Anyone have a catastrophic Failure on a Sp101 like this?

[Salmoneye]

Detonation or Secondary Explosive Effect does not lend itself to being easily reproducible in lab settings...

Many powder companies have tried, and the closest they can come is the effect described earlier in the thread where grossly undercharged cases of very slow powders can fail to ignite instantly, and the bullet itself 'gets ahead' of the burn, and then slows...Then the powder lights, and the pressures rapidly rise...

I have heard this for years, but never about any 'pistol' powder...Handgun kabooms IMNSHO are either firing a full charge cartridge behind a squib, or double charging a fast powder like Red Dot or Bullseye...

This thread post #2 about sums it up:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=399439

The OP of this thread insists that he did not fire a full charge after a squib...

I have to go with his insistence...

But I don't have to like it lol

 

[Salmoneye]

Inconsistent ignition can lead to more than a stuck bullet. Let's just say an explosion is possible and that might be 'that kind of thing'. Perhaps I am reading too much into what they said but that is what I think.

I know you think that...

But Hodgdon did not say that...

 

[Jimbo357mag]

I have heard this for years, but never about any 'pistol' powder...Handgun kabooms IMNSHO are either firing a full charge cartridge behind a squib, or double charging a fast powder like Red Dot or Bullseye...

Do you think with automated equipment it is possible to severely compress a powder like was removed from the OP's ammo lot and have a gun explode? Do you think that could have been the cause of this failure? ...or do you have a guess about this one? :shock:

 

[Salmoneye]

I have heard this for years, but never about any 'pistol' powder...Handgun kabooms IMNSHO are either firing a full charge cartridge behind a squib, or double charging a fast powder like Red Dot or Bullseye...

Do you think with automated equipment it is possible to severely compress a powder like was removed from the OP's ammo lot and have a gun explode? Do you think that could have been the cause of this failure? ...or do you have a guess about this one? :shock:

I was not there, so all I have is a guess...

The OP insists that my guess is wrong...

:mrgreen:

 

[Analogkid]

There wasn't a squib. You'll have to keep guessing.

Everything is stated as it was and as it happened. I wasn't rapid firing here. Everything was single action only and only at 15-20 feet away. I'm a pretty poor shot so the rounds were spread out enough to see them on the target. There's only 3 holes in it as it was fresh when I loaded that last cylinder.

 

[Carry_Up]

Seems like some people easily accept the idea of a low charge causing explosions. I'm no propellant expert but propellent powder burns and does not explode. Yes, it burns at various rates and nobody doubts that an overcharge causes damage in lots of cases. One of the interesting facts about explosives is that they release their energy regardless of whether they are contained. Powder depends upon the pressure generated inside the cartridge in order to be useful. It still does not explode under high pressures, but it certainly burns faster and more completely under pressure. Keep in mind that as soon as the propellent begins to create pressure inside the cartridge, the bullet starts moving forward which works to reduce the pressure due to the greater internal volume. Put some powder on the ground and light it off. There will be lots of smoke but it will just sit there and slowly burn leaving lots of disgusting residue. Primers are explosives. Powder is not.

At my range alone, dozens of shooters have down-loaded .45 Auto powders for at least 50 years and none has experienced a mystery detonation. Plenty of them have seen the results of firing a round to "clean a stuck bullet out the barrel". And of course all of this scientific experimentation was made during a wide range of outdoor temperatures, with various bullet types and weights, velocities and almost all the available types of .45 auto powders.

As far as the damaged revolver, we all know that a Ruger revolver was made to take the beating from heavy caliber cartridges. There is even a separate page in the loading manuals just for Ruger revolvers. Up until recently we were talking Security Six, Redhawk and GP100. Now we have the SP101 and I'm wondering if there might be a weak link there due to the reduced size. Blown up frames start with a blown up cylinder and firing a .357 mag in a GP100 is a lot different than firing a .357 mag in the SP101. Unfortunately the OP did not post closeups of the blasted cylinder. If I had to guess, the thinner walls of the SP cylinder might have something to do with the accident and not some mysterious "happens once every blue moon" powder detonation.

-CU

 

[Analogkid]

 

[Analogkid]

 

[Analogkid]

 

[Kevin]

Are all 357 SP101s made the same? Is it possible the metal is different in this cylinder than the other guns still out there? Sorry for the vague question. But could this metal have been weakened somehow before the "fatal shot" ?

 

[Analogkid]

Unless a Bunch of 38's count as weakening the metal, I Doubt it. I don't think there is any difference in the newest ones verses this 8 year old one other than the cylinder support nub on the frame is cast in now verses the drilled and press piece like mine had. My Taurus 605 has about the same cyl wall thickness and its only ever digested .357 ammunition. I'm no Taurus fan boy but the 605 has had 3 times as much ran through it than the Ruger did. I am having it magnafluxed next week just for sheets and Giggles.

