propellant.  Can't say if this has any parallel to alleged SEE.

alphabrass

Attached Files

Ross Smith posted this 07 June 2021

Alpha: It just might if the the chamber and barrel are really hot. ???????????????

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 07 June 2021

 "Squid Boy posted this 2 days ago

 Larry, do you operate a ballistic lab? Thanks, Squid Boy"

 

Not sure what your definition of a "lab" is but mine follows the standard definition. 

Merriam-Webster’s definition of “laboratory”;

“a place equipped to study in science or for testing and analysis….

 II a research laboratory

 Broadly: a place

Providing opportunity for experimentation, observation or a practice in a field of study”

 

So yes, squid boy, I do "operate a ballistics laboratory”.  You along with others seem to think all “scientific” testing and development must be done in some sterile building with beakers, Bunsen burners and scientists in white coats.  That is an unfortunate assumption because it just isn’t so.

Do you think rocket engines as mentioned in a previous post are tested or launched in such a “lab”…no, they are manufactured in machine shops and tested at sites or ranges.

 Do you think all ballistics are tested in a “lab”…..no Hornady uses indoor and out door ranges as does Sierra, Nosler, Remington, Federal, Winchester, etc. and others do. 

Do you think Lyman loads and tests in such a “lab”…..no it’s a site with reloading gear just like you and I use.  They use an indoor range to pressure/velocity test.  Older manuals “accuracy loads” were tested on a 50 yard outdoor range just like many on this forum use.

 Do you think Rick Jamison developed the Winchester short magnums in such a “lab”….no he developed them at home with his own reloading equipment, pressure tested with the Oehler M43 and test fired them at 100 yards out of his office window (his test sit/place).

 

I do very similar testing with loads developed using the same loading tools in my loading room as used by “the big boys” at their test site/place or what you call a “lab”.  All pertinent data is entered into the ballistics computer software just as the “big boys” do.  I test those loads with pressure and velocity data collected at a test site that is suitable for the discharge of firearms.  I use SAAMI test methods to set up the equipment and during testing.

 Not counting reloading and bullet casting I have $6,000+ invested in the Oehler M43, its accouterments and computer/printers.  I can pressure test 30+ cartridges in numerous test guns all of which are expensive.  I have conducted 3400+ pressure tests which involves at least 30,000+ cartridges tested over 14+ years.

 I have done and been paid for pressure and/or load development for several smaller ammunition manufacturers, two different cast bullet makers and three different powder suppliers.  I have been paid by several individuals for load development and testing.  I have tested numerous loads “pro-bono” for numerous individuals.

 I have my test results published here, the Fouling Shot and on the Cast Boolit Forum. 

 So, yes, I do have a “lab”.

As previously mentioned, the cause of SEE is known, it has been produced in such “labs”, it has been documented.  Just because you and others still believe it doesn’t exist is probably because you don’t want to believe what is presented or because you just haven’t seen it.  In any event simply because you doubt it doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

 Do you really think bigfoot, if discovered, is going to be found in a “lab”?   Do you think the proof the world is round was found in a “lab”?  Or perhaps you think it’s flat so will that be proven in a “lab”? 

 So, frankly, I think all this hokey pokey about a “lab” is just an argumentative red herring.  Is it simply because you don’t really want to find out an answer whether SEE can be replicated or not?  It can be, send me a 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser and I will show you an SEE event to conclusion including all the test data of pressure and velocity leading up to the event.  My offer is open to you or anyone else who disbelieves.

I suppose when I post the Handloader article of the test that was done in a "lab" by an ammunition maker you'll disbelieve it also.  You, and others, have come up with the negative so now it's incumbent on you to prove that negative.  My offer to you will prove the positive existence of SEE through the destruction by such of the 6.5x55 you send me.  You really don't expect me to destroy my own rifle just to prove a proven point to you, do you?

LMG

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Wheel Weights posted this 07 June 2021

Squid,

 

1. Larry is a smart fellow.

 

Any questions ? See #1.

 

Taught me how to salvage piles of beautiful DWM 7.62x51 cases.

Your contribution ?

 

Attached Files

303PV posted this 07 June 2021

Of course, Mr. Gibson is an extremely knowledgeable person. However, he does not want to tell us how he is going to blow up rifles. He creates a stalemate because no one will take him up on this dubious offer. I wonder why he does not want to share his knowledge. Without facts and descriptions of the methodology of the tests, SEE will stay in the domain of hearsay and mysteries.

I guess we will have to wait for the Handloader article and Uncle Nick's explanation. Hopefully, this will describe exactly what to do to prevent SEE.   I can tell you exactly how I develop reduced loads. I have read a lot of warnings and I would like to assess the risk I run with my load development method that does not always heed these warnings.

Until then I hope this discussion stays unemotional and factual. No one needs to get their knickers in a twist.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Lee Guthrie
99 Strajght posted this 07 June 2021

Bigfoot was found in Handloader #187 page 42 "Mystery Solved"

 

Glenn

Attached Files

303PV posted this 07 June 2021

Thanks 99 Strajht. Can you please post a copy. I start dreaming about the Monster of Loch Ness!

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 07 June 2021

 

No, Larry I am afraid you are wrong in your assumption that I and many others consider the requirements for a “lab” to be some sterile environment within some specialized building with everyone in lab coats. Actually, if you read Webster's definition you will see that it only specifies a “place” equipped to study science or for testing and analysis. My shop or “lab” usually gets the comment from first time visitor of “how the hell do you find anything in here” more than anything else. hardly a sterile environments. So your example of a “lab” is really meaningless in the context of this discussion.

