Check Your Sources

[Thane_Of_Fife]

Greetings All,
 
                I'm posting this thread as a warning to everyone out there to always be aware of your sources of loading data.  In my opinion, utilization of such sources as seemingly legitimate on-line data centers, (Hodgdon.com in my case), should not even be taken with a grain of salt...don't take it at all.  If a load isn't in either a Lyman, Hornady, Lee, or other PRINTED book, DO NOT USE IT!!! AS I FOUND OUT THE HARD WAY, USING SUCH DATA WILL JEOPARDIZE YOURSELF, THOSE AROUND YOU, AND YOUR FIREARM!!!!
               When I decided to buy dies and load for my Thompson Contender .44 Rem Magnum I first looked in my Lyman manual under the appropriate section.  An elderly gentleman working at my local gun shop told me that 7.0gr of Titegroup with a 250gr Roundnose Flat Point cast had been his standby load for 44mag for years.  He highly recommended loading my 44 mag with Titegroup and grabbed me a keg.  At the time, I was unable to find a source of 250gr RNFP cast but another nearby shop had 240gr Hornady Lead SWC bullets.  Not seeing any load data for Titegroup in the Lyman 49 Thompson Contender section, I looked online at Hodgdon's online reloading center for data.  The suggested starting grains of Titegroup in a 44 mag with a 240gr Hornady LSWC is 4.7gr with a "Do not exceed grain of 10.0.  Thus, 7.0 landed right in the middle and sounded good.
             Once I got setup and began loading these rounds, I couldn't help but notice that 7gr of Titegroup did not take up much volume of that case which immediately worried me of a potential detonation.  Considering that I came upon this data from not one but two sources, I foolishly reassured myself that this load should be fine but I probably shouldn't load more than 50.
             I pride myself in being an extremely anal loader.  I literally weigh out each and every charge on an RCBS 5-0-2 balance which I re-zero every 15-20rounds and recalibrate with Lyman calibration weights once a month.  My shooting method is not benefited by loading 100 or more decent rounds per hour; rather, I thoroughly enjoy loading only 40-50 perfect rounds per hour.  Reloading, to me, is a science and I am a studying and part-time practicing chemist.  What I take even more seriously than reloading is safety in my lab, my garage when reloading, and on the range; (I owe my range safety to my stint in the USMC).  Because of my dedication to safety, I am writing this very thorough and descriptive warning to all of you.
             As I sat on the range with my friend who taught me all about reloading, I went through my 44 loads trying to sight my T/C in at 25yds.  I fired 23 rounds but on the 24th, the gun erupted in a violent explosion which tore the top of the barrel wide open whereby it now bears a large "V" shape.  My friend was hit by a fragment of a lock washer which used to hold the windage adjustment screw in place; this schrapnel managed to pierce the outter layer of skin on his forehead.  Immediately after this all happened, I looked at my friend and quickly became overcome with a feeling that this was simply some kind of day dream and my T/C is just sitting on the bench perfectly in tact...this, however, was not the case, this disaster actually unfolded to this disbelief of the both of us at the range.  It is alone by the grace of God that this easily-removed piece of schrapnel stuck in my friend's forehead was the only injury suffered by either of us.
                  Our review of the event concluded that I simply got lucky with the 23 rounds and coincedentally tilted the barrel high enough that the powder was completely covering the primer but on the 24th, this was not the case.  For those who don't know, a primer MUST BE COMPLETELY COVERED IN POWDER WHEN THE FIREARM IS SITTING LEVEL.  If the primer is not covered by powder, than a detonation will occur where virtually all of the powder is simultaneously ignited in an unfathomable burst of pressure the likes of which cannot be handled by any firearm.  If the primer is covered, the powder charge is ignited from the back to the front in a controlled fashion which maintains the pressure and ensures safety.
                  A later review of my Lyman 49 revealed to me that Titegroup was indeed recorded as a load for 44 mag in the rifle section and handgun section with a suggested starting grains of 9.0...a whopping 4.3 grains more than the recommendation by Hodgdon.com.  Curiously, there was no data for either a 240gr. LSWC or Titegroup in the Lyman 49 Thompson Contender data tables...having only checked for 44mag loads in the T/C section, I saw no titegroup and thus resorted to the two other aforementioned sources.
                In hindsight, this experience made vividly evident to me the unfathomable power of God's protective hand and simultaneously, the tremendous power of these explosives in which we all bide so much of our precious time.  Inasmuch as these powers were made evident to me, so too was the inherent danger of negligently prepared and recorded data.
                It is my utmost prayer that this message will be read by at least one person who is considering trying an experimental load, or has just began the hobby and is wondering about where he/she should find data.  Furthermore, I wish to stress that you should never load a round based on on-line data.  The day after your $400 firearm detonated, all the data you relied upon can be changed in a simple keystroke.
 