 

[ADP3]

Carry_up,
You can most definitely blow up guns with too light a powder charge. Back in 1976 I loaded 30-30 cartridges with 150 grain bullets and a light load of IMR 3031 to shoot in an H&R Topper single shot (before NEF took over). The powder detonated in the first, only, and last round I fired. Smoke curled out of the breech and the rifle was locked up tight. The rifle held together but I had to be beat it open with a wooden mallet. The primer was driven into the breech face 1/8". Headspace was shot and the rifle was unusable after that. If the barrel around the chamber had not been extra thick I have no doubt it would have ruptured. The bore was clean and dry with no obstructions and the bullet was .308 diameter.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
-Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

Best Regards,
ADP3

 

[5of7]

I availed myself of the 47th edition of the Lyman manual and on page 61, they included this precautionary note.....

"When considering a ballistic reduction, some reloaders feel that simply loading a reduced charge of the ideal propellant makes sense rather than selecting another powder. This is not an accurate assessment of the problem. Loads that fall below the suggested starting charge often will not deliver acceptable ballistics. In some instances such loads can actually be unsafe to use. Pressure variations can be so extreme that they create individual pressure levels far beyond the limits of safety."

This note is nowhere near as detailed as their write-up from yesteryear, but one can easily infer from what they do say that reducing the powder charges can be quite dangerous. 8)

 

[Carry_Up]

"Some people without possessing genius, have a remarkable power for stimulating it. I confess, my dear fellow, that I am very much in your debt."
-Sherlock Holmes

 

[Analogkid]

Replacement Sp101 came in yesterday. Loaded with all sorts of MIM goodies.
Maybe run it this weekend.

RUGER stated they are reimbursing me the transfer fee as well.

 

[George]

Great you have the replacement in hand! Go RUGER! MIM goodies.. LOL!! Hey mim works and it works well.. Nothing wrong with mim. Ruger has been using them a long time I think it's just that they don't spend the time to finish them off the they way they use too..
I don't know of any maker that would have replaced the gun with out the gun and rest of the box of ammo in there hands for inspection.. I think they are for sure a stand up company! My hats off to them! Now go and enjoy you new gun. Be safe and good luck ! George

 

[WAYNO]

I guess if both Companies turn a blind eye to what happened I will look into getting one of the Rossi's ...

Remember how many of us told you they'd take care of you? You didn't want to hear it.

Also...The detonation phenomenon, and the lack of knowledge about it...I've reloaded a lot of years and have read lots of articles about it. Do they not teach detonation in the reloading manuals any more?

WAYNO.

 

[Analogkid]

I guess if both Companies turn a blind eye to what happened I will look into getting one of the Rossi's ...

Remember how busy you were dis'ing Ruger? Remember how many of us told you they'd take care of you? You didn't want to hear it.

Also...The detonation phenomenon, and the lack of knowledge about it...I've reloaded a lot of years and have read lots of articles about it. Do they not teach detonation in the reloading manuals any more?

WAYNO.

I think you have selective comprehension. What part of it did I not exactly want to hear? Did you mistake the notion that I wouldn't be able to replace it with my current fixed income with Being upset they wouldn't replace it?

I never asked Ruger to replace the gun. I knew going into it I would potentially be left with either side pointing fingers and be out of a pretty substantial investment. I sent both parties their product and let the chips fall where they may.

The so called detonation phenomenon.... Just look at the pics. It seems that it's not so much of a phenomenon but fact.

Glad you read lots of articles about it though. It looks like I *may* have had First hand (Literally) experience with it.

 

[WAYNO]

I guess if both Companies turn a blind eye to what happened I will look into getting one of the Rossi's ...

Remember how many of us told you they'd take care of you? You didn't want to hear it.

Also...The detonation phenomenon, and the lack of knowledge about it...I've reloaded a lot of years and have read lots of articles about it. Do they not teach detonation in the reloading manuals any more?

WAYNO.

I think you have selective comprehension. What part of it did I not exactly want to hear? Did you mistake the notion that I wouldn't be able to replace it with my current fixed income with Being upset they wouldn't replace it?

I never asked Ruger to replace the gun. I knew going into it I would potentially be left with either side pointing fingers and be out of a pretty substantial investment. I sent both parties their product and let the chips fall where they may.

The so called detonation phenomenon.... Just look at the pics. It seems that it's not so much of a phenomenon but fact.

Glad you read lots of articles about it though. It looks like I *may* have had First hand (Literally) experience with it.

Now, now, don't get yourself all stirred up. The detonation comment of mine was not directed at you. Seems some folks on this thread had never heard of it. And I think we might be confusing a detonation with a KaBoom. They're not always the same, but a detonation can be a cause of a KaBoom. You definitely experienced a KaBoom, but nobody knows what caused it. A detonation is when a powder charge burns all at once, instead of burning progressively. Creates a tremendous pressure spike. Not everything is understood about detonations, but the old reloading books used to warn against powder charges that fill up only a small portion of the case could be a cause of a detonation. And since some folks here had not heard of it, my question was legitimate...Do the reloading manuals no longer address this phenomenon?

WAYNO.

 

[Kevin]

Wayno. I have not seen it in any reloading manual I have. I buy a new one every year or so and read them pretty much cover to cover. They are just interesting...but no. Until this thread and they way everyone has described a detonation with all the powder burning at once...it does seem to make sense.