However, the fact that you have been paid to do load development by other businesses makes you both a professional ballistics technician and a business as well. I never wanted the liabilities that come with load development for payment. What I do experimentally, I do for my own knowledge. I don’t have an Oehler M43 system like yourself but did use a Pressure Trace. It’s cheaper version of yours, that is, until I gave it to a friend because it could not read very low pressures dependably. I still have access to it but prefer to use a “lab” and pay for the testing.

In spite of everything, by yours and Webster's definition ALL of the above persons and businesses are operating labs.

 

I don’t have a 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser to send you and couldn’t anyway because of federal regulations unless you have an FFL or a real ballistics business. So, I am sorry that no test mule will be forthcoming. I do have to ask what is special about a 6.5x55 SM anyway? Have you already blown one up? Do you have the data?

 

I wonder about Big Foot and UFS but would rather keep an open mind about things like that. Same as with SEE. What I really want to see (no pun intended) is a verified pressure trace showing a blow-up that can be attributed conclusively to an SEE event along with the load data to support it. Is that really too much to ask of all these people that have done this work and proved it beyond a doubt. I think not.

Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 07 June 2021

How is a pressure barrel different from a regular barrel? The answer is a pressure/velocity (p/v) barrel built to precise industry standards does not fit any existing  hand or shoulder -firearm. Unless severly modified, it fits only a Universal Receiver, a massive chunk of preision machining with delusions of being a crew-served cannon. The reciever bristles with ancillary supports for sensors and a heavy breeching/firing mechanism, and barrels are ported for those sensors. In creating reloading data, those same standardized equipment and protocols used to develop and monitor the production of factory small arms ammunition.  Years ago this special barrels ran $700 per barrel and up. Setting up for standard tranducer testing there was the addtional expense of the piezo-electric transducers and a tranducer calibration fixture, running the total to about $2100 or more for a rifle cartridge. I therefore think we can safety assume that Larry has such mentioned equipment  in lieu of an epoxied on strain gauge on a factory firearm. Is this correct Larry? 

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 07 June 2021

Mr. Wheel Weights, first I do believe that Larry Gibson is a smart guy with very impressive credentials. I never called that into question. My contribution here is to persist in seeking the data that confirms or denies the phenomenon we are discussing. My last post states it directly at the very end. Show me the pressure traces and load data that verifies conclusively that this exists and I will then be convinced. Do not tell me UFO's are real and expect me to believe it without some very reliable proof. I realize that I am an outlier on this board but took it upon myself to ask the hard questions. Facts are facts and until some concrete data is presented I will continue or until I am invited to leave. Thanks, Squid Boy  

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 07 June 2021

Squid Boy I've been hearing that it has been proven, that if you read enough especially in the "older day" mentionings, you'll find it. What I don't believe is that it is 100% reproduceable every time.  As far as we how can be certain that someone says give my your rifle, what was it, 6.5 Swede and I'll blow it up, that that person didn't load it full of Bullseye?  Wouldn't we have to be there to observe the loading of the cartridge that it wasn't an overloading or something else dangerous and that too of readings on the pressure equipment?  I know I would.  

Attached Files

Wheel Weights posted this 08 June 2021

"Paranoia runs deep, into your life it will creep ----" "case of Bulleye" I call BS.

 

Does anyone REALLY think this debate is worthwhile ? OR is it just a chance to engage in chest thumping ?

 

1. NOBODY KNOWS !

2. Any questions ? see #1 !

 

4198, 4227, Trail Boss, 5744, Red Dot, Unique all work fine.

 

I don't pour Kero in this either !

Attached Files

shjoe posted this 08 June 2021

great looking car, wheel weights. i have had excellent results (no uncontained explosions) using trail boss. and unique in rifle cases with 1gr of filler material without issues, thus far. i believe an event the same as or similar to an SEE description can occur if we arnt diligent and precise with our reloading practices. there are some powder/load combinations i wouldnt try with my mellon so close to the action. stay safe

Attached Files

Tom G posted this 08 June 2021

Time to lighten up guys.  This one runs on High test only.  It can do an SEE on regular !!!  

Jaguar XK8  1998

 

 

Tom

Attached Files

shjoe posted this 08 June 2021

beautiful! there is just something about a jaguar. just needs emma peel behind the wheel.

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 09 June 2021

I don't think I have engaged in any chest thumping so far. Yes, they are nice cars but are somewhat off topic except that Tom made me think about something when he mentioned SEE on regular gas. It made me think that the phenomenon of SEE and engine knock have things in common. How they correlate is something that might need to be explored further. Consider both require fuels and involve an uncontrolled detonation of that fuel which can cause damage. Sometimes going a little off topic can be rewarding. I am sure we can all agree about Emma Peel. Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Bryan Austin posted this 09 June 2021

Those of us that do know have been trying to let the public know but we constantly run up against the old beliefs....  It is very difficult to overcome old beliefs, even with facts.

LMG

Tell me about it, even with issues aside from SEE!

44-40 Website - https://sites.google.com/view/44winchester/chasing-the-44-40

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 09 June 2021

How would I conduct the test?