I hope you all gained a better understanding of the seriousness of our sport.  Please exercise sincere safety in all that you do both on and off the range.
 
Rest in peace Thompson/Contender
 
JD

[Bigeasy]

I am going to go out on a limb here, and say there is more to this story then meets the eye.  I am by no means a powder chemist, but I do know it is NOT unsafe to fire a round where the powder is not completely covering the primer while the gun is in the firing position.  Many, if not most revolver and pistol cartridges are in this state when using fast powders like Bullseye, 231, Red Dot, etc.
 
Frankly, a violent explosion of a gun as strong as a Contender indicates an extreme overload, not a light powder charge in the wrong position in the case.  From time to time, there has been the "detonation theory" talked about, usually based on a large case with a small amount of powder, but I have seen no concrete evidence of it when using appropriate powder for the cartridge.  Most violent failures are traced back to overloads, totally wrong powder for the cartridge (like trying to load 60 grains of bullseye in a 30-06), or an obstructed bore.  It has always been my experience, and that of most, that a basically proper powder used in a large case at slightly less then reccomended starting load weights will at worst give erratic consistency, but no sudden, immense release of uncontrolled energy that would blow up a modern gun, in part to the fact that all modern powders contain coatings that allow for controlled burn rates, not detonation like certian explosives or black powder can.  Just my opinion, anyway...
 
Larry

[cwlongshot]

Larry is correct, loaders on both sides of this fence reside here...
 
I also have seen this happen first hand. The end result was it tore apart a very nice S&W revolver... BUT I have also seen, IN MY HAND a 44Mag S&W barrel with 5 BULLETS IN THE BARREL! SO its a good strong design and will take an increadible amont of pressure.
 
The detonation argument isn't gonna be settled in this post either.... unfortunately.
 
I am in absolute agreement and DO NOT NEED PROOF. I mean WHY chance it?!?!?  If simply loading powder to more the 50% powder density solves the problem... Weather that problem be detonation or simply physics, where the volume in the case, eliminates the possibility of double to triple charging WHY NOT DO IT? ?
 
MORE IMPORTANTLY, Just use this post as a wake up call to be careful loading!!
 
Welcome and I am very Glad to read you and your buddie OK T of F!!!
 
CW

[yooper77]

Double charge comes too mind for me.
 
I am glad everyone wasn't seriously hurt, but mistakes can and do happen.
 
yooper77

[SHOOTALL]

Double charge comes too mind for me.
 
I am glad everyone wasn't seriously hurt, but mistakes can and do happen.
 
yooper77

I agree . The load would not be in print in a reputable manual if that was a possiblity .

[Mikey]

What immediately comes to mind for me is not a accidental double charge but just exactly what Thane was talking about - the powder not covering the primer upon detonation. 
 
I have seen a couple of beautiful S&W M14s/M15s with the top strap gone and the top half of the cylinder missing due to the small powder charges used in 38 spls in bullseye shooting.  This occurs when, as Thane said, the powder does not cover the primer and you actually get a double detonation.  I am quite leery of using the fastest burning powders that call for the lowest charges as I am sure I am looking for a accident to happen.  jmtcw.

[SHOOTALL]

I have read that the powder does not contain enough oxygen to detionate unless an out side source is aval. like when it exits the bbl at which point it would no longer be a hazzard. A double charge would put him at 14 gr. 4 gr over max.

[fastchicken]

So any load not at 100% density shot straight down will detonate because no powder is covering the primer? Really? Don't know why OP's gun blew up but powder not covering the primer has got to be at the bottom of the list, if a reason at all.

 If simply loading powder to more the 50% powder density solves the problem...
 
