Contender Blow-Up:

[Duce]

Folks: Watched a program where they tried to purposely blow up a firearm,
they had minimal results. This brought to mind a post either here on GB's or on the old H&R/NEF board that provided a link to another that showed a TC Contender that had blown in a rater dramatic fashion. Does anyone remember this, and can direct me to it? Thanks, Just Curious:  Duce:

[encore3006]

?

[skb2706]

I would be just as cautious of the person who loaded the ammo for the same 'blown up gun". If I recall no one was ever sued over the incident....thus there had to be more to the "blown up gun" than whoever worked on it.

[Lone Star]

If I recall no one was ever sued over the incident....thus there had to be more to the "blown up gun" than whoever worked on it.

I cannot believe this comment.  So the standard now is that if an accident happens we HAVE to sue the guilty party?    More of the Lottery Mentality at work!   :roll:

[encore3006]

?

[Duce]

Thanks Guys: Word To The Wise: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it: Later:  Duce:

[Steve P]

It does not take a rocket scientist to determine exactly where that barrel gave way.  It split dead center down the 6 holes drilled for scope mounting.  Per the article, the person purchased the barrel at a gun show and then fired 37 rounds before the barrel gave way on the 38th.

Brings a few questions to mind:

How many shots did the prior owner shoot in it?  Factory or hand loads?
Did this initiate the fatigue along the row of drilled holes?

Who installed the scope and were the screws fit to tighten before bottoming out in the holes (smart way to install contender scope mounts and sights)?

When this new owner was shooting the gun, were there signs of pressure?
Did the accuracy suddenly begin to deteriorate?
How long between shots?  How hot was that barrel?  


I am terribly sorry this occured and am glad the shooter came out as well as he did.  I would caution everyone to avoid jumping to conclusions as there is a lot more to the story than we can see in those photos and the narrative that is with them.

Good luck and stay safe.

Steve  

[Keith L]

I am terribly sorry this occured and am glad the shooter came out as well as he did. I would caution everyone to avoid jumping to conclusions as there is a lot more to the story than we can see in those photos and the narrative that is with them.

If there is more, and you know it, why not share the facts here?  I read your comments like this rechamber is safe, and that it may have been the shooters fault.  If that is the point, then what was the fault that caused this gun to explode?  It is hard to keep this from happening again if there are problems that aren't disclosed.

[Lone Star]

It does not take a rocket scientist to determine exactly where that barrel gave way.  It split dead center down the 6 holes drilled for scope mounting....

But a rocket scientist would have noticed that the barrel also failed above the weld lines for the lug. Had the only weak point been the scope mount holes then the barrel should not have split in two other places.  The failure pattern is indicative of a barrel obstruction ahead of the chamber rather than a simple failure of the barrel steel along the sight holes.

The gunsmith who performed the rechamber is highly experienced in rechambering Contenders.  That doesn't mean that he could not have made a mistake of course - but the failure pattern points to operator error.  Of course we will never know the whole story, but to condemn all .444 Contenders based on this single incident would be foolish.  Obviously at least some .444 Contenders are perfectly safe: http://www.sixguns.com/crew/sskbullets.htm

[skb2706]

Beleive it my friend........if I purchased a barrel from someone that I knew had worked on it. assuming I did everything correct....it blows up ? somebody will go down.......thats is not only "in line" it is life.

But if I am the one who screws up .....Iknow I can't   win I probaly won't sue because I know ultimately I am at fault.

[Steve P]

If there is more, and you know it, why not share the facts here?  

I don't know the rest of the facts.  Neither do you nor anyone else on this board.  Yet some are ready to point fingers and say the rechamber job is bad and therefore the gunsmith is bad etc etc etc.  This is BS.

Steve  

[Steve P]

But a rocket scientist would have noticed that the barrel also failed above the weld lines for the lug. Had the only weak point been the scope mount holes then the barrel should not have split in two other places.  The failure pattern is indicative of a barrel obstruction ahead of the chamber rather than a simple failure of the barrel steel along the sight holes.