If I had a donor rifle, say a M96 6.5x55 Mauser, I would load 20 cartridges with a reduced load of H4831 , IMR7828 and a couple other “slow burning” powders under a 140 gr jacketed bullet [Hornady or Sierra as I have both] in FL sized Winchester cases with CCI 200 primers. OAL would be to cannelure groove or as specified in a manual. 

The rifle would be cleaned (bore) and thoroughly inspected.   A strain gauge would be fixed [possibly two opposite each other if I use both the Oehler M43 and the Pressure Trace II at the same time] at the proscribed SAAMI point over the chamber to measure pressure.  Complete rifle specifications and load data would be entered into the software on the computer(s). 

 Testing would be done at a remote site where no collateral damage could be done to anything other than the test rifle.

A sturdy wood table would be set up with a 5/8” steel plate laid on top.  A tire would be placed on the steel and wired solidly to the table.  The test rifle would be solidly affixed to the tire so that it could be loaded and fired (remotely with a lanyard).  Another table would be set up beside the test table with a thick steel plate between the tables to protect the measuring equipment and computer(s).  The stain gauge would be connected to the equipment with only the wires being exposed to damage. A portable generator would be used to power the equipment and would be positioned further away and also shielded. 

 The chronograph screens would be placed with the start screen 15” from the rifle muzzle to capture velocities. 

  Complete test conditions at the site would then be entered into the software of the computer(s).  A thorough systems check would be done before the test.

The test would then commence with a cartridge of one load.  After each shot the rifle would be reloaded and the computer(s) checked to ensure the data was being captured for each shot [pressure, pressure trace, velocity and related other data].  The next cartridge would then be fired.  The test would continue until an SEE had occurred making the rifle was no longer able to be fired.  The data of each shot (progressively increasing pressure and velocity) would indicate if that load would produce an SEE.  If after 10 rounds fired with a load there is no indication (progressive increase in pressure and velocity) then the rifle barrel would be cleaned and another load tested.

  Photographs along with the complete data would be available for posting. 

  Anyone is more than welcome to watch the entire process of ammunition loading, rifle and equipment preparation, equipment set up assist if you will.

  LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 09 June 2021

If I remember correctly you said that you (or they)  could replicated, or cause a SEE, at will.  Why then bunch of loaded cartridges? If you/they know exactly what causes a SEE why not just blow up the rifle with the first cartridge?  This is of course after you fire a few known safe cartridges to check your instruments and make adjustments if necessary.  Then you go to the SEE cartridge.  You show us that the SEE cartidge is indeed not an overload.  So why would you have to shoot a line up of cartridges with different loadings till you had a SEE?  This is a little confusing.  I'm glad to see that you will take an exemplary caution in performing the test.  

I think Squid Boy is on to something in referring to engine knock on a comparision to SEE in rifles. 

Attached Files

shjoe posted this 09 June 2021

interesting comparison squid, between pre-detonation in an engine combustion chamber and an SEE event. both can be catastrophic. in the auto engine when conditions present themselves, the event can occur prior to timed ignition. detonation can happen in a diesel engine as well if air inlet temp is excessively high, ergo air to air charge coolers on turbos. in the firearm, i suspect the SEE detonation event occurs after ignition. the conditions for both events have to be present in advance of the detonation, perhaps like a series of dominos...

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 09 June 2021

MP 1866

 

No, you do not remember correstly.  No where in this thread did I say or imply I could "cause a SEE, at will."  Nor did I say it can be done with one shot.  Nor did I say 100% of the time.

I said I could "produce" an SEE.

An SEE occurs when a series of conditions are produced.  All SEEs I have investigated occurred after  several shots of the same load, usually between 3 -10 shots.  The procedure I would use is most likely to produce an SEE as it would create those conditions.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 09 June 2021

I have a question regarding the test. Please explain the "(progressively increasing pressure and velocity)" statement from your test procedure. Would you be loading these cartridges with increasing or decreasing increments of powder? I haven't seen anything like that referred to in any of the SEE reports that I have read. There is no indicator until it comes apart. Although, Pressure Trace has some interesting traces they attribute to SEE on their web site. These show three or more traces together showing the same pressure curves for all of them. The second question is why the 6.5x55 Swede? I asked this before.

I am going to drift a bit off topic but I think it applies. I have a book called Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals by Heywood. It goes into depth on the causes of knock in an engine. Some occur prior to the spark and some as a result of a pressure wave from the flame front, compressing and overheating the fuel in another part of the chamber. There is that pesky pressure wave thing again. This makes me wonder if some event at ignition that starts the bullet quickly down the bore while the deterrent coating is being consumed and then the pressure goes down because there isn't enough heat to keep the pressure up due to expansion ratio of the bore and the slow burning of the powder charge. The bullet slows and the fire that is no longer retarded by the coating goes into deflagration. The bullet cannot reaccelerate fast enough to relieve the pressure and things go bad. 

Yes, the bullet becomes an obstruction in a way. I think that if it didn't we would never see an SEE event. I am not an expert and this is my best guess as to what happens. I think it was Uncle Nick that said it could be reproduced at will and the reason I mailed him.

Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 09 June 2021

Okay you didn't say that exactly, but never the less here are some things that you did say. "Knowing the circumstances required it it is easy enough to reproduce" ,  " being able to measure pressures and observe the time/pressure curve I have done so several times but have stopped just before the SEE probably would have occurred",  "It is easy to produce and the catastrophic results are very predictable".  Some of those statements make it sound as though you could replicated at will.  Let's talk about that first statement I listed: apparently it isn't easy enough to reproduce if you have to keep shooting loads (which we are awaiting if your loads go up or down till you hit the right spost as requested by Squd Boy) until you make it happen. They (those that can replicated it) apparently cannot give 100% conclusive data or evidence of when exactly it happens nor what is really going on inside that case. It sounds as though you have a very good idea of loadings that can cause it.  

I'm not trying to step on your toes.  I appreciate the work, data, and effort you have put into to this.  I'll explain that I'm a man that has to exactly what happens. That way it gives a better understanding.  

Hey little teasing okay? Lifting those 5/8" steel plates around isn't exactly easy huh?  You had mentioned any of us are welcomed to come out and watch you.....and maybe assist you....yeah lifting the plates!  LOL

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • JeffinNZ
Hornet posted this 09 June 2021

   I think part of the issue may relate to the concept that the pressure change is NOT a smooth and even curve, despite what the cute graphs say. Remember the old oscilloscope photos when pressure transducers were used? The pressure "curves" they showed were very jagged in some cases with lots of extraneous 'spikes' and 'dips' at the monitored location. Pressure moves in waves and they can reflect and stack mathematically. Most pressure monitoring software now seems to have some curve smoothing ability built in that makes this less obvious.

  A few years ago the people at Walker Muffler tried using the faster computer processors to take a reading of the exhaust noise, phase-shift it, and broadcast it through speakers to cancel out the pressure peaks and dips (noise) instead of using an actual muffler. They had some success but it was much more costly and less durable than a muffler (high power usage) so the project was dropped.

  If you get a few different pressure waves reflecting with the frequency changing (as the distance to a reflecting surface at the bullet base keeps changing) it is quite likely that you could get several stacking up and providing one BIG spike. A good deal of empty space from a smaller powder charge would be less likely to disrupt or scatter a pressure wave and enable this occurrence.

   This would obviously not happen every time since too many random factors are involved (and due to the obstructive nature of the universe) but strange things happen. Even saw a flipped coin stand on edge once.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • JeffinNZ
MP1886 posted this 09 June 2021

It is an interesting comparsion that Squid Boy brought up with knock in a  car engine. There are many things that can cause it just as there are many ways with SEE.  With the engine and knock the most common causes are too low of an octane rating, carbon deposits somewhere in the cylinder and combustion chambers in the heads if they have such,  and incorrect spark plugs. There are more, but these three are big players. I would think we could make a correct comparison of octane rating to burning rate of powder, incorrect spark plugs to bad ignition of the powder, and carbon to, well, carbon. Carbon build up inside a case is certainly going to change things. In a car engine carbon in the cylinder and  head chambers decreases the volume of the cylinder thus raising the compression pressure which then requires a higher octane rating.  The most common thing that knock (also called detonation) has with SEE in my opinion is the DETONATION.  As we know they both can be very severe to both pieces of equipment. How to further compare the two I just don't know. 

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 10 June 2021

Squid Boy

I'll answer your questions and add a couple comments.

"I have a question regarding the test. Please explain the "(progressively increasing pressure and velocity)" statement from your test procedure. Would you be loading these cartridges with increasing or decreasing increments of powder?

No,  each load of 10 cartridges will have the same reduced load.  I would load 3 or 4 different loads with different slow burning powders as those powders have been involved in SEEs that I know about.  The load for each powder will be the same in each cartridge and there will be no increase or decrease in the powder charge as the test with each powder is conducted.

"I haven't seen anything like that referred to in any of the SEE reports that I have read. There is no indicator until it comes apart"

Apparently you've not read the right "reports".  If the pressure is being measured with a transducer or strain gauge the pressure related data and the time/pressure curves (traces) of previously fired rounds will give plenty of "indicators".  Also the velocity data may give a good indication but not always.

"Although, Pressure Trace has some interesting traces they attribute to SEE on their web site. These show three or more traces together showing the same pressure curves for all of them. The second question is why the 6.5x55 Swede? I asked this before."

I said I may use the Pressure Trace II system in addition to the Oehler M43 PBL.  The M43 would be the primary means of measuring the data.  The increase in pressure and the increase in "Rise" along with the visual indication of primer initiation, initial slight rise in pressure, the drop in pressure and then the sudden rise in pressure are easily seen on the time/pressure curve for each shot.

The 6.5 Swede because that is the cartridge that was used when the true nature of an SEE cause was found.  I also mentioned other cartridges for "donor" rifles but most any cartridge will do from the 243 Winchester up through the long and short magnums.  

"I am going to drift a bit off topic but I think it applies. I have a book called Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals by Heywood. It goes into depth on the causes of knock in an engine. Some occur prior to the spark and some as a result of a pressure wave from the flame front, compressing and overheating the fuel in another part of the chamber. There is that pesky pressure wave thing again. This makes me wonder if some event at ignition that starts the bullet quickly down the bore while the deterrent coating is being consumed and then the pressure goes down because there isn't enough heat to keep the pressure up due to expansion ratio of the bore and the slow burning of the powder charge. The bullet slows and the fire that is no longer retarded by the coating goes into deflagration. The bullet cannot reaccelerate fast enough to relieve the pressure and things go bad. "

You probably "wonder" that because that is what wineman and myself basically said happens in an SEE early on in this thread.

"Yes, the bullet becomes an obstruction in a way. I think that if it didn't we would never see an SEE event." 