CW

How's that going to solve the "problem"? Even at 90%, held straight down there is no powder covering the primer. You can take most any factory load and do the "shake test" and see some are lucky to be at 50%. If powder not covering the primer were a cause of guns blowing up, no one would ever load anything but 100%+ loads. And you could bet on a warning label on all factory ammo, "Caution do not use in tree stand, will blow up"

[Smokin Joe]

For those who don't know, a primer MUST BE COMPLETELY COVERED IN POWDER WHEN THE FIREARM IS SITTING LEVEL.  If the primer is not covered by powder, than a detonation will occur where virtually all of the powder is simultaneously ignited in an unfathomable burst of pressure the likes of which cannot be handled by any firearm.  If the primer is covered, the powder charge is ignited from the back to the front in a controlled fashion which maintains the pressure and ensures safety.

[Lloyd Smale]

got to agree with the others. Tite group is a powder thats made for low density loading. If anything its one of the powders least effected by where it happens to be in a case when it goes off. Even the most carefull loader can get sidetracked and double charge a case. Ive done it myself. Luckily without the major explosion you had but i did bulge the cylinder of a ruger montado. I really find it hard to believe that detonation was your problem.

[cwlongshot]

 If simply loading powder to more the 50% powder density solves the problem...
 
CW

How's that going to solve the "problem"? Even at 90%, held straight down there is no powder covering the primer. You can take most any factory load and do the "shake test" and see some are lucky to be at 50%. If powder not covering the primer were a cause of guns blowing up, no one would ever load anything but 100%+ loads. And you could bet on a warning label on all factory ammo, "Caution do not use in tree stand, will blow up"

In reading some of these posts, I think a couple of you guys are a bit misinformed. 

For those fellows more informed, like Lloyd, Big and others please bear with me here. 

OK, just looking at a cases capacity by looking at a empty case isn't that cases actual capacity, as the bullet takes up a size-able portion. Say 15-18%. So when I said 50% (I was of coarse thinking standing up) You need to remember you loose another almost 20% from seating depth and you end up with a pretty full case. One that will easily cover the primer flash hole wen that case is on its side in the chamber.

Any re-loader worth his salt, knows the most consist and and accurate loads are at or over 100% powder density. Don't believe me, look at the loading manuals...

Another point, there is not one single factory loading (that I know of)  that's loaded to less than 75% powder density. Oh sure you can hear the powder move, that's because it's less than 100%. Load up some with just a splash of powder and check to see what it sounds like foe yourself. You will see I am correct. The factory knows how to properly load a bullet and NONE of them load tiny amounts of fast burning powder in large cases, period!

Detonation is widely misunderstood phenomenon, so it's no surprise we bicker about it every time its brought up. Now let me be clear, I do not proclaim to be an expert. But what I do know is every time it's claimed to have happened, it involved large cases and tiny amounts of fast powder. Any one with a bit of common sense would avoid this combination. Simply because its a possibility tiny amounts of fast powder in large cases, have caused problems for others.

One comment that was made was about oxygen. Here is something to ponder.  What if when the primer pops, it has enough "juice" to move the bullet in the case. (Common with some loadings) Maybe even outta the case. There is your increased cap AND your additional oxygen.

As I said, I do not claim to be an expert. But I have seen this happen and (I feel it was detonation) some would say double chg. and it's possible, but I have seen and done dbl charges and usually it's a wasted case, super flat primer or completely blown primer, smoke at the breech and buku recoil. In my experience, NOT destroyed firearms. Destroying a quality firearm today, takes huge pressure spikes. The kind of pressure associated with detonation. Based on these experiences, I am confident in my thinking of what NOT to do.

I simply comment here because I would genuinely hate to hear of some newbie loader follow foolish advice and get hurt because of it.

CW

[SHOOTALL]

I agree in many cases a full case is better but then the first powder Bullseye blows a hole in the idea "all" cases do better full........

[DEACONLLB]

One other thing that may have happened and this is just a guess on my part and I am no expert but could you have gotten a bullet that was not sized properly, things like this can and do happen and when belling the case mouth it would have been easy to put in an oversize bullet and this could cause the excess preasure or the box could have been tampered with on the dealer shelf. Years ago when I worked in a sporting goods store we sold a customer a box of speer bullets and he went home and with nothing to do started checking bullet weight of each bullet and only eight weighed what they were suppost to be, in this case it was a factory sealed box, so just tossing out something to think on. I do know that I shoot lots of reduced loads and in one case a 7MM Rem mag and there is a lot of case left to fill and I have shot them down from a tree stand and flat on a bench rest and they always go off. I also know that you can get info from reloading books that are not correct just as you have said case in point I got a new Encore barrel in 7x57 and loaded the shells by the book and I also check each case for ocl and using the book measurments they would not chamber because they were too long, later found that the length was for the old 7mm mouser army rifles so having said this and this is just a guess but like others have said double charge or as I said a oversize bullet (ie) factory defect or workman not paying attention or quality control. All of us are just guessing and trying to help figure out what happened so that just my opinion.
 
