Wouldn't want to be holding that.

Wouldnt want to be holding that. And you wonder why eye protection is so important. I had my neighbors .45acp rifle blow up near my face. He was standing about 4feet away, and i was watching, next thing i know BOOM!!! Part of the grip smacked me in the forehead. Everyone was ok, but i wasent wearing eye protection that day, i realized how lucky i got, and now i ALWAYS wear eye protection of some sort.
 
Thanks, Fullboar. I was looking for that video, the other day, after I had posted on that Springfield vs MDL 700 thread. I was argueing against the strength of the 700.
 
Some actual information instead of the stupid music would have been nice.

Were they all the same chambering? What was the load? Was it the same for all rifles?

You can't even ask, because clown-boy disabled comments.
 
Almost certainly a barrel obstruction, almost nothing else can cause this particular mode of failure.
A severe overload tends to blow up the other end of the rifle.
 
Being a retired metallurgist and knowing that these guns are all made from similar steel grades (Euro, Japanese and US steel chemistrys are similar but have different steel "names") and all having similar hardnesses (usually HRC 32-40 range) I believe the difference would be that some barrels were plugged tighter then others. If all barrels were plugged tight they all would blow apart. If you look at the ones that don't it appears the barrel blockage is knocked out of the end of the barrel when fired (recoil similar to shooting on the bench). One other thing that could affect the test is that the Remington and Browning could have had lightweight (thinner walled) barrels then the others.
 
If you are careful, on the ones that don't blow, you will see a bump form about 8 inches forward of chamber.

One of the things that seem themost odd to me is that we had absolutely catastrophic failure in two rifles, and the rest just bulged. That isn't right. Something odd there.

I also noted that there was no leakage at breach on any of them, and that doesn't seem right at all.

None of this seems quite in keeping with my expectations.

I do believe that those ruptures are probably real, as they did split along rifling lines, it appears.
 
The second rupture video is kind of unusual. It did split along rfling lines it looks like, but then just went down metal lines. You can see just a bit of spiraling. The thing ruptured right at the muzzle, no question; a rupture back of the muzzle would have left the barrel splitting forward and backward of the break, and created a hook type shape. What caused that one? almost had to have been ice or dirt jammed a few inches into the barrel.


Somewhere on line there is a rifle that blew because the guy left his boresighter spud in the barrel. That is a spectacular banana peel.
 
warbirdlover said:
Being a retired metallurgist and knowing that these guns are all made from similar steel grades (Euro, Japanese and US steel chemistrys are similar but have different steel "names") and all having similar hardnesses (usually HRC 32-40 range) I believe the difference would be that some barrels were plugged tighter then others. If all barrels were plugged tight they all would blow apart. If you look at the ones that don't it appears the barrel blockage is knocked out of the end of the barrel when fired (recoil similar to shooting on the bench). One other thing that could affect the test is that the Remington and Browning could have had lightweight (thinner walled) barrels then the others.
Click to expand...


You will find that 99% of european gun makers use hammer forged barrels so yes even though the barrels are pretty much made with the same steel the hammer forging make the barrels alot stronger compared to button or cut rifling ect. Now would that make them less likely to blow to bits I dont know?
 
So does remington. Hammer forged for decades. I don't think that has been changed.

The failures were so utterly catastrophic for the "american" rifles, and the others barely registered. I don't understand.

As I said, without a full and detailed explanation of the testing, without detailed explanation of the results, I'm screaming BS!!!! at the top of my lungs. For the love of god, it was on yootoob with heavy metal background noise. The initial source went back to something that may have been a french version of consumer reports magazine.

Whether or not that was legitimate and accurate research, and it was accurately represented, IT IS OUR DUTY, AS THINKING INDIVIDUALS, to totally reject that information until it is better verified.

in truth, that could easily have been a test that subjected various rifles to graduated levels of blockage until catastrophic failure. the weapons that survived may have had a dead fly stuck in the barrel as the first level of blockage. the weapons that catastrophically failed may have beenat the last level of testing, jammed with an ounce of pentolite or C4. We do not know, we can't trust data that is fed to us without information of origin.
 
You will find that 99% of european gun makers use hammer forged barrels so yes even though the barrels are pretty much made with the same steel the hammer forging make the barrels alot stronger compared to button or cut rifling ect. Now would that make them less likely to blow to bits I dont know?
Click to expand...

So does remington. Hammer forged for decades. I don't think that has been changed.
Click to expand...

I was just going to say that Remngton and Browning both use hammer forged barrels from what I could find on the web. Not many cut the rifling anymore as it's more expensive. Savage uses button rifled barrels. The hammer forging WILL definitely put compressive stress in the surface of the barrel which DOES make them somewhat stronger. We used to shot peen the contact surfaces of our heavy duty transmission gears to increase the life. Metal Improvement company website has all the data on that. I also did a study on it with a lab, Metal Improvement co. that has been published and it's a fact.

http://hts.asminternational.org/por...toid=e94fdaacee988110VgnVCM100000701e010aRCRD

http://papers.sae.org/2002-01-1406/

This is why (to me) the two failures make no sense.
 
I agree, I don't think that any maker cuts or broaches rifling anymore. Several reasons, but mostly because of economics.

A barrel is drilled, reamed, and polished, and once the inner surface is "flawless" the carbide button is forced through. as was said, this compresses and hardens the steel somewhat, and provides a smoother surface on the first run than a cut rifled barrel will have. No need for further work.

A hammer forged barrel is, from what I understand, about the same cost as a button rifled barrel, once you get past the initial investment for a forge. They work the same way. A barrel is drilled, reamed, polished, and then a mandrel is loaded into the bore. The blank is run through a forge and the steel is shaped by the mandrel. In most cases, the barrel blank is then turned down after rfling. Cryogenic treatment of stainless is being used sometimes, and that helps to refine the crystal structure and relieve stresses.

I'm not sure what it means, but the range of failure is part of what bothers me. it goes all the way from complete failure, to a handful that show obvious minor ruptures, to simple bulges. I'm still not sure what could cause a tiny blooper like you see in the howa, yet blow the American barrels wide open. You still should have seen venting at the breech; there is no way in the world that 10 mm inch thick steel would have blown out or at least bulged, without a primer pocket blowing completely out.
 
What are your thoughts on the burst primer? I've never heard of an obstructed bore back near the chamber not blowing out the primer as well. All but two rifles, IIRC, actually ruptured to the point of gas leakage at the point of obstruction, about 8 inches forward, as far as I could tell.

At that location, the pressure is just beginning to drop from the top of the curve, and since the charge is in full ignition and fully confined, the pressure will immediately jump to astronomical, and nearly all of that powder charge should still be in the chamber, exerting force on the brass base.

it's conceivable, at least to me, that just changing from one factory load/powder type to another could have been the deciding factor on which barrels failed and which ones didn't.

I'm not a metallurgist or engineer, but these are things that are nagging at me.

Once again, I'm gonna whack that horse. The things seem fishy to me.
 
You're right about the primers. We need to see pics of all the cases extracted after firing for more info. And that might not answer any questions.
 
OH god don't let MSNBC see this. It will be Killer Remington Rifles not as strong as other rifles. They will blow up and kill you when they go off by accident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top