Yes, you are probably correct....if the bullet did not become a bore obstruction there would be no SEE.  The trick to producing an SEE is to create those conditions that cause the bullet to become a bore obstruction.  That is the objective of my testing technique....to create those conditions.

LMG

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 10 June 2021

"Hornet posted this 2 hours ago

 

   I think part of the issue may relate to the concept that the pressure change is NOT a smooth and even curve, despite what the cute graphs say. Remember the old oscilloscope photos when pressure transducers were used? The pressure "curves" they showed were very jagged in some cases with lots of extraneous 'spikes' and 'dips' at the monitored location. Pressure moves in waves and they can reflect and stack mathematically. Most pressure monitoring software now seems to have some curve smoothing ability built in that makes this less obvious."

The time/pressure curves produced by the Oehler M43 PBL are basically the same as produced by the old oscilloscopes.   I know of no curve smoothing ability built into the M43.  I can show you quite smooth curves measured with some cartridges and some pretty jagged ones produced by other cartridges.  I can also show you lots of extraneous spikes.  What you see in the time/pressure curves (traces) of the M43 is what is measured.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 10 June 2021

MP1886

"apparently it isn't easy enough to reproduce if you have to keep shooting loads (which we are awaiting if your loads go up or down till you hit the right spost as requested by Squd Boy) until you make it happen. They (those that can replicated it) apparently cannot give 100% conclusive data or evidence of when exactly it happens nor what is really going on inside that case. "

Refer to my answer to Squid Boy.  There is no need to adjust the loads up or down searching for the "right spot".  Using a reduced load in a cartridge know to have produced and actual SEE is all that is needed.  Several powders are selected for potential use as the load must create the conditions that cause an SEE.  Not all loads will do that in all rifles.  It is, in fact, easy enough if you understand the conditions and what cause them.

Furthermore, if it takes testing several loads to create the right conditions to "make it happen" and it then "happens" that then would be a successfully produced SEE now wouldn't it.

BTW;  A "detonation" is not the cause of SEE. The bullet becomes a bore obstruction and before the bullet gets moving again the powder burning cause the pressure to rise to a level the action and cartridge case can no longer restrain and contain.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 10 June 2021

Attached Files

shjoe posted this 10 June 2021

great discussion. could it be inferred that during a normal firing, the bullet could be described as a moving obstruction until it exits the barrel. when all of the powder charge is ignited, the complete combustion is occurring down the barrel. any incomplete combustion exits the barrel with the bullet creating muzzle flash, more so with the same cartridge fired in a shorter barrel. anyone who has fired an M44 mosin nagant in the evening would experience this. when the initial complete ignition is delayed is when things begin to get dicey. i wonder if chambers with a longer lead in are less prone or more forgiving in this case. best regards

Attached Files

JeffinNZ posted this 10 June 2021

i wonder if chambers with a longer lead in are less prone or more forgiving in this case. best regards

Mr Gibson has indicated the 6.5X55 was an early identifable candiate and those rifles (military) have looooong throats to allow for service projectiles. That said so do/did Weatherby rifles.

Cheers from New Zealand

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • shjoe
MP1886 posted this 10 June 2021

Larry I got the answers about your loadings for SEE that I wanted to hear.  What you are doing is not replicating SEE, you're gambling.  Bear with me and let me explain.  If I were to come out with a M96 6.5 Swede and tell you let's put down $10,000 on which number in the cartridge sequence will be a damagind SEE event would you bet?  If not you don't know and you just keep shooting a known load to cause SEE until it happens in the rifle you're testing.  Say you shoot 7 cartridges until it happens.  How do you know exactly what caused it if the other 6 were exactly the same loadings and they didn't?  Here is something to ponder.  You said you would wire a tire down to a steel topped table and wire the rifle down to the tire for the test.  Can I safely assume when you load the rifle that you are not positioning the powder charge? An example would be reloader that use minute charges of Unique power in rather large volume cases such as a 30-06 and they tilt the barrel upward to position the powder against the primer flash hole then lowering the rifle to the firing position carefully.  If you don't do this on the SEE test then your powder positions can be random even if you you pre-position them in the cartridge before carefully inserting them into the chamber.  Another thing do you employ a certain waiting period  between shots?  If you don't wouldn't you say the barrel would be much hotter if it took 7 shots to get a SEE event?  Another question, as you're shooting over a Chronograph when you achieve a SEE event is the velocity of the SEE event bullet way out of line of the non SEE event bullets?  

 

Attached Files

303PV posted this 10 June 2021

 Enough theories, and offers to blow up rifles. Data are completely lacking. My question about what I should avoid preventing SEE has not been answered. Therefore I will give it a try.

Quickload is a very useful program that I use a lot. https://www.neconos.com/category/Software-2. 

Cartridge 6.5x55 SE CIP max Pressure: 3800 bar/ 55154 PSI. COL 79mm/3.111 " Barel length 600mm/23.6" Bullet Sierra HPBT #1740.  I want to achieve 1500fps/457 m/s.

QL calculates the following with Hodgdon H4831: Pmax = 814 Bar/11803 Psi, Fill% 53.6 %, Ballistic efficiency 14.7%, % of powder burnt when the bullet exits the muzzle: 67.2%. (Large Muzzle Flash: for the car people Gasoline comes out of the exhaust).  Conclusion powder is not suitable for reduced Loads.

