Author Topic: Smokeless BlowUp?  (Read 2253 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Longcruise

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • http://www.mikeswillowlake.com
Smokeless BlowUp?
« Reply #30 on: September 07, 2004, 04:55:37 PM »
Quote
Lets stay on track and get away from personal attacks. It will not be tolerated here!


Thanks, I'll happily comply. :-)

Offline supermag 445

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 80
Smokeless BlowUp?
« Reply #31 on: September 07, 2004, 08:33:40 PM »
tucoblue,  In my manual for nj hunting, it states that you cant use smokeless powder only.  No restriction on gun just powder used.  The place I bought it from checked along with me and we both came to the conclusion it was fine.  Law only states no smokeless powder to be used in any muzzleloaders during any season.

Brian
Dan Wesson Rules!!

Offline hkg3k

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Smokeless BlowUp?
« Reply #32 on: September 08, 2004, 08:00:07 AM »
Not a regular in this forum and was just passing thru when this thread caught my eye.  I've read all the posts and links and looked a the pics.  It seems this forum contains at least one jerk, just like all the other forums I frequent. :grin:

I will preface my comments by admitting that I am not a failure analysis engineer.  To me however, the pics of this wrecked Savage say a lot.  That the bbl is bulged like a balloon in front of the cumbustion chamber tells me that EXTREMELY HIGH PRESSURE wrecked this gun.  Pressure way outside of the design envelope of this particular gun.  

I think all the talk regarding the breech plug design, the bbl wall thickness at the "snout" of the breechplug, and that gas can reach between the "snout" and the bbl are meaningless to this particular, singular event.  Had the bbl failed there, it would have peeled forward like a bannana, and I don't believe you would find the bulging forward of the combustion chamber.

High Pressure is what the caused the bbl to bulge and split......same as putting too much pressure in any containment vessel.  It will stretch to its failing point and then burst.  The apex of the bulge is most likely where the bbl cracked first.......thus wrecking the scope in the manner in which it did.  

What caused the high pressure?  Could be any of several things:
    overcharge, undercharge, double projectile, double sub base  
It could even be related the to use of powder / vent hole design, but I kinda doubt that as much as Savage had tested it.  It could be any of the above, but in Savage's response they mention Toby's layering of powders.  Savage does not say which powders, and I don't know if Toby documented such for the WWW to see.  I do agree with Savage in that doing such would be both inconsistant and "unsafe."

I guess what I'm trying to say is the wrecked Savage appears not to be the gun's fault.  Looks like someone made a mistake, got careless OR got  cute by playing around and mixing powders.

Great forum, thanks for letting me participate.
hkg3k.........machineguns, my other addiction.

Offline DannoBoone

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
  • Gender: Male
Savage Barrel Failure
« Reply #33 on: September 08, 2004, 04:23:54 PM »
"What caused the high pressure? Could be any of several things:
overcharge, undercharge, double projectile, double sub base
It could even be related the to use of powder / vent hole design, but I kinda doubt that as much as Savage had tested it. It could be any of the above, but in Savage's response they mention Toby's layering of powders. Savage does not say which powders, and I don't know if Toby documented such for the WWW to see. I do agree with Savage in that doing such would be both inconsistant and "unsafe.""

I personally was not there. Toby says that several Missouri DNR officers
were there, witnessed what he was doing, and witnessed the event. He
had been increasing loads with AA 5744 using the 3-hole vent liner. (The
officers couldn't see the vent liner prior to the event, but could easily see
the vent liner AFTER the event.) After shooting a group using 48gr, he
increased the load to 49gr -- the barrel failed on the first shot of the
increased load. This in no way constitutes layering (duplexing) of
powders.  hkg3k, I do not know where you read Savage's response to
this event, but they clearly stated that they believed it was due to 1) a
fatigued barrel (excess of 7500 rounds), 2) a worn out vent liner (even
though it looks pretty new to me in one of the photos), and 3) the
double-based nitro powder possibly detonating because of the condition
of the vent liner.
We need to change our politicians
like we do dirty diapers.............
for the same reason.

Offline hkg3k

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Smokeless BlowUp?
« Reply #34 on: September 09, 2004, 06:04:32 AM »
I wasn't there either.  Just commenting on what the pictures tell me and what I've read of this matter.

Having others standing around doesn't exactly guarentee they know exactly what you're doing.  To the contrary, others standing around while talking, etc can be a distraction and lead to mistakes.......has happened to me and probably a lot of others here.

My opinion is it could have been any of those things I brought up before, including what I forgot to mention the possibility of not fully seating the projectile.  Common sense reveals in the pics the gun experienced a hugh overpressure.  

It'll most likely never be known what caused the failure.  My OPINION from what I've read and seen is operator error, not the gun's problem.

Just my .02, find below Savage's response:

Savage's Response
Here is Savage's Statement in it's entirety.

STATEMENT CONCERNING RECENT CONTROVERSY REGARDING THE SAVAGE 10MLII AND MR. TOBY BRIDGES


As is often the case in life, there are two sides to every story and things are rarely what they seem, especially when one party is angry and has lost a substantial source of income through his own actions.