Deaconllb

[Blackhawker]

As CW has already pointed out, a "half full case" does not mean the case total volume.  What is meant here or being referred to here is half of the remaining volume of the case AFTER a bullet has been seated.  With the situation of shooting downward, as suggested by fastchicken when mentioning shooting from a tree stand; if the powder is bunched up in the front of the case, the powder is still ignited from back to front of the charge as in a full case of powder.  The powder burns as it progresses from back of the charge to front and is allowed to burn slowly or rapidly as it has been formulated to do by the manufacturer.  I believe the detonation theory is based on a powder charge laying flat across a large volume case and the level of powder is just below the flash hole level.  In this situation, the powder has a greater surface area exposed and more powder burns or "flash burns" from the ignition of the primer all at one time.  Such a burn will probably spike pressures much higher than when igniting the smaller surface area of a load pushed against the flash hole.... in theory.  This is more than likely the reason why for many years people used (use....I still do) wads in large case volume cases such as the 45-70.  I would imagine that when "flash burning" a large surface area of powder, one would get a fast flash much like the way black powder burns. 
As for the lack of oxygen theory; again, as CW has pointed out, once the bullet leaves the mouth of the case OR once the case slightly splits from a high spike of pressure, there is plenty of oxygen available to do the rest.  However, keep in mind that this is probably happening in a microsecond or micro-fraction of time by comparison to a normal powder burn when launching a bullet from a case, hence the reason for the high pressure spike which is probably enough to bulge or break a barrel or worse.

In the case of a double charge, I think a double charge (OP's charge of 7 grains) is only 2 grains higher than the max load listed in the Lyman manual.  (Not absolutely certain on that, have to go check the Lyman manual)  If so, I don't think 2 grains or a 16% increase over max is enough to blow a gun up.  John Linebaugh suggests that Ruger cylinders don't bulge or break until under roughly 80,000 CUP, which is double the recommended load pressure of a max 44 mag load.  I would think that T/C's are probably over-built nearly as much or equally as much as the Rugers. 

At this point, no one will ever know what is the cause of Thane's unfortunate accident because what was loaded is now "dust in the wind".  All we can do now is use caution when loading!!!  All of the points and arguments made here are food for thought to all of us as shooters and reloaders.

[Blackhawker]

I just checked my 49th Lyman manual and the max load for Titegroup is 10 grains.  If Thane actually doubled charged a round, this would have been 4 grains over max at a 40% overload.  Ironically, the data shown in the Lyman manual shows Titegroup to have the highest pressures of all powders listed at 39,300 CUP.  Perhaps a double charge of 40% may have been enough to blow a barrel.    I would expect that as nearing a max load, pressure grows exponentially to charge weight.
 
What really burns me up the most about this whole thing is that an "apprentice loader" was given advice by a "so called" experienced loader at a gun shop stating, "I've been loading for a bazillion years and tada, tada, tada....".  We all and have heard these types so I don't have to go on here.
 
On the level.....I'm the one that was wearing that lock washer in my forehead.  I was the one there that saw this happen and I am the one who has been advising Thane on his loading.  I've been kicking myself ever since the day Thane told me about the guy behind the counter advising him to use Titegroup as his powder of choice for the .44 mag.  On the day he told me that I wanted to tell him to take it back and buy a more traditional powder for magnum revolver loads such as Unique, 2400, 296, H-110, or IMR-4227 but I didn't!  I let some guy who boasted about his years of experience (and lack of care of anyone else's safety and well-being) weigh over my better judgment. 
 
For many years I was a falconer.  Upon gaining a license for falconry, one has to jump through many hoops and one of the hoops is to be an official apprentice.  That is to study under an experienced falconer for two years minimum.  This is required by Federal law.  The reason I'm kicking myself is because I was a "bad" advisor or sponsor to Thame.  I should have told him to take that bottle of powder back and buy what I thought was right but I didn't since I don't personally load the .44 magnum and thought someone else with experience in that caliber probably gave him better advice.  I should have known better.
 
