That's where it gets a bit stinky. Looking at the pictures of the bolt, with brass clearly embedded on it, yet the "fired" round looks pristine? That case doesn't add up, especially given the shape that the bolt and firing pin are in.
R.
Recent Blow-up of a Sako 85
- Thread starter South Pender
- Start date
That's where it gets a bit stinky. Looking at the pictures of the bolt, with brass clearly embedded on it, yet the "fired" round looks pristine? That case doesn't add up, especially given the shape that the bolt and firing pin are in.
R.
Can't agree with that. Commercial rifle actions have been tested for safety by their makers with extreme powder over-charges until they have failed--with no barrel obstructions. In some cases, it has taken over-charges that have generated more than 130,00 psi pressure, but they have failed. (Back in the day, the H.P. White Lab pressure-tested some commercial actions. The military Mauser actions failed at something like 90,000 psi, whereas the Schultz & Larsen actions withstood 130,000 psi.) If you load 50 grains of Bullseye into a case where the correct charge was 50 grains of IMR 4350, you will have a catastrophic failure--no barrel obstruction necessary! A failure due to a barrel obstruction would almost certainly have split the barrel--not the case here.
You'll note where you quoted me re my question about the possibility of the commercial ammunition being at fault, I mentioned not only an over-charge, but also the wrong powder. It's unlikely, I guess, but not beyond the realm of possibility that Federal got their powders mixed up.
Clearly, there's more to learn about this incident. I've reached out to ALF for more info, but have not heard back yet.
Last edited:
An action failure, and a catastrophic failure as shown. are not the same. Manufacturers consider the action to have failed when it no longer operates as designed. If you load 50 grains of Bullseye into a case, instead of IMR 4350, and the pressure has somewhere to go, as in no obstruction, then it should not blow apart like that. That is how pressure works. The action will fail, but it won't explode like that. Obstructions cause failures like the one shown. Also, a failure due to a barrel obstruction will not necessarily cause any damage to the barrel.
If there was anything wrong with the ammunition, it would be far more plausible that it would be a bullet issue, rather than powder. If the powders were mixed, then tens of thousands of rounds would be affected.
The case shown, most certainly was not the one fired in that rifle when it came apart. How does an action come completely unglued, with a brass casing remaining intact? It simply can't. Especially given the picture of the bolt face. Something isn't right with what we are being shown.
R.
If there was anything wrong with the ammunition, it would be far more plausible that it would be a bullet issue, rather than powder. If the powders were mixed, then tens of thousands of rounds would be affected.
The case shown, most certainly was not the one fired in that rifle when it came apart. How does an action come completely unglued, with a brass casing remaining intact? It simply can't. Especially given the picture of the bolt face. Something isn't right with what we are being shown.
R.
Any time I hear "factory ammo blew up an action" I'm immediately skeptical... always feels like there is more to the story than we're being told...
We don't have enough information to understand what actually happened. While the round fired doesn't look to have been over pressure, we don't know the history of the rifle. We don't know if that rifle had been previously subjected to overpressure loads that caused stress fractures in the bolt or receiver, and that it finally failed due to those stress fractures. We need much ,more information to determine the true cause of the failure.
Even if it did fail due to the stress fractures you describe, the "fired" round certainly would not be intact.
How did the pressure escape the chamber, which is located in the barrel, and get past that piece of brass, leaving it completely intact, while somehow detonating the action? All without a barrel obstruction? It really doesn't add up. Not saying that the rifle didn't blow up, as it obviously did, just saying that the event as described doesn't make sense.
R.
Last edited:
There should be no question here. The ONLY way a casing/primer can be intact after a gun blowing up is if the barrel blew up. In the case of a chamber/receiver failure, the casing is like the paper wrapping on a firecracker. It CANNOT survive as it is the epicenter of the burst/rupture/explosion. If the barrel is ok, the chamber/breech is ok and the brass is ok..... what could have POSSIBLY blown up? Did some sort of weird harmonics cause the receiver to shatter like a crystal wineglass?? I cant swallow that.
Here the bolt is severely damaged and the firing pin is all bent out of shape (not to mention the brass splatter marks in several places). How does that happen without the casing/primer being damaged?
Don't get me wrong, something blew this gun apart. Aside from a barrel obstruction/severe overpressure; The only thing that seems remotely possible is that (as discussed in the other thread) a round detonated in the magazine and (Somehow) had enough vertical energy to blow the bolt/receiver/scope off the gun. This would still amaze me as I would think the energy would simply blow the mag out the bottom and/or blow out the sides of the mag/stock. Even still, that would be a(catastrophic) ammunition failure, not a firearm/action failure.
I would be VERY interested in hearing the final report on what caused this explosion!
Here the bolt is severely damaged and the firing pin is all bent out of shape (not to mention the brass splatter marks in several places). How does that happen without the casing/primer being damaged?
Don't get me wrong, something blew this gun apart. Aside from a barrel obstruction/severe overpressure; The only thing that seems remotely possible is that (as discussed in the other thread) a round detonated in the magazine and (Somehow) had enough vertical energy to blow the bolt/receiver/scope off the gun. This would still amaze me as I would think the energy would simply blow the mag out the bottom and/or blow out the sides of the mag/stock. Even still, that would be a(catastrophic) ammunition failure, not a firearm/action failure.
I would be VERY interested in hearing the final report on what caused this explosion!
Agreed. Or was an empty on the bench that something landed on.
saskgunowner101
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- near Prince Albert
Possibly reloads?
Having a little experience with blowing up a rifle (on purpose), I too have a very hard time believing that brass is the one that caused the explosion.
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/797998-Blowing-up-a-M98!!
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/797998-Blowing-up-a-M98!!
I agree with the idea that the piece of brass shown was either on the bench, or in the magazine. It is not the piece that blew up.
Looking at the shadows around the bench, this guy is at the end of the row. If that was a right hand action, whatever piece of brass let go is far out of the shed to his right. No magnet is going to find that piece of brass unless a MAGNET sweep of the grounds finds it brazed to a chunk of the bolt, or other steel part of the action.
EDIT: This is also why I have said many times that right shooters should shoot right guns, left shooters should shoot left actions. Does anybody disagree that this shooter got some protection from the left wall of that action?
Looking at the shadows around the bench, this guy is at the end of the row. If that was a right hand action, whatever piece of brass let go is far out of the shed to his right. No magnet is going to find that piece of brass unless a MAGNET sweep of the grounds finds it brazed to a chunk of the bolt, or other steel part of the action.
EDIT: This is also why I have said many times that right shooters should shoot right guns, left shooters should shoot left actions. Does anybody disagree that this shooter got some protection from the left wall of that action?
Last edited:
Normally when I read a story like this where all the pieces just don't add up, I think someone is lying to us. It seems extremely unlikely that that case was in the chamber of the gun when it came apart, so what other parts of this story are wrong?...
Sadly I suspect this to be like a lot of threads about guns blowing up where we don't ever get a good answer as to wtf went wrong...
Sadly I suspect this to be like a lot of threads about guns blowing up where we don't ever get a good answer as to wtf went wrong...
Totally agree. As there is very little, if anything, to be done as far as litigation goes, unless that is done by an insurance company, then actually finding out what really happened is almost impossible. The only fella that really knows, is in the picture. And there is a good chance that he even he doesn't know.
R.