Ballistic efficiency definition: Percentage of the chemical energy contained in the powder that is converted into kinetic energy of the bullet.

A calculation for a proper load. Green dot COL 79 mm, Pmax 1743 Bar/25287 Psi.Fill% = 37.4 % Ballistic Efficiency 33.7 % percent  burnt when bullet exits the barrel. 100%.   

What I do: Set a goal for the speed, use a relatively fast burning powder, avoid Low pressure for rifle Loads ( keep it around 1500 bar), and choose a powder that has burned 100% when the bullet exits the barrel. Calculate with QL and Voilà.

I just want to add: EVERYONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN ACTIONS

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 10 June 2021

MP1886

You admit I can produce an SEE, ergo, whether of not I can know or bet on which exact shot it will occur is not relevant.  Again, I never said I could know exactly when it would occur.  However, based on the increasing pressure data of the previous shots, I can guess that it may occur on the next shot or two.  I, you nor anyone else can tell exactly when a case will let go or when particular action will let go .I said I could produce an SEE so what difference does it matter on which shot.....none what so ever.  The fact would be the SEE was produced.  

So instead of these non-relevant  hypothesis, why don't you just wait until I post the article "Mystery Solved" and you then may understand what really occurs when an SEE happens?

LMG

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 10 June 2021

303PV

"Enough theories, and offers to blow up rifles. Data are completely lacking. My question about what I should avoid preventing SEE has not been answered. Therefore I will give it a try."

As I've mentioned before in this thread, I am not able to post the data right now.  If you would wait until I can in 10 +/- days or so you will get the dat and what you should avoid when I post the article "Mystery Solved".  

Be careful with Quickload because what it does not tell you is what the pressure would be if there is a bore obstruction which is the root cause of an SEE.

However, your calculation using; "use a relatively fast burning powder, avoid Low pressure for rifle Loads ( keep it around 1500 bar), and choose a powder that has burned 100% when the bullet exits the barrel" is a very good method to avoid the possibility of an SEE.

LMG 

 

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

JimmyDee posted this 10 June 2021

Bottle-necked rifle cartridges?  Covered.

What about the minimum charge warnings in magnum revolver loads using W296?  Same issue or not?

Thanks.

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 10 June 2021

Larry, I find you are more than a bit disingenuous when it comes to your being forthcoming with your information. I was led to a thread at a rival forum where you apparently also hold court. The thread was started on 20 March 2011 and details the blow up of several 6.5x55  Swedes including the load data for a privately owned one. You published the Handloader data on 21 March 2011 but had taken down four pages previously. What was on those pages? The data you show show was from a "major manufacturer" and listed the powder as non-canister grade military powder. It detailed the development of loads for a 6.5x55 in a pressure gun where everything looked fine but when testing started in a M96 the rifle had a catastrophic failure. According to the your post, they took the apparently undamaged barrel and adapted it into the pressure gun. Pressures started to rise after the first shot then went down on shot number five and then started up again. Shot number eight spiked to 82+K psi and the test was stopped. The very same load was used for all the tests and gave this result. I didn't bother to read further as I was disgusted by then anyway. No wonder you wanted me to send a Swede. You already had the data you needed and could have possibly demonstrated an actual SEE at mine or someone else expense. You could have told us about this posting long ago. Sorry but that just doesn't sit right with me. Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 10 June 2021

We are beginning to see that the cause of SEE is the cartridge is fired, ignition begins, drives the bullet into the bore (which is easy with the long throat on 6.5 Sweed) all the sudden the pressure drops leaving the bullet as a bore obstruction, then pressure comes back with a vengeance and the rifle blows.  The thing I want explained is why doesn't it happen on the first round if the load data was repeated for a replication?  

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 11 June 2021

Successive rounds fired increase the fouling in the throat until it is sufficient to stop the bullet.  How many rounds that takes is dependent on the condition of the throat [rough, eroded, pitted, etc.] and how much powder and/or primer residue is left in the bore from low pressure incomplete ignition/burn of the previous rounds.  All is explained in the article I will post here in due time [I am unable to post it right now and I would if I could....ingenuous or not.....]

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

303PV posted this 11 June 2021

Bottle-necked rifle cartridges?  Covered.

What about the minimum charge warnings in magnum revolver loads using W296?  Same issue or not?

Thanks

Checked 357 magnum loads. Even with a max load, you have a lot of unburned powder with a 6" barrel. With a minimum load, it becomes even worse. W296 is relatively slow and Ball powders are difficult to ignite.  I can't say if it will lead to SEE.

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 11 June 2021

Ingenious is not the word I used but it was pretty ingenious to try to suck me or someone else in by challenging us to send you a rifle to blow up. I smelled a rat when you specifically asked for a Swede and then would not answer my question of why that particular rifle. The answer is that you wanted to blow it up with data you had in your pocket for over ten years and then you could say See, I told you I could do it!, in front of all your fans. Well, I am not one of them and the word was “disingenuous”. Look it up, you have the Webster’s. Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 11 June 2021

"JimmyDee posted this 13 hours ago

 

 

Bottle-necked rifle cartridges?  Covered.

What about the minimum charge warnings in magnum revolver loads using W296?  Same issue or not?"

Pretty much the same issue in closed breach handguns and rifles. 