What I have to conclude here is that as advanced or experienced loaders, we must NOT try to give advice to new loaders in a manner of boasting etc. as the guy in the gun shop did.  I'd like to kick that guy good and hard for giving advice on a load to a new loader as opposed to offering him a load manual!  I also think it's important to mentor new loaders to the point where it's nearly your responsibility.  If you don't want to take responsibility, then don't offer or give the advice.  Because I didn't take responsibility for Thane's .44 mag loads as I have been with all the other loads he has worked on and actually advise him to take the powder back and use a different powder, it nearly cost me an eye or worse, him his hands or worse and it definitely cost him a nice Thompson Contender set up.  I'm gonna kick myself for this for years and I know I'll never forget it.  This experience has literally made me want to quit loading and shooting altogether.  You don't want to be here, believe me!

[BruceP]

Thane. While I'm not doubting your loading practices or even the theory of detonation, I do have to wonder if something else could be the problem. I do not have a lot of data on Tightgroup but Hodgdon's #27 Data Manual lists the same data as you you quote from their website. Also the only thing I have loaded with Tightgroup is 6.1 grains in the 45 Colt with a 240 grain cast bullet. With this being a larger case and therefore having more volume than the 44 mag. you would think if the 44 mag data was incorrect that ooking at the 45 Colt data would show this. I know the 44 mag has higher max. pressures but the issue is detonation due to too small a charge not over charging. For the 45 Colt the manual lists 5.8 - 6.5 gr. for a 230 gr. cast bullet and 5.5 - 6.2 gr. for a 250 gr. cast bullet so my load should be right in the ballpark for my 240 gr. I have not fired a lot of these and maybe I have just been lucky but the data all seems to be consistant. I do not have any other manuals that list Tightgroup as most either per-date the powder and or just do not list it.

Bruce

[bigvarmnt]

Thanks for posting this as i just bought a pound of Titegroup Sunday. I will be sure to double check my info.
 
A few years back I bought several hundred loaded 10mm rounds at a gun show from a reputable source. Shot just shy of half of them and one went off different. Colt Delta Elite was locked up and my face was bloody. Lucky I was at an indoor range with safety glasses on. My cousin was in town a week or so earlier and we let off a couple rounds in my back yard, without eye protection. Learned it only takes ONE
 
I've never used Titegroup before but am going to look at some data
RIGHT NOW. Glad you guys were not hurt.

[av-doctor]

I will not try to guess what happened, we will never know. its one isolated incident with this combo primer,case,powder,charge weight,firearm,weather,etc. way too many variables.
   Thane, this is the best i can offer you. you ignored your instincts  next time double,triple,quadruple check yourself if you feel something is off.
   

[McDerry]

4.7 gr start 10.0 grain max.  240 lead bullet.  Titegroup.
 
Hodgdons Website
 
Hodgdons Manual
 
Lee's Manual (page 648)
 
All the same load.
 
The 9.0 grs start load is listed for a JHP bullet in all three locations. 
 
 
 
4.7 grs is 11,100 Cup
 
6.2 grs is 18,400 cup (Cowboy load listing in hodgdons manual)
 
10.0 grs max is 38,400 cup. 
 
Thats a hell of a pressure curve. 
 
Physically 19 so grains of titegroup will fit inside a .44 Mag case with the bullet seated no problem.    I'd be more afraid of quadruple charging the starting load then of detonation. 
 
 
 

[SHOOTALL]

I will not try to guess what happened, we will never know. its one isolated incident with this combo primer,case,powder,charge weight.
 
True to the load but not the event. I have seen several over loads blow up a gun and can think of more stories about same. There is a Colt SSA on the wall in a gun shop near here that had the cyl. blown apart from a double load of Bullseye.
 simple solution , with cases you can see in , look to see if all fill the case to the same point. With harder to see in cases use a dowel rod and mesure depth.
NUFF SAID

[fastchicken]

[quote author=cwlongshot link=topic=245967.msg1099421345#msg1099421345 date=1322592356

In reading some of these posts, I think a couple of you guys are a bit misinformed. 

For those fellows more informed, like Lloyd, Big and others please bear with me here. 

OK, just looking at a cases capacity by looking at a empty case isn't that cases actual capacity, as the bullet takes up a size-able portion. Say 15-18%. So when I said 50% (I was of coarse thinking standing up) You need to remember you loose another almost 20% from seating depth and you end up with a pretty full case. One that will easily cover the primer flash hole wen that case is on its side in the chamber.