I disagree.  The barrel did not fail at the lug.  The welds held.  The area of the chamber next to those welds would have been the weakest part of the chamber as the pressure built and then released.  The failure pattern is NOT indicative of barrel obstruction but of high pressure loads and/or even a double charge of powder.  As the center line of the barrel began to split down thru the 6 sight holes, the barrel began to peel open.  Next area to peel would be the next weakest point, which in this case would have been next to the strongest point, i.e. the welded on barrel lug.

Barrel obstructions generally result in barrel bulges and/or splits at the muzzle end.  

As I said before, this is an unfortunate incident.  However, guestimates, accusations, and suppositions will not reveal to us the true cause of this failure.

Something to think about though if you have a Contender barrel that takes a large diameter cartridge.

Stay Safe.

Steve  

[Lone Star]

I disagree.  The barrel did not fail at the lug.  The welds held.

First, I did not say the barrel failed at the lug.  And anyone looking at the photos can plainly see that the welds indeed failed - the lug is still held in the receiver while the barrel flew off....

The failure pattern is NOT indicative of barrel obstruction but of high pressure loads and/or even a double charge of powder.  As the center line of the barrel began to split down thru the 6 sight holes, the barrel began to peel open....Barrel obstructions generally result in barrel bulges and/or splits at the muzzle end.

Obviously you did not read my post very closely before replying.  This is exactly the type of damage seen from a barrel obstruction immediately ahead of the chamber.  The bulged or "flowered" muzzle results from a plug at the muzzle.  I've seen barrels blown by obstructions ahead of the chamber, like stuck bullets or cleaning rods.  Yes, there are folks who fire a round with the cleaning rod still in the barrel.  My old range had several relics on the window ledge testifying to this.

We agree that what caused this damage was excessive chamber pressure, not a weak barrel. A weak barrel would have split only at the sight holes - this would have released normal pressures very quickly and would not have initiated additional damage.  The fact that the barrel flowered at the chamber end and the lug separated from the barrel point to excessive bolt thrust and excessive radial pressure.  Both are caused by excessive chamber pressure, either too much powder or a barrel obstruction.  Since he claimed he used factory ammo and fired 37 shots without incident, the barrel obstruction explanation is the simplest and most likely.  

Of course we will never know the whole story...

BTW, I've never had an issue with either my .45-70 or .50-70 Contender barrels, which have far less meat above the chambers than the puny .444 does.  But I certainly don't load to factory .444 chamber pressures with either....

[PaulS]

I am not a gunsmith but if someone stamps a cartridge on a barrel I would assume that it was set up to take a factory loading unless it was noted that it was for something less. In this case the barrel was rechambered from a smaller case and the barrel was obviously (hindsight) not made for the larger case of the 444. There is .020 difference in the two diameters with the 444 being the larger. That information coupled with the difference in SAAMI pressures of 36000 for the 44 mag and 44000 for the 444, and the .98 inch longer case would apear to me to be enough to say that this rechamber was a bad idea. A barrel made for the longer case, larger diameter and higher pressures would seem to be a given. When I viewed (and reviewed) the pictures I saw part of the chamber still attached to the lug that was still held in the receiver. The barrel split using factory ammunition - it doesn't appear that there was a barrel bulge that would indicate an obstruction. It does appear that the middle to forward portion of the chamber is where the split began and it does follow the scope mounting holes exactly.
I will not say that one cannot build a barel for the Contender in 444 and make it safe. I will say that in this barrel the rechambering was not an example of safe smithing in my opinion.

[KN]

I agree with most of what PaulS had to say on this one. I have seen dozens of these coffee table rechamber jobs back in the early 80's to present and and most were simply done as a fad to make a quick buck. Most even had crappy hand stampings on them if they were marked at all. I would never touch a barrel like that. Unfotrunately lots of fools were buying these up like hot cakes at the gun shows. If that chambering were safe then TC would probably have sold it. At least as a custom offering any way. Just my $.02.   KN

[Steve P]

When I viewed (and reviewed) the pictures I saw part of the chamber still attached to the lug that was still held in the receiver. The barrel split using factory ammunition - it doesn't appear that there was a barrel bulge that would indicate an obstruction. It does appear that the middle to forward portion of the chamber is where the split began and it does follow the scope mounting holes exactly.

Thanks Paul.  I am glad I am not the only one to see it that way.  

Steve