However, the real problem is with revolvers.  The force of the primer drives the bullet forward into the barrel with the long cylinder throat providing enough increase in volume along with the venting of pressure at the barrel/cylinder gap that the powder does not ignite sufficiently to continue to burn.   The shooter thinks he has a "dud" or misfire and cocks the hammer or pulls the trigger again [if a DA revolver].  If the bullet is far enough into the barrel that the cylinder rotates the situation is now the potential of another round being fired with the previous bullet stuck in the bore.....a bore obstruction.  Obviously not good, thus the warnings.

LMG

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 11 June 2021

Correct if I am wrong didn't you say after a shot or so many shots you cleaned the bore???

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 11 June 2021

As stated in the previous post outlining the test procedure as I would conduct it;

" If after 10 rounds fired with a load there is no indication (progressive increase in pressure and velocity) then the rifle barrel would be cleaned and another load tested."

Each test of a specific load would start with a clean barrel.  The barrel would be cleaned after a test of one powder if that powder did not produce an SEE before a test of another powder was started. 

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Wineman posted this 12 June 2021

Here is the article:

Handloader SEE

Dave

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 12 June 2021

Wineman thank you very much for posting that article.  It explained a lot of things. Yes I read it already. 

Attached Files

Wheel Weights posted this 12 June 2021

So if you have an old 6.5x55 Mauser with a really rough throat, avoid shooting it with with reduced loads of slow burning non-cannister powder, long heavy high friction bullets in case necks with low release tension.

I'm glad to know that.applause

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 12 June 2021

Wineman that's what I got out of that article.  So my bet to Larry is can he blow my 6.5 Swede up if I show up at his place, but after I had a brand new barrel installed on it, brass with very good neck tension, and cleaning after every shot?  I bet not.   The other thing I got from the article was the author saying that there could be a better name for the event besides SEE.  I agree, my pick so far is Bore Obstruction.  

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • shjoe
Wheel Weights posted this 12 June 2021

Bore obstruction is too easy to comprehend. SEE is more mysterious.

The other thing that's odd is, I don't see how the pressures listed would take apart a 96 Swede like that. Stretch it yes, grenade it ??? 

I remember an importer back when, was "sporterizing" 96 and making the into 264 Win Mags. No reports of pieces and parts littering the landscape.

Since the event has not been duplicated and given 96's value will not be -----

Now we could take some el cheapo modern rifle like a Ruger American 6.5 Creedmore, rust up the bore and try the receipe.

 

The world watches.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 12 June 2021

So if you have an old 6.5x55 Mauser with a really rough throat, avoid shooting it with with reduced loads of slow burning non-cannister powder, long heavy high friction bullets in case necks with low release tension.

I'm glad to know that.applause

==========

I didn't see anything in the article about reduced loads. The rifle blew oup with loads they were intending to sell - probably not reduced loads and  2.600 fps with a 140 grain bullet is a full charge for a 6.5 x55..  So if this is the complete word on SEEs, staying away from reduced loads wouldn't guard against a SEE.

Yet, many of the SEEs I have read about were when handloaders were fooling around with reduced charges of slow powders. 

 It would be interesting to duplicate the load used, or a reduced load, with a bullet lodged in the lands before hand and fire the primed and charged case with no bullet and see what the pressure would be.  My bet is that no unusual pressures would appear. This is what breech seaters do all the iime without blowing up guns. If I win this bet, then are we sure that a bullet stopping in the same place was the cause of the high pressures?  Bad assumptions are the curse of experimenters.

John

 

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • David Reiss
MP1886 posted this 12 June 2021

Couldn't agree with you more John.  It was jacketed high velocity loads they were testing. The question is did Larry blow up any 6.5 Swedes at all with SEE?  We know while testing he said he saw the "comings" of SEE and stopped.  Not good enough. That's like saying I'm racing a 1/4 mile car and I'm really setting a record 3/4 quarters the way through the run and I shut her down for some reason.  Then later on saying I could have set the record.  You don't know, you just don't know what would have happened. I'm beginning to wonder if Larry really did blow up a 6.5 trying to show he replicated a SEE and whose rifle was it???

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 12 June 2021

It doesn't matter that a bore obstruction is too easy to comprehend.  That's what happened in the article in my opinion and others including the author.  There are many kinds of bore obstructions you know, from stuck bullets to stuck wads to dirt plug in the muzzle to putting a 20 gauge shotshell in a 12 gauge shotgun to Kapok filler the list goes on.   I think SEE became a mystery because those that had it happen probably felt they did nothing wrong. I think it was something they worked up the loads on a pressure barrel all to specs and all the loads looked just great, then they go to the actual rifle and boom.  No mystery to me.

Attached Files

Wheel Weights posted this 13 June 2021

 Come on MP are you suggesting some expert handloader could have made an error / Or some automatic loading system fouled up ?  NAH, why look at the Space Shuttle's perfect safety record ---- ah ----

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 13 June 2021

Oh Gosh No Wheel Weights, darnn I over looked that.  I retract that and thanks for pointing that out.  I must have hand a bad neuron ignition in my brain!

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 13 June 2021

It's not the "last word". That was discovered 30+ years ago. A lot has been learned since then. You all are making assumptions attempting to assuage your own disbelief. That not only is dangerous but probably foolish to.

John, I told you that documented She's have occurred with full power 100% load density loads.

MP1886, multiple caliber cartridges have been documented to be susceptible to SEE. I suggested the 6.5x55 simply because it was what was used in the article. I have 3 of my own and told squid boy I'd return it one way or the other. His insinuations I was sim7trying to con him out of a rifle is bs.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 13 June 2021

Obviously some choose not to learn nor understand. I'm done with this thread.