Any re-loader worth his salt, knows the most consist and and accurate loads are at or over 100% powder density. Don't believe me, look at the loading manuals...
CW

 
Thank you for telling everyone the difference in case capacity and load density, yes I know they are different, although I didn't specifically mention I knew the difference.
  No one is doubting your knowledge that the most consistent and accurate loads are at or over 100% density, I know that as well and agree with you, so I guess I'm "worth my salt", however, no one was even talking about the load being accurate, just blowing up.

Like you said, factory loads still have some space in them, which can cause a situation where there is no powder covering the primer, but they don't blow up. I don't need to load some up with a "splash of powder" as you suggested [why would you suggest I do something you know will hurt someone?]. Again, no one said anything about a "splash of powder" except you. I was only saying that even factory loads have "some space" left in them. How about you take a factory load with "some space", and in a safe manner, shoot it straight down [no powder covering the primer] and you will see that I am correct, just having the primer uncovered will not cause your load to detonate, but than again, I may not be worth my salt. Now you'll probably ask why would anyone shoot straight down, but maybe I like shooting myself in the foot.
 
  The statement that an uncovered primer alone will cause detonation is just not true. Could it be a contributing factor, I guess, but I find it hard to believe a guy can shoot 23 rounds and then the 24th blows up. Sound as simple as there was something different with the 24th round, and I don't mean just the position the gun was held.  It sounded like the OP was shooting off a rest, I don't know about you guys and I've only shot several thousand rounds, but when shooting off a rest my gun doesn't change position enough to have the powder lay different, I would have to be pointing it at the ground.
 
  And as far as detonation being caused by the charge laying flat in the case and not being ignited back to front, my reduced loads, as made from Hodgdon info, have not blown up and they all lay flat and don't cover the primer. Now, using the wrong powder and given those condition, yes I can understand how a load would detonate, but the uncovered primer is only one factor. I think if there were any chance of a load detonating, you would never find any published data on it.

[yooper77]

Do you have pictures of the destroyed barrel?
 
yooper77

[Old Syko]

Anyone who has ever read the how to section of a load manual knows that at best inferior ammo can be assembled by using fast powders in cases too large to allow for a high percentage of case capacity to be incorporated.  Stick to the basics for assembling superior ammo and the detonation theory becomes a moot point.


Any way you look at it this is a case where an individuals attempt to manufacture inferior ammo was highly successful no matter the reason.

[Blackhawker]

I have pics but I won't post them without Thane's consent.  It's up to him.

It's not just the barrel that was destroyed, the frame spread open as well.  We could not separate the barrel from the frame or unlock the action.  The barrel opened up from the back forward, up to roughly and inch or two in front of the case chamber.  The brass was laying in the chamber spread wide open yet in place.  The explosion was directed directly upward.  There were three cut openings above the shooter in the corrugated steel roof above him which looked as if the rear sight or other parts went through the shelter roof.  A part of the rear sight was found about five to ten yards in front of the firing line.  The front sight, which was welded on as in older T/C barrels, was found roughly 10 ft behind the shooter yet within the shelter.

It's a gosh darn mess and something no one wants to ever see and definitely not experience! 

Do you have pictures of the destroyed barrel?
 
yooper77

[BruceP]

In my first reply I failed to mention the most important thing. No matter what the cause I'm glad no one was badly injured.

Bruce

[Blackhawker]

Thank you and to all who have offered the same.

In my first reply I failed to mention the most important thing. No matter what the cause I'm glad no one was badly injured.

Bruce

[huntswithdogs]

Thane and Blackhawker
Glad neither of you were hurt badly in this. I don't know if any of ya watched Guns and Ammo on the outdoor channel but they had on or two Encores that they purposely overloaded and pull the triggers on. They did it remotely of course but watching those things come unglued at the seams was bad enough on the TV let alone being directly behind or to one side of it. The man upstairs was watching over ya'll closely that day!

HWD   

[cwlongshot]

Thank you for telling everyone the difference in case capacity and load density, yes I know they are different, although I didn't specifically mention I knew the difference.
  No one is doubting your knowledge that the most consistent and accurate loads are at or over 100% density, I know that as well and agree with you, so I guess I'm "worth my salt", however, no one was even talking about the load being accurate, just blowing up.