Fact:

Since the introduction of the 10ML smokeless technology, Savage Arms has used the contract services of Toby Bridges to test bullets, powders, sabots and primers on their behalf. The intent was to have Toby run concurrent tests with the factory and compare engineering notes. Savage also wanted to insure that new (evolving) technologies received a systematic and documented analysis so Savage could respond to customers and continue to gain more knowledge on the subject.

Fact:

Having sold thousands of 10ML rifles over the last 4 years, Savage is not aware of ONE catastrophic barrel failure (other than Toby’s), not one.

Fact:

Toby is both a very competent shooter and a knowledgeable technician. He is also a pioneer, which by nature, tends to push the boundaries of trial and error in order to arrive at a conclusion and determine the limits of various components, including the firearm steel.

Fact:

Savage knows that Toby ran more than 7,500 rounds through the rifle in question, according to his own admission and Savage knows he was experimenting with various sub bases placed above the powder and before the sabot, in an attempt to contain more pressure so it would not blow past the commercial sabot.

Toby also experimented with layering powders in one load, which Savage considered dangerous and found it necessary to advise him to cease that practice. Savage considers that particular experiment to be unsafe and not in the best interests of the consumer.

Fact:

Savage had NEVER heard about a weak breech plug design, or any other safety related issue before Toby issued his statement--this observation came out of the blue and surprised the heck out of Savage.

Fact:

Toby lost his contract with the smokeless muzzleloader inventor (Henry Ball) for reasons that are not Savage’s business.

Fact:

After losing his employment with Henry, Toby became more aggressive about Savage providing him with greater involvement in the marketing and promotion of the 10ML, to help make up for the income loss. At no time did Toby suggest the 10ML materials, engineering, design or assembly was in any way dangerous or suspect.

Fact:

Toby’s agreement with Savage was terminated because he was unable to follow proper business protocol, was argumentative and on occasion, darn right insulting to management and accounts. While Savage appreciated his skills, they could not tolerate his unsafe test practices, lack of diplomacy and intolerance for input from others.

Fact:

Toby did not advise Savage he considered the barrel/breech plug manufacturing design to be weak, nor did he suggest that when the barrel separated, that it was anything other than progressive stress over thousands of rounds, some that pushed the pressure envelope and did untold successive damage.

Fact:

There is no design problem with the breech plug. Savage’s extensive testing has confirmed the integrity of the breech plug design.

Savage Arms regrets Toby has taken this direction and has chosen to discredit both Henry Ball and Savage, after being such an avid supporter of the smokeless technology for so long. Savage is surprised and disappointed that Toby has turned his frustration on the very technology he helped promote and has not been able to acknowledge his own business and personal failings.

Savage would never compromise their integrity, or offer a product they felt was in any way dangerous when used as intended and recommended by the user manual. Savage has been in business for 109 years, and has earned a reputation for making safe and affordable firearms.

Do not use smokeless powder in any other muzzleloading firearm unless expressly recommended to do so by the manufacturer.
hkg3k.........machineguns, my other addiction.

Offline DannoBoone

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
  • Gender: Male
Smokeless BlowUp?
« Reply #35 on: September 09, 2004, 04:05:55 PM »
They also talked about the vent liner and powder, Randy, and you KNOW
it.
We need to change our politicians
like we do dirty diapers.............
for the same reason.

Offline jh45gun

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4992
Smokeless BlowUp?
« Reply #36 on: September 11, 2004, 08:31:49 PM »
Who knows maybe he got a short start some how. Can happen to even the most expirienced if you do not watch it religiously. I know some folks are going to jump all over this but I thought Savage did muzzleloading a dis-service when they came up with a smokeless muzzle loader. No I am not against inlines I have a NEF Huntsman and am building 2 underhammers while a old design still a inline. One barrel is a fast twist 54 and the other is a 12 guage. My opinion is muzzle loaders should stick with muzzle loading powders and leave the smokeless to regular rifles. This smokeless trend gets started and you will see a lot of regs come into being that we do not need. Just MHO. Jim
Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use it.

Offline crow_feather

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1359
Smokeless BlowUp?
« Reply #37 on: September 12, 2004, 07:09:35 AM »
In all endeavors, envelopes are pushed to determine how far one can go before the inevitable occurs.  Usually warning signs appear prior to the absolute limit.  Sometimes though, no warning signs, such as flattened primers or other signs of excess pressure, appear before catastraphic failure.  For those of us that adhear to the basic rule of staying under the maximum load, muzzle loading rifle failure is far down the list of things that might injure.

For a pioneer in load development, that pushes the envelope in order to determine what is safe for those who use that product, we can only tip our hats and say "Thank you Toby" for risking your live in order to keep us safe.

(What Randy woulda said ifn he were here)

C F
IF THE WORLD DISARMED, WE WOULD BE SPEAKING THE LANGUAGE USED BY THE AGGRESSIVE ALIENS THAT LIVE ON THE THIRD MOON OF JUPITOR.