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
MP1886 posted this 13 June 2021

Larry so how do you explain a 100% loading SEE?  You have to admitt that a reduced charge of slow burning powder, bullet getting blow out of the neck into the throat tight, lots of volume created , pressure drops, then pressure catches up and comes back strong and BOOM...bore obstruction because of the bullet. Not much volume created with a 100% charge. Were other 100% loading SEE's done at a lab too?

Everyone makes assumptions, you too.  In fact I think you make quite a few of them. 

The Immorality of Ignorance

[/I]"In April of this year as part of my contribution to the rites of spring, I delivered the installation address to the Notre Dame chapter of Sigma Xi with the deliberately provocative title above. What I said can be summed up in rather simple terms.

 

"For anyone who has taught freshman chemistry, the end of the freshman year when some of the youngsters take home their unused chemicals and oddments of apparatus, is a frightening time. The amateur chemist is a dangerous person. An innocent parent might permit him some freedom of action, but only an idiot would take his advice.

 

"In this technological age, ignorance of science can be dangerous. It is inexcusable in those who have talents of leadership. It is immoral when the ignorant elect to lead and when the informed let them."?

[/I]

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Lee Guthrie
shjoe posted this 13 June 2021

great cars, ken! nice to see that old time hot rodding is still alive. and yes, the open discussion has been informative; thank you to all who have participated. that corvair must be a missle!

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 13 June 2021

That vintage Nova was not a slouch either. Our FD investigators inherited two "Police Specials" from the PD detectives about 1980, both low miles with no history of patrol background. The de-tuned 350's were worked over by fire truck mechanic. They were pretty fast and handled better the Plymouth 440's we had before. 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • shjoe
Larry Gibson posted this 13 June 2021

MP1886

What is a good question is denigrated by the personal attacks, can we discuss this without those?

To answer your question; even though at 100% load density the powder is still not a solid mass. The firing of the primer creates pressure throughout the case volume while while the flame is igniting the base of the powder. The bullet is pushed into the leade where it sticks. The pressure drops because of the expanded volume in the case with the bullet moving into the leade which can cause the ignited powder to smolder or even go out (in which case there would be no SEE but only a bullet stuck in the lead and powder spilled in the action. Those have been reported often).

If smoldering the powder begins to burn and the pressure can reach an abnormal level before the bullet moves enough to maintain"normal" pressure levels.. Many times a "click.....bang" is now believed to be the result of this.

The pressure can also reach a catastrophic level before the bullet can begin moving again and move fast enough with sufficient expansion of bore volume to lessen the building pressure, in which we see an SEE.

That knowledge comes not from not from "ignorance of science" nor from "immorality of ignorance" but from observation of the pressure traces and attendant data during scientific testing. Also understanding what is occurring and having an open mind helps.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

shjoe posted this 13 June 2021

i bet those plymouth 440s with appropriate gears would have made a great hi-way pursuit vehicle. 

larry, that "click-bang" description seems very accurate and something that many of us have experienced before. i had bought some old wartime turk mauser ammo and had 2-3 out of 5 shots go click-bang. even with good primer contact. i upgraded my firing pin spring to a 25# and ignition was much more reliable. hard primers? old powder? dont know for sure. but, i always looked for a new bullet hole in the target before sending another down range. best regards

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 13 June 2021

Larry, since you addressed me by name, I shall answer in kind. It isn't a personal attack either and I did not insinuate that you were trying to con me out of a rifle at all. That you had this data POSTED at another site and did not mention it here all the while challenging us to send you a rifle and you will prove what you say. That is where the BS is. You could have just said look over at such and such and I have that posted but you didn’t come forward until it was found out and revealed. I still believe that you are a smart guy but you try to razzle-dazzle everyone with long winded dissertations about how you would do something and then switch the subject or ignore questions as it suits you. People on this forum are smart too. Smart enough to keep asking questions and looking for real answers. If Einstein had not questioned over two hundred years of the supremacy of Newtons Laws, we would never have gotten the general theory of relativity.

Once again it all seems to have changed with the revelation that 100% loads could cause an SEE. This flies in the face of all that was true and figured out long ago. Obviously, something is happening in all of this and your explanation is certainly possible but where is the proof?

Here's my ride, Squid Boy

 

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 13 June 2021

Squid Boy that is a pretty cool ride for sure. Could we say your cylinders are getting 100% full charge with that super charger on it? My forte was quarter mile drag racing and illegal street racing. 

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 13 June 2021

All I'm looking for is a wooden stake and a silver bullet to close this thread out. 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • John Carlson
John Alexander posted this 13 June 2021

I thnk Ric is right.  I can't see that we are really getting anywhere  with the SEE discussion. We seem to got to the bicckering stage. If some want to have a discussion about  hot rods please start one.  I don't intend to delete this thread unless the discussion continues. Can we just let it drop.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Squid Boy
  • RicinYakima
John Alexander posted this 14 June 2021

I guess I didn't state my thoughts clearly enough in the last post.

I think this thread has degenerated into bickering and complaining about  each other, with occasional car pictures but little or no progress.

All future posts will be deleted.

John

Attached Files

Topic Is Locked

Categories
Search
Popular Tags
This Weeks High Earners
Hot Topics
Close