Like you said, factory loads still have some space in them, which can cause a situation where there is no powder covering the primer, but they don't blow up. I don't need to load some up with a "splash of powder" as you suggested [why would you suggest I do something you know will hurt someone?]. Again, no one said anything about a "splash of powder" except you. I was only saying that even factory loads have "some space" left in them. How about you take a factory load with "some space", and in a safe manner, shoot it straight down [no powder covering the primer] and you will see that I am correct, just having the primer uncovered will not cause your load to detonate, but than again, I may not be worth my salt. Now you'll probably ask why would anyone shoot straight down, but maybe I like shooting myself in the foot.
 
  The statement that an uncovered primer alone will cause detonation is just not true. Could it be a contributing factor, I guess, but I find it hard to believe a guy can shoot 23 rounds and then the 24th blows up. Sound as simple as there was something different with the 24th round, and I don't mean just the position the gun was held.  It sounded like the OP was shooting off a rest, I don't know about you guys and I've only shot several thousand rounds, but when shooting off a rest my gun doesn't change position enough to have the powder lay different, I would have to be pointing it at the ground.
 
  And as far as detonation being caused by the charge laying flat in the case and not being ignited back to front, my reduced loads, as made from Hodgdon info, have not blown up and they all lay flat and don't cover the primer. Now, using the wrong powder and given those condition, yes I can understand how a load would detonate, but the uncovered primer is only one factor. I think if there were any chance of a load detonating, you would never find any published data on it.

Fast Chicken,
 I am going to assume that for some reason my typed word is not coming across with my complete meaning. Cause the other answer is your just stirring the pot...
You have repeatedly stated that factory ammo is loaded with less than a half full case of powder. I again disagree with you. I suggested you see what a "splash of powder" in a case sounds like so you get an idea of what a small amount of powder sounds like. I just pulled a 357, 9mm, 45 and 41 magnum factory loaded ammo. (Its all I had factory loaded) ALL where more or less over 3/4 full of powder.
You also mentioned shooting down hill and that leaving the primer uncovered. Yes you are correct, if there is any powder space in a case and you turn it upside down, the primer will be uncovered.... When is the last time ANYONE reading this shot straight down... As for simply shooting at a downward angle, such as one might if shooting form a tree stand, I again say a case with better than 50% would likely NOT leave the primer uncovered.
 
Having a primer be uncovered is the sole explanation for detonation, I did not say that. I said its a possibility. It's kinda like when you mom told you not to run with scissors, or not to swim too soon after eating... MAYBE it will cause problems, MAYBE not... all I am saying is WHY CHANCE IT?
My whole point in even bringing this up is to show that even the factory knows small amounts of fast burning powder HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DO BAD THINGS. If there is a CHANCE X or Y could BLOW YOU UP, what would you do it?? If you do not believe detonation is even possible, that's your opinion but why argue? Some poor sap may loose his Arm, eyes, face or life proving you wrong. I say its not worth it and why chance it.
NEITHER OF US can say with 100% certainty detonation will or will not happen OR what 100% for certain causes it.
Looking at things my way it absolutely WILL NOT happen and NO ONE IS HURT. Your way...well if your correct no harm, but if your wrong someone will get hurt!
 
CW

[fastchicken]

 
Fast Chicken,
You have repeatedly stated that factory ammo is loaded with less than a half full case of powder. I again disagree with you.
 
CW


 Maybe you should re-read my posts, I stated ONCE that SOME factory loads may me lucky to be at 50% [once, not repeatedly]. However I did repeatedly refer to factory ammo, but again, only once did I say some may not be more than 50%. So maybe it is you who is having trouble understanding my written word. Anyway, as others have said, at least no one got hurt, aside from some feelings .
  Now, I may be wrong on this whole topic [but at least I'm consistent, wrong that is] and from reading cwlongshot's posts on other subjects he obviously has way more experience that I do and I have learned a lot from him and everyone here, but I do take exception to anyone saying I said something I didn't [ or at least saying I repeatedly said something]. I will leave this alone as I have other things to do, like finish butchering deer #5 for the year, who I showed one of my hand loads to tonight
 Maybe I'm becoming another Swampman, OH NO!

[cwlongshot]

Morning,
 No harm no foul, FC! (No punn intended) An intelligent exchange expands everyone's mind and opinions. No one is always correct. As I said, I simply prefer to play it safe with such things that could cause bodily harm.
 
Thank you for the PM, it helped me under stand your POV.
 

 Maybe I'm becoming another Swampman, OH NO!

PERISH the thought!! 
 
Thane_Of_Fife,
 Thank you for posting and my apologies for the digression. Again, as others have said, the most important part is no serious injuries!
 
Merry Christmas all,
CW